The mindset behind trickle down economics in the US

Page 5 of 11 [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

07 Aug 2019, 7:50 pm

Roboto wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
To me, "Trickle down " seems better economics than forking it over to government (and blindly hoping that some government agent will put it to better use).


Trickle down only works if money is allowed to trickle down. Too often it does not. With government regulations and labor and wage laws, there's much more of a guarantee.

Seems like the opposite.

When you take money from business owners, they have less profit, so workers have to get squeezed.

However, cut taxes, cut labor laws, cut regulation , then business owners have more, so workers can have higher salaries.


It's true that they "can" have higher salaries, but the reality is that they don't.
Corporate welfare (trickle down) of any kind is a bad idea unless you like the idea of your politicians and business owners shaking hands and making deals. Judging on the current state of things I'm surprised so few people blindly accept that ANY taxpayer dollars go to the government middle man to be redistributed to the wealthiest people on the planet, but I'm surprised often so no surprise there. :)

The problem for US workers is that they're so terribly, terribly inefficient that tax cuts, labor cuts , regulation cuts would have to be tremendous to support wage increases.

(Mexican workers make ~$2/$3 per hour, plus, less regulation, much less taxes, much less labor laws)


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Aug 2019, 8:57 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
To me, "Trickle down " seems better economics than forking it over to government (and blindly hoping that some government agent will put it to better use).


Trickle down only works if money is allowed to trickle down. Too often it does not. With government regulations and labor and wage laws, there's much more of a guarantee.

Seems like the opposite.

When you take money from business owners, they have less profit, so workers have to get squeezed.

However, cut taxes, cut labor laws, cut regulation , then business owners have more, so workers can have higher salaries.


Wages were in fact terrible prior to labor laws, regulations, and unions, as were working conditions. All those things improved exponentially since the advent of those things.

You think that worker wages increased, because they were made less productive?
.

When organized labor was king, corporate profits were sky high. Well payed, happy worker who can live comfortably and share in the the prosperity they have created are productive workers.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

07 Aug 2019, 9:24 pm

wowiexist wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Roboto wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
To me, "Trickle down " seems better economics than forking it over to government (and blindly hoping that some government agent will put it to better use).


Trickle down only works if money is allowed to trickle down. Too often it does not. With government regulations and labor and wage laws, there's much more of a guarantee.

Seems like the opposite.

When you take money from business owners, they have less profit, so workers have to get squeezed.

However, cut taxes, cut labor laws, cut regulation , then business owners have more, so workers can have higher salaries.


It's true that they "can" have higher salaries, but the reality is that they don't.


I'd very much like to see evidence of this reality.


Evidence would be the George W Bush economy. The economy was strong during the Clinton years. When the economy was slowing at the beginning of Bush’s tenure he used tax cuts for the wealthy and the economy just got worse.


The Bush tax cuts were passed in 2001, 2003. The recession of 2000-2002 was followed by a period of steady growth. Unless you want to blame the tax cuts for the 2008 recession, which has no basis in reality.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

07 Aug 2019, 9:31 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
To me, "Trickle down " seems better economics than forking it over to government (and blindly hoping that some government agent will put it to better use).


Trickle down only works if money is allowed to trickle down. Too often it does not. With government regulations and labor and wage laws, there's much more of a guarantee.

Seems like the opposite.

When you take money from business owners, they have less profit, so workers have to get squeezed.

However, cut taxes, cut labor laws, cut regulation , then business owners have more, so workers can have higher salaries.


Wages were in fact terrible prior to labor laws, regulations, and unions, as were working conditions. All those things improved exponentially since the advent of those things.

You think that worker wages increased, because they were made less productive?
.

When organized labor was king, corporate profits were sky high. Well payed, happy worker who can live comfortably and share in the the prosperity they have created are productive workers.


When was this golden age of organized labor? The 1970s era of stagflation? The 1950s when the U.S. had half the wealth of the entire world?


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Aug 2019, 9:48 pm

Antrax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
To me, "Trickle down " seems better economics than forking it over to government (and blindly hoping that some government agent will put it to better use).


Trickle down only works if money is allowed to trickle down. Too often it does not. With government regulations and labor and wage laws, there's much more of a guarantee.

Seems like the opposite.

When you take money from business owners, they have less profit, so workers have to get squeezed.

However, cut taxes, cut labor laws, cut regulation , then business owners have more, so workers can have higher salaries.


Wages were in fact terrible prior to labor laws, regulations, and unions, as were working conditions. All those things improved exponentially since the advent of those things.

You think that worker wages increased, because they were made less productive?
.

When organized labor was king, corporate profits were sky high. Well payed, happy worker who can live comfortably and share in the the prosperity they have created are productive workers.


When was this golden age of organized labor? The 1970s era of stagflation? The 1950s when the U.S. had half the wealth of the entire world?


When working people could stake a claim in the middle class, from the fifties into the eighties. But then, Raygun sold a bill of goods to Americans that proved to be crap for everyone save for big business. But hey, Ronny made people feel good, again! :P


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

08 Aug 2019, 12:10 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

When working people could stake a claim in the middle class, from the fifties into the eighties. But then, Raygun sold a bill of goods to Americans that proved to be crap for everyone save for big business. But hey, Ronny made people feel good, again! :P


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household ... ted_States Some passages you might be interested in:

Wikipedia wrote:
According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%.[18] However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth.[19]


So not accounting for household size or taxes, the middle household in america is 26% richer today than at the end of the 70s. Making those adjustments nearly a 50% increase in wealth in 40 years. For the middle income.

Wikipedia wrote:
While median gross household income showed much stronger growth than depicted by the Census, inequality was shown to still have increased. The top 10% saw gross household income grow by 78%, versus 26.5% for the median. The bottom 10%, using the same measure, saw higher growth than the median (40%)


Everybody knows the rich have seen more gains (although all have seen gains). What was surprising to me is that the poor have also seen more gains than the middle income. However, rich, poor, or in between, all are substantially better off today than in 1979.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Aug 2019, 1:10 am

Antrax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

When working people could stake a claim in the middle class, from the fifties into the eighties. But then, Raygun sold a bill of goods to Americans that proved to be crap for everyone save for big business. But hey, Ronny made people feel good, again! :P


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household ... ted_States Some passages you might be interested in:

Wikipedia wrote:
According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%.[18] However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth.[19]


So not accounting for household size or taxes, the middle household in america is 26% richer today than at the end of the 70s. Making those adjustments nearly a 50% increase in wealth in 40 years. For the middle income.

Wikipedia wrote:
While median gross household income showed much stronger growth than depicted by the Census, inequality was shown to still have increased. The top 10% saw gross household income grow by 78%, versus 26.5% for the median. The bottom 10%, using the same measure, saw higher growth than the median (40%)


Everybody knows the rich have seen more gains (although all have seen gains). What was surprising to me is that the poor have also seen more gains than the middle income. However, rich, poor, or in between, all are substantially better off today than in 1979.


But wages have not kept up with the cost of living. Benefit packages are no longer included in too many jobs.
When I was a kid, my dad got a great wage with benefits working an industrial job, which meant we were able to go on vacations, my mom didn't have to work outside the home, and I was spoiled rotten. I grew up in the seventies and eighties. Towards the end, when my dad retired, we were already seeing losses for labor.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

08 Aug 2019, 1:39 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

When working people could stake a claim in the middle class, from the fifties into the eighties. But then, Raygun sold a bill of goods to Americans that proved to be crap for everyone save for big business. But hey, Ronny made people feel good, again! :P


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household ... ted_States Some passages you might be interested in:

Wikipedia wrote:
According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%.[18] However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth.[19]


So not accounting for household size or taxes, the middle household in america is 26% richer today than at the end of the 70s. Making those adjustments nearly a 50% increase in wealth in 40 years. For the middle income.

Wikipedia wrote:
While median gross household income showed much stronger growth than depicted by the Census, inequality was shown to still have increased. The top 10% saw gross household income grow by 78%, versus 26.5% for the median. The bottom 10%, using the same measure, saw higher growth than the median (40%)


Everybody knows the rich have seen more gains (although all have seen gains). What was surprising to me is that the poor have also seen more gains than the middle income. However, rich, poor, or in between, all are substantially better off today than in 1979.


But wages have not kept up with the cost of living. Benefit packages are no longer included in too many jobs.
When I was a kid, my dad got a great wage with benefits working an industrial job, which meant we were able to go on vacations, my mom didn't have to work outside the home, and I was spoiled rotten. I grew up in the seventies and eighties. Towards the end, when my dad retired, we were already seeing losses for labor.


Real income is adjusted for inflation. If that hasn't been enough in high cost of living areas it has been offset by greater gains in low cost of living areas.

You can continue to deny that people are better off financially today than in the 70s, but that is the same as people that deny the planet is warmer today than it was in the 70s. The data just doesn't support it.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Aug 2019, 4:44 am

Antrax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

When working people could stake a claim in the middle class, from the fifties into the eighties. But then, Raygun sold a bill of goods to Americans that proved to be crap for everyone save for big business. But hey, Ronny made people feel good, again! :P


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household ... ted_States Some passages you might be interested in:

Wikipedia wrote:
According to the CBO, between 1979 and 2011, gross median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose from $59,400 to $75,200, or 26.5%.[18] However, once adjusted for household size and looking at taxes from an after-tax perspective, real median household income grew 46%, representing significant growth.[19]


So not accounting for household size or taxes, the middle household in america is 26% richer today than at the end of the 70s. Making those adjustments nearly a 50% increase in wealth in 40 years. For the middle income.

Wikipedia wrote:
While median gross household income showed much stronger growth than depicted by the Census, inequality was shown to still have increased. The top 10% saw gross household income grow by 78%, versus 26.5% for the median. The bottom 10%, using the same measure, saw higher growth than the median (40%)


Everybody knows the rich have seen more gains (although all have seen gains). What was surprising to me is that the poor have also seen more gains than the middle income. However, rich, poor, or in between, all are substantially better off today than in 1979.


But wages have not kept up with the cost of living. Benefit packages are no longer included in too many jobs.
When I was a kid, my dad got a great wage with benefits working an industrial job, which meant we were able to go on vacations, my mom didn't have to work outside the home, and I was spoiled rotten. I grew up in the seventies and eighties. Towards the end, when my dad retired, we were already seeing losses for labor.


Real income is adjusted for inflation. If that hasn't been enough in high cost of living areas it has been offset by greater gains in low cost of living areas.

You can continue to deny that people are better off financially today than in the 70s, but that is the same as people that deny the planet is warmer today than it was in the 70s. The data just doesn't support it.


All I can go on are my own experiences and observations, and they tell me that the working class that I grew up among have been getting the shaft in more recent times. That's why so many working people have decided to throw away their common sense and swallow everything Trump says, while others have allowed themselves to scapegoat racial and religious minorities for all their problems, even if these scapegoated people have it worse than them.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

08 Aug 2019, 5:53 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
All I can go on are my own experiences and observations, and they tell me that the working class that I grew up among have been getting the shaft in more recent times. That's why so many working people have decided to throw away their common sense and swallow everything Trump says, while others have allowed themselves to scapegoat racial and religious minorities for all their problems, even if these scapegoated people have it worse than them.

Trump helped them out by getting rid of the ACA penalty, and cutting their taxes.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Rainbow_Belle
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 336
Location: Sydney

08 Aug 2019, 6:08 am

Over the last 40 years since Trickle Down Economics was introduced under Reagan and Thatcher, in US and UK, the elite top 1% now control 50% of the wealth of the world. 99% of the population have to get by on the remaining 50% of wealth. How on Earth is that a fair deal? Taxes on the rich and corporations should be lifted to reduce poverty, create more jobs and more opportunities for all citizens. I believe in taxing the rich more and redistributing wealth, universal health care and universal education that provide more opportunities for all citizens not just the wealthy elites.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

08 Aug 2019, 6:42 am

Rainbow_Belle wrote:
Over the last 40 years since Trickle Down Economics was introduced under Reagan and Thatcher, in US and UK, the elite top 1% now control 50% of the wealth of the world. 99% of the population have to get by on the remaining 50% of wealth. How on Earth is that a fair deal? Taxes on the rich and corporations should be lifted to reduce poverty, create more jobs and more opportunities for all citizens. I believe in taxing the rich more and redistributing wealth, universal health care and universal education that provide more opportunities for all citizens not just the wealthy elites.

Seems the fairest.

People keep the money they inherit or earn.

You're suggesting it's "fair" to steal their money, and give to others?


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Aug 2019, 6:43 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
All I can go on are my own experiences and observations, and they tell me that the working class that I grew up among have been getting the shaft in more recent times. That's why so many working people have decided to throw away their common sense and swallow everything Trump says, while others have allowed themselves to scapegoat racial and religious minorities for all their problems, even if these scapegoated people have it worse than them.

Trump helped them out by getting rid of the ACA penalty, and cutting their taxes.


Trump ended the ACA "penalty" to try killing Obamacare in order to erase his predecessor's legacy in order to magnify his own. Pure narcissism. All he has done is put people's medical coverage in jeopardy.
Cutting taxes have done more for the wealthy's savings accounts than for ordinary workers.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Roboto
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Jul 2019
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 336

08 Aug 2019, 2:17 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Rainbow_Belle wrote:
Over the last 40 years since Trickle Down Economics was introduced under Reagan and Thatcher, in US and UK, the elite top 1% now control 50% of the wealth of the world. 99% of the population have to get by on the remaining 50% of wealth. How on Earth is that a fair deal? Taxes on the rich and corporations should be lifted to reduce poverty, create more jobs and more opportunities for all citizens. I believe in taxing the rich more and redistributing wealth, universal health care and universal education that provide more opportunities for all citizens not just the wealthy elites.

Seems the fairest.

People keep the money they inherit or earn.

You're suggesting it's "fair" to steal their money, and give to others?


This dynamic of an interest based system is why "usury" was considered a crime punishable by death in biblical times. Modern day usury is simply "excessive interest" wherein biblical times it was any interest. When people within a mathematical system can earn enough money to sustain eternal life simply through interest earned it creates a draining element within that mathematical system that can never resolve. This element creates the necessity for more and more bankruptcies as more and more people within the system enter that realm of wealth where interest is all they need for them, and all of their offspring to survive. Those not in that club pay the price and the % of those not in the club will eternally get smaller as a percentage of the population. These are all mathematical certainties.

This element became much worse (nail in the coffin) with the introduction of fractional reserve banking applied to the US dollar in 1913 and created the eventual necessity of unhinging the dollar from gold and then to the all out fiat currency that it is today. To think Trump, Obama or any other president has anything to do with the destruction if the monetary system is short-sighted and just flat out incorrect. What is occurring is the end game to an impossible situation to avoid that is more than 100 years in the works.

I don't have a solution to this problem, but it is a problem and has everything to do with the exponential curve that is monetary debt. I find it odd that so few see and understand this but that's probably a good thing because once everyone admits/accepts that our currency requires exponential growth of the population to mimic the exponential growth of the money supply in order to be a valid system it will all fall apart.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

08 Aug 2019, 2:52 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Rainbow_Belle wrote:
Over the last 40 years since Trickle Down Economics was introduced under Reagan and Thatcher, in US and UK, the elite top 1% now control 50% of the wealth of the world. 99% of the population have to get by on the remaining 50% of wealth. How on Earth is that a fair deal? Taxes on the rich and corporations should be lifted to reduce poverty, create more jobs and more opportunities for all citizens. I believe in taxing the rich more and redistributing wealth, universal health care and universal education that provide more opportunities for all citizens not just the wealthy elites.

Seems the fairest.

People keep the money they inherit or earn.

You're suggesting it's "fair" to steal their money, and give to others?


Are you suggesting taxation is stealing and we shouldn't have taxes?


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

08 Aug 2019, 2:57 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
All I can go on are my own experiences and observations, and they tell me that the working class that I grew up among have been getting the shaft in more recent times. That's why so many working people have decided to throw away their common sense and swallow everything Trump says, while others have allowed themselves to scapegoat racial and religious minorities for all their problems, even if these scapegoated people have it worse than them.

Trump helped them out by getting rid of the ACA penalty, and cutting their taxes.


Trump ended the ACA "penalty" to try killing Obamacare in order to erase his predecessor's legacy in order to magnify his own. Pure narcissism. All he has done is put people's medical coverage in jeopardy.
Cutting taxes have done more for the wealthy's savings accounts than for ordinary workers.


Also under Trumps tax plan the tax cuts for ordinary workers are only meant to last 2 years before the rates go up again. But for the wealthiest americans their tax cut is permanent.

Yet so many poor working class right wingers eat it up like Trump has saved them...yeah for two years until the rates increase for regular working people but stay the same for the wealthiest people. I guess they did not read the fine print.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.