The 'trickle down theory' is dead wrong

[CowboyTed]

Did you even read the damn study? This covered 100+ countries, and you're full of shit, this refers to the world, not just partisan America, and taxes were cut for the rich, decades ago, and yet, it's not trickling down, at all, yeah, yeah, we know how republicans want to cut taxes for the rich, it's a ******* disaster, productivity is at all time highs, incomes are shrinking, wages are stagnant, and the rich just keep getting richer. What do they need, more tax cuts? LOL.

You can't explain the obvious to these people. It's not that they are simply stupid. It's complicated with a determined ignorance. And they are very determined.

If you actually contemplate his post, you can tell he's subtly hinting that the rich need lower taxes and it'll trickle down. Mr H, are you an idiot?

Taxes were extremely high under Reagan, yet "subsidies" were allowed to flourish. That is what encouraged spending.

I was there you malevolent ****.

Yeah, I'm that old.

Go back to bed.

I don't care if you were there or not, plus... Michael Moore claims that during the Reagan years the richest had their top tax rate cut in half PolitiFact - I don't care who it is, the claim is mostly correct and examined.
Oh god, here we go with the subsidies bullshit, you can't honestly believe wealth will ever trickle down? Read the damn study and grow up.

"Michael Moore claims"?

You just dropped your own ass to zero on the credibility charts around here, Brotch.

Idiot... The fact was backed up by Polifact

 

[RKMBrown]

No ******* way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a ******* joke, can't believe people still defend it.)

Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.

In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.

The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.

This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.

By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.

Continued here: The trickle down theory is dead wrong - Jun. 15 2015

In other news governments increase taxes when income is rising to take advantage of the revenue opportunity and the lack of caring by the people who got raises anyway... said taxes then act as a brake on economic growth. Further when things are doing poorly.. pay subsides and tax breaks are used to spur economic growth.

But I guess it's better for your world view if we ignore taxes, right?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

No ******* way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a ******* joke, can't believe people still defend it.)

Wealth does not trickle down from the rich to the poor. Period.
That's not Senator Elizabeth Warren talking. That's the latest conclusion of new research from the International Monetary Fund.

In fact, researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits.

The researchers calculated that when the richest 20% of society increase their income by one percentage point, the annual rate of growth shrinks by nearly 0.1% within five years.

This shows that "the benefits do not trickle down," the researchers wrote in their report, which analyzed over 150 countries.

By contrast, when the lowest 20% of earners see their income grow by one percentage point, the rate of growth increases by nearly 0.4% over the same period.

Continued here: The trickle down theory is dead wrong - Jun. 15 2015

You do realize (I hope) that President Obama has actively engaged in the largest trickle down economics in American history?
No other administration even comes close.
And Hillary will in no way slow this down.

The bailout was suppose to be some kind of perverse trickle down theory. I think our way is cheaper.

 

[natstew]

Meanwhile back to minimum wage.
I'm old enough to have experienced every raise in the minimum wage since Eisenhower, (Eisenhowe was President when I started pumping gas for 75 cents per hour). After the trickle up adjustment in the pay scale and prices every one was back at square one in buying power, PERIOD!

 

[M14 Shooter]

No ******* way! (The reading is interesting, it's settled once and for all, trickle down economics is a ******* joke, can't believe people still defend it.)

Funny.. it worked every time we tried it; even The Obama thought there was merit to it when He forced a Dem-controlled congress to extend GWB's tax cuts for the rich.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The bailout was suppose to be some kind of perverse trickle down theory. I think our way is cheaper.

Bailout? That was six year ago.
Not even including the 2008/09 bailout...you can even throw that out.
AFTER 2010 - Obama still hands down provides more free money and corporate handouts than any other administration. Again, no one else even comes close.
It just shows you how little and easily fooled the low information liberals are.
Just amazing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The 'trickle down theory' is dead wrong

Yes... The notion that the Government is entitled to confiscate the property of those who produced it, use the bulk of it to feather the nest of the socialist oligarchs and trickle stipends upon those who did not produce it as a means to buy their would-be 'support'... is morally untenable and economically unviable.

So true...

But then only children and fools 'believe in' socialism... .

Now for the Record, which are you?

 

[2aguy]

Yes....when you lower taxes on all people, when you get government out of the way....then everyone succeeds....

 

[2aguy]

You can't explain the obvious to these people. It's not that they are simply stupid. It's complicated with a determined ignorance. And they are very determined.

If you actually contemplate his post, you can tell he's subtly hinting that the rich need lower taxes and it'll trickle down. Mr H, are you an idiot?

Taxes were extremely high under Reagan, yet "subsidies" were allowed to flourish. That is what encouraged spending.

I was there you malevolent ****.

Yeah, I'm that old.

Go back to bed.

I don't care if you were there or not, plus... Michael Moore claims that during the Reagan years the richest had their top tax rate cut in half PolitiFact - I don't care who it is, the claim is mostly correct and examined.
Oh god, here we go with the subsidies bullshit, you can't honestly believe wealth will ever trickle down? Read the damn study and grow up.

"Michael Moore claims"?

You just dropped your own ass to zero on the credibility charts around here, Brotch.

Idiot... The fact was backed up by Polifact

Are you saying that as a joke...? Politifact is leftyfact.....not a reliable source for anything....

 

[2aguy]

Reagan called the USSR an Evil Empire and vowed to let them defeat themselves and they did. He liberated all of Eastern Europe from the horrific, dehumanizing system our American Progressive love and admire

The USSR is very controversial, and the state capitalism it followed was horrific, however, no progressives admire the USSR.

There is no nation, past or present, which the socialists can point to as a successful example of socialism. There's a reason for that.

As for the USSR, the left wing used to worship the USSR in the way pagans throw virgins into a volcano to prevent it from erupting. They thought Reagan was going to provoke their god into smiting us. They hated Reagan, not the USSR.

Kind of like the way some people who think they are conservatives bow down to Putin these days. They hate Obama, and salivate over what a manly man Putin is.

Seriously?

Oh, man, that is funny stuff.

It is especially hilarious the way Blum demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how markets work. The automobile industry would never be able to keep a superior mode of transportation down. That's conspiracy whackjob bullshit.

Blaming America for the failure of a broken economic model is equally humorous. Plenty of socialist experiments have been allowed to rise or fall on their own merits. Castro's model has been allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, and it couldn't survive without being propped up by the USSR.

North Korea can't survive without China.

China was allowed to rise and fall on its own merits, and it fell in spectacular fashion. Mao's Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of 30 to 70 million people. Blum is an asshole among assholes for trying to pin that on the US.

Oh, cuba didn't have any blockades or united states involvement? Tell me more buddy. Yeah, "whackjob" bullshit sounds like the idiots who defend trickle down economics. North korea? North korea isn't socialist, it's a monarchy, come on now, and even then, I recall a massive war against the north that completely destroyed its land and infrastructure. The great leap forward was a disaster, but trying to blame that on socialism is pathetic.

Have you ever compared North and South Korea.......?

 

[2aguy]

North korea? North korea isn't socialist, it's a monarchy, come on now, and even then, I recall a massive war against the north that completely destroyed its land and infrastructure.

And there it is. The old standby. "(Fill in the blank) isn't real socialism."

And that war you spoke of was started by the North, idiot! 75,000 soldiers invaded the South to make the South communist.

The great leap forward was a disaster, but trying to blame that on socialism is pathetic.

You see?

"North Korea isn't real socialism".

"China isn't real socialism".

There's a name for that excuse: No True Scotsman.


One excuse after another.

One would say that socialism is a failure in general because no one can seem to get it right. Every time it is attempted, it ends up in failure.

Well..only if you consider 100 million murdered people around the world "failure." They just need a few more mass graves filled and they should get it right...............

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes....when you lower taxes on all people, when you get government out of the way....then everyone succeeds....

And that's the thing...
Lower taxes = less government
Less government = more freedom
More freedom = more economic potential.
Socialists hate the idea of less government and more freedom.

 

[paddymurphy]

Wealth does "trickle down", when the wealthy are encouraged to spend.

Democrats discourage spending by taxing the wealthy.

Republicans encourage spending by reducing taxes.

If the government is taxing the rich, then it is not the trickle down theory,is it? And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes. Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income.

 

[paddymurphy]

Wealth does "trickle down", when the wealthy are encouraged to spend.

Democrats discourage spending by taxing the wealthy.

Republicans encourage spending by reducing taxes.

Did you even read the damn study? This covered 100+ countries, and you're full of shit, this refers to the world, not just partisan America, and taxes were cut for the rich, decades ago, and yet, it's not trickling down, at all, yeah, yeah, we know how republicans want to cut taxes for the rich, it's a ******* disaster, productivity is at all time highs, incomes are shrinking, wages are stagnant, and the rich just keep getting richer. What do they need, more tax cuts? LOL.

You can't explain the obvious to these people. It's not that they are simply stupid. It's complicated with a determined ignorance. And they are very determined.

This "people" has owned and operated a business under numerous administrations over the past four decades. You can't tax wealth while at the same time take away the incentive to spend. That is what Democrats do, you frightful ****.

Wealth is not taxed; income is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the government is taxing the rich, then it is not the trickle down theory,is it? And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes. Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income.

:doh:
How much of your personal spending do you get to write off?
That businesses get to deduct expenses from their incomes in no way means people have an incentive to spend more when taxed more.

 

[paddymurphy]

If the government is taxing the rich, then it is not the trickle down theory,is it? And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes. Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income.

:doh:
How much of your personal spending do you get to write off?
That businesses get to deduct expenses from their incomes in no way means people have an incentive to spend more when taxed more.

Let me use small words. The theory behind trickle down is if you cut taxes for the wealthy, they will INVEST more and that that will lead to economic growth; not that they will go out and by another Benz. Money that they invest; that they use to build the economy is a business expense. If you have no idea what economic theory is being discussed, stop commenting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the government is taxing the rich, then it is not the trickle down theory,is it? And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes. Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income.

:doh:
How much of your personal spending do you get to write off?
That businesses get to deduct expenses from their incomes in no way means people have an incentive to spend more when taxed more.

Let me use small words....

Because you don;t know any big words, eh?

The theory behind trickle down is if you cut taxes for the wealthy, they will INVEST more and that that will lead to economic growth; not that they will go out and by another Benz. Money that they invest; that they use to build the economy is a business expense.

All of that is nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you said.

You said:
And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes

You then immediately said:
Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income

Your 2nd statement does not support your first because "folks" don't get to deduct expenses like businesses do.

If you have no idea what is being discussed, stop commenting.

 

[2aguy]

Wealth does "trickle down", when the wealthy are encouraged to spend.

Democrats discourage spending by taxing the wealthy.

Republicans encourage spending by reducing taxes.

Did you even read the damn study? This covered 100+ countries, and you're full of shit, this refers to the world, not just partisan America, and taxes were cut for the rich, decades ago, and yet, it's not trickling down, at all, yeah, yeah, we know how republicans want to cut taxes for the rich, it's a ******* disaster, productivity is at all time highs, incomes are shrinking, wages are stagnant, and the rich just keep getting richer. What do they need, more tax cuts? LOL.

You can't explain the obvious to these people. It's not that they are simply stupid. It's complicated with a determined ignorance. And they are very determined.

This "people" has owned and operated a business under numerous administrations over the past four decades. You can't tax wealth while at the same time take away the incentive to spend. That is what Democrats do, you frightful ****.

Wealth is not taxed; income is.

And you hear them talking about that as well........there is no money that you earn and save that is really yours in the eye of a statist.......

 

[paddymurphy]

If the government is taxing the rich, then it is not the trickle down theory,is it? And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes. Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income.

:doh:
How much of your personal spending do you get to write off?
That businesses get to deduct expenses from their incomes in no way means people have an incentive to spend more when taxed more.

Let me use small words....

Because you don;t know any big words, eh?

The theory behind trickle down is if you cut taxes for the wealthy, they will INVEST more and that that will lead to economic growth; not that they will go out and by another Benz. Money that they invest; that they use to build the economy is a business expense.

All of that is nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you said.

You said:
And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes

You then immediately said:
Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income

Your 2nd statement does not support your first because "folks" don't get to deduct expenses like businesses do.

If you have no idea what is being discussed, stop commenting.

Sorry, I assumed a certain intellect here. I guess I overestimated. The discussion is about supply side economics or "trickle down". You know,

1. Supply side economics is an economics theory built around the idea that by giving the rich enough money, tax breaks and deregulation, they will be freed from the constraints that allegedly prevent them from expanding their businesses and hiring more people.

Since we were discussing supply side economics, I assumed that most were at least somewhat familiar with that theory. You, apparently, are not. I guess I could have explained the theory first so slower students, like yourself, could follow along. People will spend their money to invest in their businesses (i.e. a deductible expense) rather than pay it in taxes.

 

[paddymurphy]

Wealth does "trickle down", when the wealthy are encouraged to spend.

Democrats discourage spending by taxing the wealthy.

Republicans encourage spending by reducing taxes.

Did you even read the damn study? This covered 100+ countries, and you're full of shit, this refers to the world, not just partisan America, and taxes were cut for the rich, decades ago, and yet, it's not trickling down, at all, yeah, yeah, we know how republicans want to cut taxes for the rich, it's a ******* disaster, productivity is at all time highs, incomes are shrinking, wages are stagnant, and the rich just keep getting richer. What do they need, more tax cuts? LOL.

You can't explain the obvious to these people. It's not that they are simply stupid. It's complicated with a determined ignorance. And they are very determined.

This "people" has owned and operated a business under numerous administrations over the past four decades. You can't tax wealth while at the same time take away the incentive to spend. That is what Democrats do, you frightful ****.

Wealth is not taxed; income is.

And you hear them talking about that as well........there is no money that you earn and save that is really yours in the eye of a statist.......

Right. Paying 24 % of your income in taxes leaves you with nothing. Your wealth is not taxed. Period. When you die, some of it might be, depending upon how much you have and how good your estate lawyers are.