The mindset behind trickle down economics in the US

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

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,798
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Aug 2019, 10:54 pm

Antrax wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

LoveNotHate wrote:

wowiexist wrote:

Antrax wrote:

I hate the term trickle down economics. Tax cuts that spur economic growth are good for all people rich and poor alike. Tax cuts that don't spur economic growth are not good for all people. It's really that simple. Supply side/trickle down economics means that cutting taxes on the rich sometimes spurs economic growth, and is sometimes good for all people.

The mindset of "tax the hell out of the rich" is based in envy rather than any kind of economics. Most wealth does not sit in bank vaults but instead is either spent or invested. Invested and spent wealth tends to be good for the economy.

It seems like tax cuts for the rich generally don’t spur economic growth. They were attempted during the Bush administration and didn’t work. Even though the economy is overall statistically in good shape now the most recent tax cuts have not helped. They could be detrimental if they continue to raise the national deficit.

why not?

A rich person buys a sports car, a mansion, a jet, stock ownership … spent money gets cycled through the economy.

Also, rich people likely invest their money wisely, which is a super-benefit to the economy, compared to "Joe Commoner" that blows his money on booze, cigarettes, and interest on credit card debt (limited value to the economy).

That purchase of booze and cancer sticks, along with other purchases also spurs the economy on. In fact, Joe Commoner spends most of his money, whereas the wealthy, despite having made some purchases, puts most of that money away into savings accounts, taking that money out of circulation.

Most money of the wealthy is invested. Only a small percentage is saved. If you want to blame anyone for saving blame that damn middle class.

As there are more non-rich people compared to rich people, it stands to reason that their contribution to the economy is greater.
While there are doubtlessly some of the wealthy who reinvest, most of that Trump tax cut went to savings accounts.
Why damn the middle class? They're just struggling to hold onto the American dream that was promised them.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

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

06 Aug 2019, 11:26 pm

blazingstar wrote:

Antrax wrote:

If you want to blame anyone for saving blame that damn middle class.

Damn middle class???

I knew I should have added sarcasm brackets. Never underestimate the ability of people to take you seriously when you're making what you think is an obvious joke.

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

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,798
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Aug 2019, 11:35 pm

Antrax wrote:

blazingstar wrote:

Antrax wrote:

If you want to blame anyone for saving blame that damn middle class.

Damn middle class???

I knew I should have added sarcasm brackets. Never underestimate the ability of people to take you seriously when you're making what you think is an obvious joke.

You gotta remember: we're all Aspies here. We'll take anything literally.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

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

07 Aug 2019, 12:00 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

Antrax wrote:

blazingstar wrote:

Antrax wrote:

If you want to blame anyone for saving blame that damn middle class.

Damn middle class???

I knew I should have added sarcasm brackets. Never underestimate the ability of people to take you seriously when you're making what you think is an obvious joke.

You gotta remember: we're all Aspies here. We'll take anything literally.

Yeah I was making a joke about the middle class saving the most of their income, because they make enough to not spend every dollar they make, but not enough to invest nearly every dollar they have.

I don't actually blame the middle class for saving money. I save most of the excess money I make, leach on the economy that I am.

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

blazingstar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,234

07 Aug 2019, 5:37 am

Antrax wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Antrax wrote:

blazingstar wrote:

Antrax wrote:

If you want to blame anyone for saving blame that damn middle class.

Damn middle class???

I knew I should have added sarcasm brackets. Never underestimate the ability of people to take you seriously when you're making what you think is an obvious joke.

You gotta remember: we're all Aspies here. We'll take anything literally.

I apologize. I am very literal. I'm glad to find out it was meant to be sarcasm.

_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain - Gordon Lightfoot

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

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

07 Aug 2019, 11:41 am

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).

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

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,798
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Aug 2019, 12:01 pm

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.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

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

07 Aug 2019, 3:02 pm

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.

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

Roboto
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Jul 2019
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 336

07 Aug 2019, 4:03 pm

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.

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.

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

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

07 Aug 2019, 4:26 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.

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.

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

wowiexist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 659
Location: Dallas, TX

07 Aug 2019, 4:34 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:

wowiexist wrote:

Antrax wrote:

If it does cycle through the economy that still is no guarantee that it will trickle down. And if the rich person who gets a tax cut instead puts it into savings then it definitely wouldn’t trickle down. Tax cuts wouldn’t necessarily be bad if the middle and lower class also got large cuts as well.

Roboto
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Jul 2019
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 336

07 Aug 2019, 4:35 pm

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.

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.

The money supply has more than doubled since 2008 and the stock market has nearly tripled. Salaries, not so much... It's also very well documented that the rich have been getting richer while everyone else, not so much... The chart on the bottom 90% in this document should help... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1TX0HE

wowiexist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 659
Location: Dallas, TX

07 Aug 2019, 4:38 pm

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.

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.

Roboto
Deinonychus

Joined: 22 Jul 2019
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 336

07 Aug 2019, 4:43 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.

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.

In all fairness it was monetary policy that helped the Clinton years. Fed chair Alan Greenspan calls this out in his own book and Bush had the financial fall out of 9/11 to manage so it's not the clearest of examples to use.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,798
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Aug 2019, 6:47 pm

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.

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.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

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

07 Aug 2019, 7:35 pm

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.

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?

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

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

Jump to:

The mindset behind trickle down economics in the US Post Reply New Topic

The mindset behind trickle down economics in the US