What is "Trickle Down Economics"?

[kaz]

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been correct on in the last 200 years?

Are you eight years old? Seriously, are you?

So you can't name ONE policy conservatives have EVER been correct about either? Good...

Why don't you ask a conservative that question? I am putting you on my moron list. That means I will respond to you, but I am not going to take what you say seriously.

 

[Dad2three]

Are you eight years old? Seriously, are you?

So you can't name ONE policy conservatives have EVER been correct about either? Good...

Why don't you ask a conservative that question? I am putting you on my moron list. That means I will respond to you, but I am not going to take what you say seriously.

Libertarians are FARRRRR right on economics, and again, their policy NEVER works anywhere. Prove me wrong, give me ONE nation to use the myths and fairy tales you 'believe in' EVER? NO THE US HAS HAD STRONG PROTECTIONISTS POLICY FROM DAY 1!!!

 

[kaz]

So you can't name ONE policy conservatives have EVER been correct about either? Good...

Why don't you ask a conservative that question? I am putting you on my moron list. That means I will respond to you, but I am not going to take what you say seriously.

Libertarians are FARRRRR right on economics, and again, their policy NEVER works anywhere. Prove me wrong, give me ONE nation to use the myths and fairy tales you 'believe in' EVER? NO THE US HAS HAD STRONG PROTECTIONISTS POLICY FROM DAY 1!!!

The United States of America

I'm more fiscally conservative than Republicans, and there is nothing you are correcting by calling me a Republican/Conservative, you just do it because you spend too much time on playgrounds. I don't care, it just makes me think you're stupid and that I'm not going to take you seriously. Socons and neocons call me a liberal.

 

[Dad2three]

Why don't you ask a conservative that question? I am putting you on my moron list. That means I will respond to you, but I am not going to take what you say seriously.

Libertarians are FARRRRR right on economics, and again, their policy NEVER works anywhere. Prove me wrong, give me ONE nation to use the myths and fairy tales you 'believe in' EVER? NO THE US HAS HAD STRONG PROTECTIONISTS POLICY FROM DAY 1!!!

The United States of America

I'm more fiscally conservative than Republicans, and there is nothing you are correcting by calling me a Republican/Conservative, you just do it because you spend too much time on playgrounds. I don't care, it just makes me think you're stupid and that I'm not going to take you seriously. Socons and neocons call me a liberal.

"The United States of America"

lol

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation





Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.

The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.


American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You are a conservative, admit it Bubba, you vote GOP only 95% of the time though right? lol

 

[RKMBrown]

You aren't processing the reality that taxes are already baked into the cost of goods and services now. Prices would initially stay the same because there is no difference. And over time they will fall because of increased efficiency.

Yes I am. You're confusing my points with points other people have made. I'm not saying income taxes are better than sales. I'm saying if the money has already been taxed then when it is taxed again it is being double taxed. Easy concept no? Now if in the future we change to sales tax only and no longer charge income tax, then the people who already paid income tax get screwed. Sure you can argue they already get screwed but you can't say this won't screw them even more.

Income 100k, pay roll tax 20k, buys 40k of sales taxable types of items today per year. In a no sales tax state ends up just paying 20k but as you say there is some embedded price on those 40k of products. For simplicity sake let's say it is 50% or 20k. Thus that person paid 40% in taxes that year.

Retired person with 40k in SS and 40k in income from his sheltered 401k and 20k from non sheltered savings. Because his 401k is income that was not previously taxed as income he still has to pay tax on the 80k but it's reduced significantly by the 50% of SS payments thing and the progressive tax rate. Let's say he pays 10k in income taxes and the same 20k in over payments. This retired guy pays 30k total.

Rich guy with 2m in income from long term capital gains. Today he pays 20%. Then he buys 500k in sales taxable stuff that has the 50% markup. So he's also paying 40%.

Now let's go to sales tax only. We need the same revenue right? You say the prices will go down... ok let's do that Now the worker spends 20k for the cheaper products and to get 40k in taxes from him we'll need a 200% sales tax. Sounds a bit high but ok it's just an exercise. Retired guy looses his 10k discount no? Rich guy yeah he's "only" paying 25%.

I am not saying pre-tax prices will not go up, I am saying the total price will not go up. You're wrong when you think that taxes paid before are being offset now. Your income and payroll taxes are baked into the price of your employer's products. So are their business taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, ... All taxes are if you think about it already baked into the price of products. Taking them out and replacing them with a sales tax is revenue neutral. I am saying it will go down over time because of economic efficiency.

There is one tax that is not baked into products, the death tax. Try to name another. And think about it before you click enter.

You said "I am not saying pre-tax prices will not go up."

Define pre-tax price. I define pre-tax price as the sticker price of a product. You seem to be waving your hands about wildly trying to come up with a new price model for products that includes some kind of discount that people will be getting in the form of welfare checks.

Then you said "I am saying the total price will not go up."

So here you are saying if you add sales tax to the price of a product the total price of the product does not go up. Ok.... so you've redefined the term total too. Please define total price. In my experience the total price on a bill is the sticker price of the item plus taxes maybe minus coupons or other discounts that you use in lieu of tender.

You then continued by saying "You're wrong when you think that taxes paid before are being offset now." So here you are saying taxes paid in the past (before) are not offset in any shape form or fashion in the subsequent time frame (the now). So here you think govco can collect taxes and that will not cause any subsequent increase in product prices. Yeah cause people can live on air, right? This is not hard. If you tax me beyond my ability to live as I desire, I then have to increase my prices to live as I desire. You want to tax profits made on popcorn sales from last year? Ok but don't be surprised when the cost of popcorn goes up the next year so that the owner can clear the amount he needs to make payroll. This is not rocket science.

Then you say, "Your income and payroll taxes are baked into the price of your employer's products. So are their business taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, ... All taxes are if you think about it already baked into the price of products. Taking them out and replacing them with a sales tax is revenue neutral. " Note: this is the opposite of your prior sentence. That bipolar thing again.

Then you conclude, "I am saying it will go down over time because of economic efficiency." No that's not what you said before.

Again you are ignoring the issue presented by waving your hands about wildly. The issue for the old farts who already paid income tax on their prior earnings, and will now have to pay the new sales taxes with their post already taxed prior earnings, thus being forced into double taxation. As you say that are supposedly revenue neutral. But for these people are 2X THE PRIOR AMOUNT OF TAXES. How can it be revenue neutral and be 2X THE PRIOR AMOUNT OF TAXES PAID in prior years? Answer: It's only revenue neutral for new income and / or tax free savings that were able to avoid income tax in prior years.

 

[kaz]

Yes I am. You're confusing my points with points other people have made. I'm not saying income taxes are better than sales. I'm saying if the money has already been taxed then when it is taxed again it is being double taxed. Easy concept no? Now if in the future we change to sales tax only and no longer charge income tax, then the people who already paid income tax get screwed. Sure you can argue they already get screwed but you can't say this won't screw them even more.

Income 100k, pay roll tax 20k, buys 40k of sales taxable types of items today per year. In a no sales tax state ends up just paying 20k but as you say there is some embedded price on those 40k of products. For simplicity sake let's say it is 50% or 20k. Thus that person paid 40% in taxes that year.

Retired person with 40k in SS and 40k in income from his sheltered 401k and 20k from non sheltered savings. Because his 401k is income that was not previously taxed as income he still has to pay tax on the 80k but it's reduced significantly by the 50% of SS payments thing and the progressive tax rate. Let's say he pays 10k in income taxes and the same 20k in over payments. This retired guy pays 30k total.

Rich guy with 2m in income from long term capital gains. Today he pays 20%. Then he buys 500k in sales taxable stuff that has the 50% markup. So he's also paying 40%.

Now let's go to sales tax only. We need the same revenue right? You say the prices will go down... ok let's do that Now the worker spends 20k for the cheaper products and to get 40k in taxes from him we'll need a 200% sales tax. Sounds a bit high but ok it's just an exercise. Retired guy looses his 10k discount no? Rich guy yeah he's "only" paying 25%.

I am not saying pre-tax prices will not go up, I am saying the total price will not go up. You're wrong when you think that taxes paid before are being offset now. Your income and payroll taxes are baked into the price of your employer's products. So are their business taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, ... All taxes are if you think about it already baked into the price of products. Taking them out and replacing them with a sales tax is revenue neutral. I am saying it will go down over time because of economic efficiency.

There is one tax that is not baked into products, the death tax. Try to name another. And think about it before you click enter.

You said "I am not saying pre-tax prices will not go up."

Define pre-tax price. I define pre-tax price as the sticker price of a product. You seem to be waving your hands about wildly trying to come up with a new price model for products that includes some kind of discount that people will be getting in the form of welfare checks.

Then you said "I am saying the total price will not go up."

So here you are saying if you add sales tax to the price of a product the total price of the product does not go up. Ok.... so you've redefined the term total too. Please define total price. In my experience the total price on a bill is the sticker price of the item plus taxes maybe minus coupons or other discounts that you use in lieu of tender.

You then continued by saying "You're wrong when you think that taxes paid before are being offset now." So here you are saying taxes paid in the past (before) are not offset in any shape form or fashion in the subsequent time frame (the now). So here you think govco can collect taxes and that will not cause any subsequent increase in product prices. Yeah cause people can live on air, right? This is not hard. If you tax me beyond my ability to live as I desire, I then have to increase my prices to live as I desire. You want to tax profits made on popcorn sales from last year? Ok but don't be surprised when the cost of popcorn goes up the next year so that the owner can clear the amount he needs to make payroll. This is not rocket science.

Then you say, "Your income and payroll taxes are baked into the price of your employer's products. So are their business taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, ... All taxes are if you think about it already baked into the price of products. Taking them out and replacing them with a sales tax is revenue neutral. " Note: this is the opposite of your prior sentence. That bipolar thing again.

Then you conclude, "I am saying it will go down over time because of economic efficiency." No that's not what you said before.

Again you are ignoring the issue presented by waving your hands about wildly. The issue for the old farts who already paid income tax on their prior earnings, and will now have to pay the new sales taxes with their post already taxed prior earnings, thus being forced into double taxation. As you say that are supposedly revenue neutral. But for these people are 2X THE PRIOR AMOUNT OF TAXES. How can it be revenue neutral and be 2X THE PRIOR AMOUNT OF TAXES PAID in prior years? Answer: It's only revenue neutral for new income and / or tax free savings that were able to avoid income tax in prior years.

OK, here is what I am saying.

Today, pre-Fair Tax, you go into the store and buy a TV for $800.

- Now let's eliminate all embedded taxes.
- The income taxes for employees who made the TV and all other taxes they pay to live because they have to live after they pay all their taxes
- All taxes for the people who work in the store, the trucks who distributed the TV, ...
- The business taxes for all the companies involved
- Investment taxes (debt holders, equity holders, ...) for all companies involved
- Business property taxes for all companies involved
- etc. On average, that equates to 23% of the price of the product.
- So now, the price of the TV drops by $184 to $616. Everyone involved makes the same money, the government just doesn't get any taxes.
- Now we add the Fair Tax of $184 and the price of the TV goes back to $800.

The price of the TV is the same. The Fair Tax is calculated to be revenue neutral. So what difference does it make to someone who paid income tax before (and didn't pay the Fair Tax, which you keep ignoring).

 

[RKMBrown]

I am not saying pre-tax prices will not go up, I am saying the total price will not go up. You're wrong when you think that taxes paid before are being offset now. Your income and payroll taxes are baked into the price of your employer's products. So are their business taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, ... All taxes are if you think about it already baked into the price of products. Taking them out and replacing them with a sales tax is revenue neutral. I am saying it will go down over time because of economic efficiency.

There is one tax that is not baked into products, the death tax. Try to name another. And think about it before you click enter.

You said "I am not saying pre-tax prices will not go up."

Define pre-tax price. I define pre-tax price as the sticker price of a product. You seem to be waving your hands about wildly trying to come up with a new price model for products that includes some kind of discount that people will be getting in the form of welfare checks.

Then you said "I am saying the total price will not go up."

So here you are saying if you add sales tax to the price of a product the total price of the product does not go up. Ok.... so you've redefined the term total too. Please define total price. In my experience the total price on a bill is the sticker price of the item plus taxes maybe minus coupons or other discounts that you use in lieu of tender.

You then continued by saying "You're wrong when you think that taxes paid before are being offset now." So here you are saying taxes paid in the past (before) are not offset in any shape form or fashion in the subsequent time frame (the now). So here you think govco can collect taxes and that will not cause any subsequent increase in product prices. Yeah cause people can live on air, right? This is not hard. If you tax me beyond my ability to live as I desire, I then have to increase my prices to live as I desire. You want to tax profits made on popcorn sales from last year? Ok but don't be surprised when the cost of popcorn goes up the next year so that the owner can clear the amount he needs to make payroll. This is not rocket science.

Then you say, "Your income and payroll taxes are baked into the price of your employer's products. So are their business taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, ... All taxes are if you think about it already baked into the price of products. Taking them out and replacing them with a sales tax is revenue neutral. " Note: this is the opposite of your prior sentence. That bipolar thing again.

Then you conclude, "I am saying it will go down over time because of economic efficiency." No that's not what you said before.

Again you are ignoring the issue presented by waving your hands about wildly. The issue for the old farts who already paid income tax on their prior earnings, and will now have to pay the new sales taxes with their post already taxed prior earnings, thus being forced into double taxation. As you say that are supposedly revenue neutral. But for these people are 2X THE PRIOR AMOUNT OF TAXES. How can it be revenue neutral and be 2X THE PRIOR AMOUNT OF TAXES PAID in prior years? Answer: It's only revenue neutral for new income and / or tax free savings that were able to avoid income tax in prior years.

OK, here is what I am saying.

Today, pre-Fair Tax, you go into the store and buy a TV for $800.

- Now let's eliminate all embedded taxes.
- The income taxes for employees who made the TV and all other taxes they pay to live because they have to live after they pay all their taxes
- All taxes for the people who work in the store, the trucks who distributed the TV, ...
- The business taxes for all the companies involved
- Investment taxes (debt holders, equity holders, ...) for all companies involved
- Business property taxes for all companies involved
- etc. On average, that equates to 23% of the price of the product.
- So now, the price of the TV drops by $184 to $616. Everyone involved makes the same money, the government just doesn't get any taxes.
- Now we add the Fair Tax of $184 and the price of the TV goes back to $800.

The price of the TV is the same. The Fair Tax is calculated to be revenue neutral. So what difference does it make to someone who paid income tax before (and didn't pay the Fair Tax, which you keep ignoring).

What you are missing, and I don't know why you can't burn it into your head, is that at the point of switching to the fair tax you already paid 184 in income tax on the money you are buying the item with and now will have to pay 184 in sales tax. 184 + 184 is equal to 368. All those taxes you mentioned are simply moving from one type of tax to the next. From income and embedded to sales. Those people still need the same amount of money to pay their taxes that moved from income and embedded to sales. The tax amount result is only revenue neutral for new income. Again you are not paying attn. The prices of the products will not change. You even admitted this yourself earlier in the thread. Thus you are merely echoing a straw-man. A straw-man that imagines a world where there are no taxes thus the price of product can be reduced. This world does not exist. Straw-man. You have fallen to one of the oldest cons in the book.

 

[kaz]

What you are missing, and I don't know why you can't burn it into your head, is that at the point of switching to the fair tax you already paid 184 in income tax on the money you are buying the item with and now will have to pay 184 in sales tax.

What you are missing is that you are doing that either way. You are paying it as the fair tax or you are paying it as all the embedded taxes the fair tax replaces.

 

[RKMBrown]

What you are missing, and I don't know why you can't burn it into your head, is that at the point of switching to the fair tax you already paid 184 in income tax on the money you are buying the item with and now will have to pay 184 in sales tax.

What you are missing is that you are doing that either way. You are paying it as the fair tax or you are paying it as all the embedded taxes the fair tax replaces.

You are insisting that there are only two ways to go. You don't seem to understand if you have already paid the first way AND then have to pay the second way with the same income then it is not OR IT IS AND. You will have paid the first way AND the second way.

You are acting like a two year old child. I say two because my three year old nephew understands the difference between one and two. You don't seem to be able to add one plus one. You think the issue is one OR the other. You refuse to listen.

 

[kaz]

What you are missing, and I don't know why you can't burn it into your head, is that at the point of switching to the fair tax you already paid 184 in income tax on the money you are buying the item with and now will have to pay 184 in sales tax.

What you are missing is that you are doing that either way. You are paying it as the fair tax or you are paying it as all the embedded taxes the fair tax replaces.

You are insisting that there are only two ways to go. You don't seem to understand if you have already paid the first way AND then have to pay the second way with the same income then it is not OR IT IS AND. You will have paid the first way AND the second way.

You are acting like a two year old child. I say two because my three year old nephew understands the difference between one and two. You don't seem to be able to add one plus one. You think the issue is one OR the other. You refuse to listen.

I'm listening fine, and you don't know what you are talking about. The Fair Tax is tax revenue neutral. I'm tired of explaining it to you. Dollar for dollar is the same and since all taxes are embedded in the products and services we buy, it has nothing to do with taxes paid in the past. Those were taxed and spent in the past.

You buy a $100 widget. We take out $23 in embedded taxes, add back in $23 in a Fair Tax, and the widget still costs $100. And you're like what! I already paid that, why am I paying it again with the fair tax! You ... were ... anyway ...

I'm not the thick one here, you are.

 

[RKMBrown]

What you are missing is that you are doing that either way. You are paying it as the fair tax or you are paying it as all the embedded taxes the fair tax replaces.

You are insisting that there are only two ways to go. You don't seem to understand if you have already paid the first way AND then have to pay the second way with the same income then it is not OR IT IS AND. You will have paid the first way AND the second way.

You are acting like a two year old child. I say two because my three year old nephew understands the difference between one and two. You don't seem to be able to add one plus one. You think the issue is one OR the other. You refuse to listen.

I'm listening fine, and you don't know what you are talking about. The Fair Tax is tax revenue neutral. I'm tired of explaining it to you. Dollar for dollar is the same and since all taxes are embedded in the products and services we buy, it has nothing to do with taxes paid in the past. Those were taxed and spent in the past.

You buy a $100 widget. We take out $23 in embedded taxes, add back in $23 in a Fair Tax, and the widget still costs $100. And you're like what! I already paid that, why am I paying it again with the fair tax! You ... were ... anyway ...

I'm not the thick one here, you are.

ROFL MBA can't figure out the difference between the past, current, and future. MBA thinks cause someone said it's revenue neutral that makes it true for everyone. ROFL MBA thinks charging someone twice on the same income is only charging them once on the same income. ROFL MBA thinks someone's gonna run around lowering the prices on all products by 23%. Yeah cause they won't be needing that additional money any more to pay taxes. IT'S MAGIC Fair tax means prices remain the same and we all get to keep 23% of our income as a bonus. ROFL No change whatsoever to the total prices of products AND WE CAN KEEP OUR federal income taxes. It's magic hour in MBA land.

 

[kaz]

MBA thinks cause someone said it's revenue neutral that makes it true for everyone

Strawman. It's revenue neutral on average, I never said this.

 

[RKMBrown]

MBA thinks cause someone said it's revenue neutral that makes it true for everyone

Strawman. It's revenue neutral on average, I never said this.

Make up your mind. First you say it's revenue neutral as evidence that people will not be screwed when they already paid their income taxes and now have to pay again as sales taxes. YOU SAID NO ONE WILL HAVE TO PAY TWICE. You said it dozens of times.

Now, maybe you want to reexplain why you said no one has to pay twice, because it's revenue neutral.

Make up your mind, which story are you sticking with?

 

[kaz]

MBA thinks cause someone said it's revenue neutral that makes it true for everyone

Strawman. It's revenue neutral on average, I never said this.

Make up your mind. First you say it's revenue neutral as evidence that people will not be screwed when they already paid their income taxes and now have to pay again as sales taxes. YOU SAID NO ONE WILL HAVE TO PAY TWICE. You said it dozens of times.

Now, maybe you want to reexplain why you said no one has to pay twice, because it's revenue neutral.

Make up your mind, which story are you sticking with?

I never said no one pays twice, what I said is if you are paying twice with the Fair Tax you are paying twice without it. The Fair Tax doesn't address that, it just replaces the embedded taxes. If the Fair Tax is double tax, so are the embedded taxes. Those are fundamentally different statements. You're not reading and grasping what I am telling you, you are just babbling.

 

[RKMBrown]

Strawman. It's revenue neutral on average, I never said this.

Make up your mind. First you say it's revenue neutral as evidence that people will not be screwed when they already paid their income taxes and now have to pay again as sales taxes. YOU SAID NO ONE WILL HAVE TO PAY TWICE. You said it dozens of times.

Now, maybe you want to reexplain why you said no one has to pay twice, because it's revenue neutral.

Make up your mind, which story are you sticking with?

I never said no one pays twice, what I said is if you are paying twice with the Fair Tax you are paying twice without it. The Fair Tax doesn't address that, it just replaces the embedded taxes. If the Fair Tax is double tax, so are the embedded taxes. Those are fundamentally different statements. You're not reading and grasping what I am telling you, you are just babbling.

Not true. Total bullshit. If someone paid his God Damn taxes before he's not gonna have to pay it twice today because WE DON'T HAVE FEDERAL SALES TAXES. ADDING FEDERAL SALES TAXES ADDS ANOTHER TAX ON TOP OF THE TAX THOSE PEOPLE ALREADY PAID IN THE FORM OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. I DID NOT SAY THE FAIR TAX IS A DOUBLE TAX, I SAID IT IS A DOUBLE TAX FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPENDING MONEY THEY ALREADY PAID FEDERAL INCOME TAXES ON.

Are you completely daft?

Federal Embedded taxes that we have today for Obama Care, do exist. And yes they are in essence a double tax but they are very small so it's more like very large amount of income tax plus a very small amount of embedded taxes. They are not as massive as the VAT taxes in Europe yet, but that is just a matter of time. These things always start small then grow to the point of everyone screaming bloody murder.