Trickle-Down Success

[CrusaderFrank]

It’s actually supply side economics..."Trickle-Down" is a liberal term used to discredit Reagan, plus it's an incorrect description of Reagan's policies, which implies trickle down from the top. This is not true. Maybe trickle out?

You are correct that the term "trickle-down" is derogatory (as I already pointed out), but incorrect that it does not accurately (if somewhat nastily) describe the idea: give more money to those who already have a lot, and they will invest it in ventures that create jobs, thus allowing the wealth to "trickle down" to the less-wealthy.

That's also the idea behind "supply-side" economics: provide more to the investors at the top of the tree, thereby boosting the production side of the economy.

By giving a tax break to the middle class, though, the Emperor was actually practicing "demand-side" economics.

"Give more money"?

You think it's the governments money and they are "giving" it to taxpayers?

Do you know how totally wrong that is?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The point of both the OP, and Reagan's policies, is that an understanding of human nature is involved in the policy, i.e., that folks will work harder if they get to keep more of the fruits of their labor.

Wrong. The idea was not that they will work harder, but that they will invest more. In fact, if you want to encourage people to work harder, the benefits should go to the class that works, not the class that invests, and the best way to do that is through a wage increase rather than a tax cut.

1. There is no doubt that you haven't the ability to see how you strive to be germane, yet appear no more than clinging.
It's embarrassing....one almost feels the need to ignore you, to avert one's eyes, merely to help you save face.
You're the little skinny kid running trying to keep up....but not capable of doing so.


No, the post is not wrong.

2. "...not that they will work harder, but that they will invest more."
As Dr. Sowell has pointed out, folks like you are only capable of 'first level thought...'

Where did the individual get the funds with which to 'invest more'?
Yes: Worked harder, longer hours, put in more effort.

3. In David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture." He tells of a time that his daughter had befriended a young heiress her age, and she was visiting:

The two were discussing their various bedtimes. And the heiress said that every evening, at ten o'clock, she went to the small refrigerator in her room, and took out her usual snack: fresh berries and organic yogurt dripped with honey.

My daughter asked, "Who puts it there?" The heiress paused for a while and said "...I don't know."

"...not that they will work harder, but that they will invest more."
Who put the extra funds there to be invested? Say it: "...I don't know..."

4. "... the best way to do that is through a wage increase..."
The implication, the usual one by the Left, is that the State should have a hand
in this....
" The unspoken and unrecognized assumption is that there exists some mechanism that can distribute goods and services. The only such mechanism is, and must be, the totalitarian state."
Mamet.

No better proof of the petrification of thought by the Left, you, Lizzie...is that everyone knows how well that worked out in the 'worker's paradise..'

5. Communism: 100 million slaughtered in the last century.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It’s actually supply side economics..."Trickle-Down" is a liberal term used to discredit Reagan, plus it's an incorrect description of Reagan's policies, which implies trickle down from the top. This is not true. Maybe trickle out?

You are correct that the term "trickle-down" is derogatory (as I already pointed out), but incorrect that it does not accurately (if somewhat nastily) describe the idea: give more money to those who already have a lot, and they will invest it in ventures that create jobs, thus allowing the wealth to "trickle down" to the less-wealthy.

That's also the idea behind "supply-side" economics: provide more to the investors at the top of the tree, thereby boosting the production side of the economy.

By giving a tax break to the middle class, though, the Emperor was actually practicing "demand-side" economics.

"Give more money"?

You think it's the governments money and they are "giving" it to taxpayers?

Do you know how totally wrong that is?

CF....they don't know.
Or, at least, they have perfected the ability to delude themselves, to ignore history, logic, data, even personal experience.


'There is the adolescent standing aside the street sweeper, who presents himself to government demanding compensation based on his needs, or his goodness, in equality to the physician…urging on him the courage to demand his equal pay!

The Leftist has a simple prescription for the inequality of pay…you, the taxpayer, pay him more.

Marxism: tax the surgeon more so the good-willed other will feel momentarily better, implementing their vision of a perfect world, a Utopia.'
Mamet

 

[Widdekind]

the term "trickle-down" is derogatory [and] accurately (if somewhat nastily) describes the idea: give more money to those who already have a lot, and they will invest it in ventures that create jobs, thus allowing the wealth to "trickle down" to the less-wealthy.

according to wikipedia,

trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics often used by the American right to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole

"merchants" were the Roman-era businesses; that Emperor Anastasius was able to reap more total tax revenue, even with reduced tax rate, implies that the economy boomed; and suggests that more poor people were buying more of those "businesses'" goods.

Qualitatively, "more than less", the Emperor's tax policy resembled "trickle-down" policy; and brought about an economic boom, benefitting "the economy as a whole"

there is no need, to dispute, that taxes "burden" economies, reducing overall economic activity; et vice versa, i.e. "trickle-down" theory -- perhaps better called "diffusion of wealth" or some such ?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In the first documented exercise of what would come to be called trickle-down economics, Anastasius I abolished a wide range of taxes that fell heavily on the empire’s most productive classes, its craftsmen and merchants

That was not trickle-down economics, since craftsmen and merchants were middle-class types in the Roman economy. If he'd been practicing trickle-down economics, he'd have abolished taxes on the nobility instead.

Are you clueless, or just stupid?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again: "... tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy..."

Craftsmen and merchants were not "the wealthy" in the Roman economy. The nobility were. Hence, this was not trickle-down economics.

Tell the slaves that craftsmen, or anyone else that owned a home or a business, were really the poor people in ancient Rome.