‘Trickle-down’ tax cuts make the rich richer but are of no value to overall economy, study finds

[DrLove]

WaPo is paywalled on me - But your sub line and the study are spot the hell ON!

 

[Billiejeens]

When it has an effect on our security or national interests or to promote stability (which is in our national interests).

We spend a lot of money on a lot of shit that isn't realistically helping the security of our nation.

Because Democrats hate our nation as founded.

We were founded on the idea that only white land owners could vote. I think we've moved past that. Poke your head out of the bubble - it's not 1776 anymore.

Only Male

Honestly changing that has not been a plus for the country.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They use the windfall to increase profits and enrich investors,

Enriched investors make more investments and/or pay more taxes.

No they pay lower rates of taxes on investment income than workers would pay on their wages. Remember Warren Buffet saying his secretary paid a higher rate of tax that he does. So raising the minimum wage also raises government revenues.

Remember Biden's oft-quoted phrase "valuing work over wealth". Less than 40% of wealthy Americans work, while 80% of the people who received government assistance in 2019, had full-time jobs. No one who has a full time job should require government assistance just to keep a roof over their head.

It's easy to use a broad brush. Hopefully we all find in reprehensible that a Wal-Mart worker would qualify for TANF or Medicaid, while the Wal-Mart heirs avoid taxes. But I've yet to hear any objection, that is not based on emotion and no facts, why there's some great economic argument against taxing - Wal-Mart profits (or Amazon or … name the corporate behemoth) or placing a miniscule penny tax on short term, large stock trades or even taxing healthcare providers - to pay for people to get healthcare whose employers don't provide it as a benefit, which the vast maj of employers offered 40-50 years ago.

Or why is it so much more expensive as measured by a % of income to go to college as it was 40-50 years ago.

I have no idea where your statistics about how many people get aid come from, and I'm not complaining, but generally these figures don't exclude "aid" like medical and education assistance. Placing taxes directly on small biz or even franchisees like Subway, can hurt employment. But even Wal-Mart said it was ok with Obamacare so long as it's competitors had to pay the same taxes.

I have a real bone to pick the franchises, primarily because I did franchise law and use to have to parse franchise agreements to find out exactly what our clients were going to be responsible for paying to the Franchisor.

McDonalds being a case in point. Most operators will tell you they can't afford to increase front line employee wages, and they're not making that much themselves. But McDonald's is one of the most profitable companies in America. That's because the franchise agreement for McDonald's is designed to extract the maximum number of dollars from the stores and transfer them to corporate.

Posters here have said the monthly franchise fee is only 4% of sales. That may be true but there are other fees: advertising fee - also 4%. monthly service fee 4%, rent - also a percentage of sales. Given that the net profti, before taxes for any restaurant is usually around 15% of gross sales, 12% is gone to franchise fees. Then there are your supplies - all food, napkins, placemats and other supplies for your store, will be shipped to you by corporate, at their standard prices. You not only don't have to source this stuff locally, you're not allowed to do it. Last but not least, if corporate decides that your store is looking tired or shabby, they will order to you to redecorate your premises. Corporate will sell you your new counters, booths, tables, and approved decor the world recognizes as McDonalds.

And don't get me started on the "gig economy". Skip the Dishes takes 15% of your order. So much for your profit if you're a small family owned restaurant.

Most operators will tell you they can't afford to increase front line employee wages, and they're not making that much themselves

Based on what you've said, they're right.

 

[bripat9643]

People have only been using that phrase to describe republican gifts to the wealthy for 30 years.

How did you miss it?

Leftists have used it, yet they can never define what it means. Lefty hack Mac1958 at least pointed to Arthur Laffer, though he misrepresented and distorted what the Laffer Curve is.

Leftist bleat rote dogma with zero grasp what it means.

You can no more explain what "trickle down ecomomics" is than my dog can recite the periodic table.


Further, that laughably lame article the OP references notes that the phrase in fact goes back to the 1920's with Will Rogers defaming Herbert Hoover.

Oh please, the concept is so simple even you can understand it with a little effort.

Trickle down economics is simply the belief that if you make the wealthy wealthier they will pass it down the chain to the mess wealthy, wether by direct purchases (spending increases economic activity) or by investing in expanding existing businesses or starting new ones.

There are several problems with this, the most notable being that they usually don't spend or invest it.

Correct.

They use the windfall to increase profits and enrich investors, not to create jobs.

How do they increase profits and enrich investors?

 

[Dragonlady]

They use the windfall to increase profits and enrich investors,

Enriched investors make more investments and/or pay more taxes.

No they pay lower rates of taxes on investment income than workers would pay on their wages. Remember Warren Buffet saying his secretary paid a higher rate of tax that he does. So raising the minimum wage also raises government revenues.

Remember Biden's oft-quoted phrase "valuing work over wealth". Less than 40% of wealthy Americans work, while 80% of the people who received government assistance in 2019, had full-time jobs. No one who has a full time job should require government assistance just to keep a roof over their head.

It's easy to use a broad brush. Hopefully we all find in reprehensible that a Wal-Mart worker would qualify for TANF or Medicaid, while the Wal-Mart heirs avoid taxes. But I've yet to hear any objection, that is not based on emotion and no facts, why there's some great economic argument against taxing - Wal-Mart profits (or Amazon or … name the corporate behemoth) or placing a miniscule penny tax on short term, large stock trades or even taxing healthcare providers - to pay for people to get healthcare whose employers don't provide it as a benefit, which the vast maj of employers offered 40-50 years ago.

Or why is it so much more expensive as measured by a % of income to go to college as it was 40-50 years ago.

I have no idea where your statistics about how many people get aid come from, and I'm not complaining, but generally these figures don't exclude "aid" like medical and education assistance. Placing taxes directly on small biz or even franchisees like Subway, can hurt employment. But even Wal-Mart said it was ok with Obamacare so long as it's competitors had to pay the same taxes.

Only the lowest entry level Wal Mart workers qualify for things like that, and it's better than having people either not work and get all benefits and work at a minimum wage ish job and get some benefits.

Government made it harder for companies to provide health care by creating minimums of coverage, and you blame the companies?

College became more expensive when loans to attend became easy to acquire, increasing the overall $$ availible. Colleges raised prices to match the increase in availible money.

It would be better if the workers received a living wage. Think of the costs of administering the income support programs - application, means testing, collection of taxes, distribution of benefits. Every $1 of benefits costs the taxpayers $1.50 in taxes. Wouldn't it be cheaper on the economy and the taxpayers, to increase the minimum wage to the same levels the workers get in benefits and have Walmart or McDonalds reduce their profits accordingly?

After all, corporations can deduct wages from their taxable income. If they give a worker a $1 per hour increase, that only costs a profitable company 78 cents, since 22 cents out of that dollar would be paid in taxes. Better for the taxpayers, the workers, and the economy, since workers will have more cash to buy consumer goods, and taxpayers will pay lower taxes,, and fewer government workers will be required to administer the programs.

Lower taxes, smaller government, increases to local economies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every $1 of benefits costs the taxpayers $1.50 in taxes. Wouldn't it be cheaper on the economy and the taxpayers, to increase the minimum wage to the same levels the workers get in benefits and have Walmart or McDonalds reduce their profits accordingly?

Sounds like we should eliminate the benefits bureacracy and increase the EITC.

And boot 30 million illegal aliens.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If we can afford to give billions upon billions to foreigners then we are taxing Americans too much.

Period, full stop.

We can't afford it.

Let congress and the president know would ya

They don't listen to me. There isn't a one that I voted for.

I don't think they listen to any of us.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are talking outta yer ass. That's exactly what it is. I do realize republican economists would not describe it in those words. They will say things like "supply side" and "reganomics" but they are the same thing.

Nope, you are full of total shit. You have utterly no knowledge of economics. You've never read an economic text in your life. You've not read the "General Theory," much less "Man, Economy, and State," nor "Theory of Consumption Function". You've certainly never read Adam Smith or Jean Baptist Say.

Supply Side economics is based on classical economics. You've never heard of Says law - nor any other economic principle, but Supply Side economics is the basis of every school of economic thought save Keynesian. Keynesian economics has demonstrably and spectacularly failed. The stagflation of the Nixon and Carter years is an indictment of Keynesian fallacy painted in misery. We even had to create a "misery index" to explain the effect of Keynesian theory applied to a large scale economy.

You are a partisan and try to bluff your way through, but your ignorance is a brightly flashing beacon that all with actual knowledge cannot ignore.

 

[Crepitus]

Under their mattress?

Maybe, but more likely things like swiss bank accounts. (Not necessarily Swiss but you get the picture.)

 

[Uncensored2008]

As long as we are acknowledging it had nothing to do with tax cuts, I'm fine. It happened with cuts or not.

You are attempting to create a straw man. YOU brought up the concept that "need" drives production, which is so much idiocy.

Tax cuts heavily benefit small to medium businesses - which are the very ones democrats are waging war to destroy.,

 

[Uncensored2008]

Its a study from London School of Economics, it has nothing todo with WaPo.
London School of Economics studied 18 different developed countries. Trickle-down failure is global, not just USA.

What was your favorite part, fuckaduck? The bright colors? The extra-large fonts? Or maybe the deep analysis of;

{"Major reforms reducing taxes on the rich lead to higher income inequality," concluded David Hope and Julian Limberg of the London School of Economics and Political Science. "In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment." }



Moronic leftist platitudes are what the Bolsheviks here think constitute a "serious study," at lest when confirmation bias is applied.

 

[Dragonlady]

They use the windfall to increase profits and enrich investors,

Enriched investors make more investments and/or pay more taxes.

No they pay lower rates of taxes on investment income than workers would pay on their wages. Remember Warren Buffet saying his secretary paid a higher rate of tax that he does. So raising the minimum wage also raises government revenues.

Remember Biden's oft-quoted phrase "valuing work over wealth". Less than 40% of wealthy Americans work, while 80% of the people who received government assistance in 2019, had full-time jobs. No one who has a full time job should require government assistance just to keep a roof over their head.

It's easy to use a broad brush. Hopefully we all find in reprehensible that a Wal-Mart worker would qualify for TANF or Medicaid, while the Wal-Mart heirs avoid taxes. But I've yet to hear any objection, that is not based on emotion and no facts, why there's some great economic argument against taxing - Wal-Mart profits (or Amazon or … name the corporate behemoth) or placing a miniscule penny tax on short term, large stock trades or even taxing healthcare providers - to pay for people to get healthcare whose employers don't provide it as a benefit, which the vast maj of employers offered 40-50 years ago.

Or why is it so much more expensive as measured by a % of income to go to college as it was 40-50 years ago.

I have no idea where your statistics about how many people get aid come from, and I'm not complaining, but generally these figures don't exclude "aid" like medical and education assistance. Placing taxes directly on small biz or even franchisees like Subway, can hurt employment. But even Wal-Mart said it was ok with Obamacare so long as it's competitors had to pay the same taxes.

I have a real bone to pick the franchises, primarily because I did franchise law and use to have to parse franchise agreements to find out exactly what our clients were going to be responsible for paying to the Franchisor.

McDonalds being a case in point. Most operators will tell you they can't afford to increase front line employee wages, and they're not making that much themselves. But McDonald's is one of the most profitable companies in America. That's because the franchise agreement for McDonald's is designed to extract the maximum number of dollars from the stores and transfer them to corporate.

Posters here have said the monthly franchise fee is only 4% of sales. That may be true but there are other fees: advertising fee - also 4%. monthly service fee 4%, rent - also a percentage of sales. Given that the net profti, before taxes for any restaurant is usually around 15% of gross sales, 12% is gone to franchise fees. Then there are your supplies - all food, napkins, placemats and other supplies for your store, will be shipped to you by corporate, at their standard prices. You not only don't have to source this stuff locally, you're not allowed to do it. Last but not least, if corporate decides that your store is looking tired or shabby, they will order to you to redecorate your premises. Corporate will sell you your new counters, booths, tables, and approved decor the world recognizes as McDonalds.

And don't get me started on the "gig economy". Skip the Dishes takes 15% of your order. So much for your profit if you're a small family owned restaurant.

Most operators will tell you they can't afford to increase front line employee wages, and they're not making that much themselves

Based on what you've said, they're right.

Our locally owned and independent restaurants get their menus and placemats at a local printer. They buy their produce and meat from local famers, and they pay their staff a living wage. Those people use the money the restaurant owner pays them to pay rent, buy food, and patronise local merchants. They sponsor little league teams, and hire a local nerd to maintain their website.

Chain restaurants get all of their supplies through corporate, and the money goes to corporate, not the local farmers and merchants. McDonald's staff dependent on government funded income supports, aren't contributing much to the local economies either. Yet look at the profit and loss statements of all of the big fast food chains corporate offices.

McDonald's isn't even the worst offender. They actually want the store owners to succeed. Back in the 1970's, McDonald's store owners got RICH, and quickly too. But over the years, corporate honed their franchise agreements to a fare thee well, to suck just enough cash out of the stores, but not too much, so that the store owner got little. Bear in mind, McDonald DOES everything for you - store set up, training, supplies, pricing - every little detail. It's truly a turn-key operation. All you need is the cash to buy in.

Basically, the entire American fast food industry is run along a similar model, although I think Wendy's has more corporately owned and operated

Every $1 of benefits costs the taxpayers $1.50 in taxes. Wouldn't it be cheaper on the economy and the taxpayers, to increase the minimum wage to the same levels the workers get in benefits and have Walmart or McDonalds reduce their profits accordingly?

Sounds like we should eliminate the benefits bureacracy and increase the EITC.

And boot 30 million illegal aliens.

No, boosting the EITC increases benefits paid by the middle class to workers, and acts as a wage subsidy to corporations. Make the corporations pay their own damn workers, like every other first world country. Plus you're still have government workers calculated their EITC, collect the taxes and pay out the EITC.

Walmart Canada pays its worker $14 per hour here, and they still manage to be the most profitable company in Canada. They really have the cheapest prices for everything, and yet they pay much higher wages here. Of course, they only pay 2% of payroll for health insurance, instead of $14,000 per worker, so there is that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If we can afford to give billions upon billions to foreigners then we are taxing Americans too much.

Period, full stop.

When did everything become our problem? It's not our fault we kick so much ass. We have no obligation to shoot ourselves in the foot for other nations.

When it has an effect on our security or national interests or to promote stability (which is in our national interests).

So funding the Taliban is in our national interest? After all, that's what gender studies in Pakistan equates to, funding the Taliban.

 

[Uncensored2008]

True, but I was answering something specific. Also true - Trickle Down never worked.

Well, how could something that never existed "work?"

The supply side economics of Reagan and Clinton worked spectacularly and created the longest peace time expansion in history.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We were founded on the idea that only white land owners could vote. I think we've moved past that. Poke your head out of the bubble - it's not 1776 anymore.

That is a blatant lie.

That you have to lie to make your point shows that you have no point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

WaPo is paywalled on me - But your sub line and the study are spot the hell ON!

How would you know? You have an IQ in the low teens and couldn't explain the economic principles behind a yard sale.

 

[Crepitus]

You are talking outta yer ass. That's exactly what it is. I do realize republican economists would not describe it in those words. They will say things like "supply side" and "reganomics" but they are the same thing.

Nope, you are full of total shit. You have utterly no knowledge of economics. You've never read an economic text in your life. You've not read the "General Theory," much less "Man, Economy, and State," nor "Theory of Consumption Function". You've certainly never read Adam Smith or Jean Baptist Say.

Supply Side economics is based on classical economics. You've never heard of Says law - nor any other economic principle, but Supply Side economics is the basis of every school of economic thought save Keynesian. Keynesian economics has demonstrably and spectacularly failed. The stagflation of the Nixon and Carter years is an indictment of Keynesian fallacy painted in misery. We even had to create a "misery index" to explain the effect of Keynesian theory applied to a large scale economy.

You are a partisan and try to bluff your way through, but your ignorance is a brightly flashing beacon that all with actual knowledge cannot ignore.

Lol, I took a class in it. Admittedly that was like 30 something years ago but I learned enough to know I'm right and you are deflecting.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

People have only been using that phrase to describe republican gifts to the wealthy for 30 years.

How did you miss it?

How did you miss the fact Obama did this more than any other President in History... exponentially.
And don't give me that "he saved the economy" bullshit... no. His administration continued to funnel upwards of $70 BILLION per MONTH to wealthy corporations and investment banks all the way to 2014. Despite the fact these companies were making record profits.
You miss that?

What makes you think I was a fan of that?

Because you said "republican gifts"... which is bullshit.
Both sides are equally corrupt.
You know who Larry Summers is? You know the things this man has done? "Mr. Derivative himself. He authored the bill that changed SEC oversight into the derivative markets...and then turned around and made boatloads of money off of those very markets. And the derivative markets is a key element in why 2008 happened. And then Obama had the audacity to suggest he become the Secy of Treasury!! One of the most corrupt non elected officials in Washington!! And the only reason he didn't get Secy Treasury was Democrats and the media gave him shit for even mentioning it.

 

[Crepitus]

People have only been using that phrase to describe republican gifts to the wealthy for 30 years.

How did you miss it?

How did you miss the fact Obama did this more than any other President in History... exponentially.
And don't give me that "he saved the economy" bullshit... no. His administration continued to funnel upwards of $70 BILLION per MONTH to wealthy corporations and investment banks all the way to 2014. Despite the fact these companies were making record profits.
You miss that?

What makes you think I was a fan of that?

Because you said "republican gifts"... which is bullshit.
Both sides are equally corrupt.
You know who Larry Summers is? You know the things this man has done? "Mr. Derivative himself. He authored the bill that changed SEC oversight into the derivative markets...and then turned around and made boatloads of money off of those very markets. And the derivative markets is a key element in why 2008 happened. And then Obama had the audacity to suggest he become the Secy of Treasury!! One of the most corrupt non elected officials in Washington!! And the only reason he didn't get Secy Treasury was Democrats and the media gave him shit for even mentioning it.

Ah, you want to play the "your side is just as bad as mine" game.

Sorry, but its not.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

People have only been using that phrase to describe republican gifts to the wealthy for 30 years.

How did you miss it?

How did you miss the fact Obama did this more than any other President in History... exponentially.
And don't give me that "he saved the economy" bullshit... no. His administration continued to funnel upwards of $70 BILLION per MONTH to wealthy corporations and investment banks all the way to 2014. Despite the fact these companies were making record profits.
You miss that?

What makes you think I was a fan of that?

Because you said "republican gifts"... which is bullshit.
Both sides are equally corrupt.
You know who Larry Summers is? You know the things this man has done? "Mr. Derivative himself. He authored the bill that changed SEC oversight into the derivative markets...and then turned around and made boatloads of money off of those very markets. And the derivative markets is a key element in why 2008 happened. And then Obama had the audacity to suggest he become the Secy of Treasury!! One of the most corrupt non elected officials in Washington!! And the only reason he didn't get Secy Treasury was Democrats and the media gave him shit for even mentioning it.

Ah, you want to play the "your side is just as bad as mine" game.

Sorry, but its not.

Sorry but they are.
And you are a blind sheep for thinking otherwise.
What made 2008 happen... anyone can easily make a list of 5 solid reasons why Republicans are to blame. And just as easily you can list 5 solid reasons why the Democrats are to blame.
Anyone who claims to be knowledgeable in this and doesn't see that - is a willing idiot.