I have a question: how does trickle down work?
Specifically when capital gives so much better return than labor these days. How is it supposed to trickle down? Wouldn't it just widen the gap and reduce the relative median household income if people who depend on capital made even more money than people who depend on labor to make money?
Other urls found in this thread:
blogs.spectator.co.uk
twitter.com
All economics is trickle-down. Trickle-down is not a separate school of economics, it was a failed illustration of a universal phenonenon.
Yeah but specifically how does reducing the taxes on high income help economic growth? I'm not debating whether reducing taxes would help economic growth, it's all about relative taxes.
Supposedly, dude gets somehow super rich, people let him keep his money and he spends it on stuff so it eventually goes back into the economy and plebs can somehow benefit from it as well
But that is just inflation. Specifically how does it help the middle class?
It does not anymore
I'm not an economist, but I'm guessing the trickle down stuff was somehow inspired by Ford and how he paid his workers good wages so that the money is used for consumption, and reinjected into the economy, ending in the hands of people who want to buy a car
But right now with outsourcing and fiscal paradises money goes straight into the banker's pocket and stays there. It's good if you want to have Google or Apple megacorps becoming economic behemoths, but it does royally fuck up the middle class in the process
Have you ever been hired by a poor person?
When someone has a bunch of money they want to spend it. They build big houses, they buy cars, they have to have someone up keep these items. Therefore they have to hire people tobuild/maintain what they have. This is part of why the economy sucks right now. The extra money or disposable income is shot due to women whining over pay and causing step increases to stop and wage erosion. Bringing in illegals who send their money back to mexico instead of buying games and car rims.
In short, if people have extra money they will spend it helping the economy to flourish.
No, I've never been. But as long as everyone hired by someone is getting rich and the employer is getting richer that is just inflation. How does this help with keeping the median household income high?
I don't think it's about this at all. Because your taxes do the same thing, it's put back into the economy whether it's put back as infrastructure or healthcare or military spending.
It should be about investments but as I said before if we are all getting richer that's just inflation, how does this improve the household income?
I still do not understand.
It doesn't and that's how the current economy model is supposed to work. It was designed to make the moneylenders richer. I'm sure it's not hard to guess who are at the top of this money-lending pyramid scheme.
>how does this improve the household income?
Well if you are talking inflation the relative income you bring in will out pace your long term bills. This is why folks talk about buying houses vrs renting. If you buy a house your payment should not change. Which in the future means when you start getting more money from inflation it will be easier to pay off your loan. This is why your middle aged people are generally better off than tweens. They hae paid off their mortgage, car, furniture, etc.. notes. But this counts on an endless supply of money.
But how a robust economy helps the middle class is if there is a lot of business being done then businesses have to hire people. You will want your best people to stay so you will pay them more.
And what if businesses get outsourced and wages get stiffled like it has been in the west for years ?
I honestly couldn't follow the point you are trying to make here.
Well, it isn't the federal reserve for sure.
pretty much this.
Then you vote in Trump. Holy fuck, BOTH parties were pushing TPP. It is just a stop gap for 8 years though. It is a fools dream to think the globalist are going to stop.
>Well, it isn't the federal reserve for sure.
Indeed. It's just a few super-rich elites whose family has been lending money for hundreds of years who are at the very top. The people controlling the federal reserve are their kind but nowhere near as powerful, just pawns.
but wouldn't the plebs benefit more and faster by just taking his money through taxation to spend on public works to help the plebs
rich people like to make more money, so they spend money on building new things, investing it into their company(ies) and so on. This then in theory creates more jobs for poor people to work in.
Most money in the upper class is continuously reinvested. This goes into new businesses, or expansions/upgrades to existing businesses. These, in turn, hire more people and create more products and services. Wealth of society increases.
The question remains the same:
1- Spending the money you taxed from the rich is the same as rich spending it themselves.
2- If the investor's capital is giving much better return than labor how does this improve the average household income?
Supposedly yes
Is that what the plebs need most at the moment though ?
I spoog on her face and it trickles down to her tits.
You're asking a different question. Income is based on supply and demand, trickle down requires high demand but globalism has low demand and high supply for labour
>Income is based on supply and demand, trickle down requires high demand but globalism has low demand and high supply for labour
Read this again please.
No, because then work is disincentived and the rich flee. If you can just steal wealth from the rich, why work?
Welcome to Holodomor.
Assuming closed borders to force employers to invest nationally and not export everything ASAP
>american education
The only place that breed people who think that explaining huge and highly complex events in 1 line is a smart commentary.
>Spending the money you taxed from the rich is the same as rich spending it themselves.
What do you think the govt. does with that money? Create more jobs?
1 - You have to prove that. Show us how a thousand niggers spending their EBT allowances at strip clubs is better than someone building a new business that employs people.
2 - Employment, and the ability of the employee to enrich themselves. If there is enough employment, and competition for employees rises, then wages increase.
True enough.
I'll explain, sorry, was busy
Income is supply v demand oriented. When there is a supply > demand, wages are depressed. When demand > supply, wages are increased.
We work in a globalist setting where native corps can export manufacturing, import labour and more. Supply > demand
Trickle down would ONLY work in an authoritarian state in which exporting your companies and importing cheap labour is prohibited. Trickle down would highly incentivise re-investment nationally in order to compound on wealth. The problem? Closed economies can only recirculate current wealth. You're just shuffling the deck in the favour of elites realistically.
Trickle down is like communism but has the opposite effect.
Communism = Holodomor, Trickle Down = Atlas Shrugged
The basic premise to Holodomor was the poor not caring to work, the former knowledge (from the rich) being lost because of "reappropriation" and subsequent starving.
Welcome to South Africa in a year and welcome to Zimbabwe in current year.
Ideally, yes, but realistically, no. Govt creates short term programs meant to stimulate an economy.
That's why FDR's programs worked to revitalise the country as well as they did - they were temporary.
Even something as simple as allowances make strip clubs work rather than a rich dude making escort services work. It all goes back to the economy.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. What you said is similar to "sky is blue". We are living in a real world where people try to maximize their wealth by any means including globalization which is quite efficient at doing that according to some. If it doesn't work in this world, well maybe trickle down doesn't work at all.
>Even something as simple as allowances make strip clubs work rather than a rich dude making escort services work. It all goes back to the economy.
Yes, but you want growth of the economy. I understand where you are coming from, but giving money to strippers who are just showing their tits isn't growing the economy. Putting money into creating new businesses and more jobs is.
>Even something as simple as allowances make strip clubs work rather than a rich dude making escort services work. It all goes back to the economy.
Nope. All you are doing is providing incentives for personally destructive behavior and creating dependence, while simultaneously reducing the willingness and ability for those with the ability to generate real wealth for the country and their employees.
But that was the distinction I made, if you claim that trickle down works because rich spend their money to "live their fulfilling lives" than it's pretty much the same as taxes, and if you claim it works because they invest it back and gain much more than employees see in their lifetimes how does this improve the wealth of many?
How is "a rich dude having an orgy with 3 girls" any different than "3 dudes having sex with 3 lowly go-go girls" if the total price paid is the same? We are not discussing what taxes incentivize, I'm just saying it's the same as letting wealthy keep their money if it's not going to be reinvested.
Are unemployed feral democrats running around creating jobs, products, and services with the money that's handed to them? No, they are not. That is the difference between those who have wealth and those that do not. If a rich man was blowing his cash all the time and not investing, he would not be a rich man for long. There are many examples of this - people winning the lottery, then ending up bankrupt in a few years time.
Taxation is robbery at the barrel of a gun. If someone doesn't pay their taxes - then they'll be arrested. If they refuse arrest, they'll be shot. Same as any street mugging.
That said, you have two systems - a free market, and socialism. For a free market example, we can look at America, before the Federal bank got instituted. For a socialist example, we can look at something more contemporary - Venezuela.
Unemployment for long periods in free market America was virtually non existent. The country was built from virtually nothing to an industrial powerhouse larger than the entirety of Europe in about 100 years. Why? There was no taxation. No regulations. People just provided services to one another, and we had the fastest growth this world has ever seen.
In just 10 years of socialism, Venezuela has turned from one of the wealthiest countries in South America to the poorest. There's fucking cannibalism going on in the prisons, and outside it's not a far cry from that. Meanwhile, the government is running around closing bread shops and arresting their owners because they're not doing as they're told. Medicine is virtually non-existent. There's been constant brown-outs and blackouts since a year after the government nationalized the power companies.
So, the burden of proof is on you. Show us why trickle up poverty works.
The strawman is real...
You do know that there's more to life than working and buying stuff ? Money can also be used to pay for a music school, a local charity or any other kind of non-profit activity that can make life enjoyable
It's pretty interesting hearing edgy an-caps parrot their arguments against taxation, when it perfectly applies to private property as well : wage labour is robbery at the barrel of a gun, if someone refuses to get dispossessed of the fruit of their work - then they'll be arrested. If they refuse arrest, they'll be shot
How is taxing the rich benefiting the wealth of the money?
How does a government know what's better for someone else's money than themselves?
Are music schools necessarily created by the government? No, they are not. Are charities created by the government? No, they are not.
Don't recall any instances of businessmen running around shooting people. Wage labor is an exchange of services, mutually agreed upon. There is no force involved.
> It's good if you want to have Google or Apple megacorps becoming economic behemoths
That's what I want.
Bill Gates and Elon Musk in charge of the economy, not Merkel and Francois Hollande.
The same way welfare boosts the economy
Both of these can be created through the help of government funds and subsidies, it's one use of tax money that doesn't create jobs but helps a lot in community building
Taxes are also mutually agreed upon, unless you think living without running water or electricity is the way to go ?
When you divide the society into
"Those guys will produce goods and earn money that way" and
"Those other guys receive free money and spend it on the goods"
You tend to have more and more people wanting to be part of the second group unil notinth is produced, curiously.
They can, and have been, created without the use of government subsidies. Dale Carnegie, for instance, built the US library system. No charities are created by government. If you're taking money by force, it is by definition not charity.
I'm not taxed for my water or electricity. I pay for them. Those services hardly require the government to manage them, or build them. Actually, they usually run better when they don't. See Venezuela.
>Taxes are also mutually agreed upon
No they are not.
The less productive member of the society agree on high taxes (blacks, women...) taken from the highly productive (white and asian males) to finance their welfare.
> unless you think living without running water or electricity is the way to go ?
Literally Muh Roads.
Err, Andre Carnegie - not Dale.
Andrew, fucking hell.
Why do I need a government to do all that if I can just pay for that stuff myself? It sounds like a waste of time and "slavery with extra steps".
If a rich man was going to invest in a business or create a new business, we don't need the government taxing him and doing it for him, don't ya think?
That is where balancing the tax rate is important. There will always be a capable superior breed who arent content with what welfare provides them. With this desire for more they will become job creators and value providers.
The class divide will always exist ( and that is a good thing ), rich people also understand they need customers with money to turn a profit.
>how does trickle down work?
It doesn't exist and has never been suggested or promoted by any economist in history and exists entirely as a left-wing strawman to attack people who advocate lower taxes.
blogs.spectator.co.uk
human greed, you cant expect people to invest in the nations economy. taxation is the only reason first world countries value innovation and arent third world.
people should be self sufficient and key word here EARN money. Having it essentially given to them for no effort results in what we have here, an underclass of single mothers and guys in and out of jail selling drugs. Money will still go to the most "successful" corporations under any system but you have less sub 80 iq people with 5 kids when you don't subsidize that sort of bullshit.
> rich people also understand they need customers with money to turn a profit.
Yes, and you can have customers with zero welfare. Being paid to consume doesn't help the economy one bit, it's parasitism.
it would just result in less money moving through the system which is bad for the economy. the faster money moves through the system the faster good ideas get rewarded and the higher social mobility is. we went through a period without social mobility where people horded resources, it was called the dark ages.
You cherry picking retard, there are way more factors that caused the decline of Venuzeula.
Also you're acting like the unfettered capitalism the US had in the 1890's was a good thing. It just resulted in giant monopolies like Standard Oil.
There is no force involved dipshit, you can always vote for someone who will get rid of taxes, or even leave the country if you're dissatisfied with it. Since you're doing neither of those things you implicitly agree that as part of your belonging to a nation of individuals you do your part to support the collective
And you're naive if you think your electricity and water bill pays for the amount of infrastructure building and repairing, as well as quality control and research and development that goes into those services. As far as corporate management goes.. it's not like the California electricity crisis was ever a thing right ? Don't embarass yourself by shooting off moronic opinions with no credibility
"Dark ages" was the result of the Roman Empire collapsing. Kind of important to note that it had a hyper-inflationary socialist economy. Early Middle Ages saw a healing of the economy, and there were great strides in agriculture.
Third world countries have nothing to do with poverty for one.
Secondly, I am going to give you an explanation from my macro econ class about economic growth for less developed countries and you tell me what you think
>Less developed countries hoping to boost productivity and economic growth should pursue policies that increase physical capital per worker, human capital per worker, and technological knowledge. Physical capital accumulation can be encouraged by reducing taxes on income from saving, protecting the property rights of firms acquiring new capital, and encouraging foreign investment in the domestic economy. Foreign investors increase the stock of capital per worker and bring new technology. Encouraging research and development also leads to improvements in technological knowledge. An outward-oriented growth strategy gives countries access to goods, services, and ideas from foreign countries, thereby boosting living standards and productivity
> You cherry picking retard, there are way more factors that caused the decline of Venuzeula.
Yeah we can imagine : the weather, football results...
I have an idea : to mitigate those mysterious unknown factors, let's add in other countries with abject misery : North-Korea, Cuba and Vietnam.
Hmm, I wonder what could the common factor be...
Its a politer way of saying "fuck you, poor people. You can live on the scraps we don't want"
People should be able to make enough to live and to start a small business if they work hard enough, potential for growth into a corporation needs to not be inhibited by government involvement. Nothing more.
If you dont innovate you shouldnt be rewarded at all. Of course that line of thought is a little harsh. So white collar jobs exist. But basically you are still poor as shit if you are a Salaryman. Which is the way it should be. If you are smart and work hard you will make enough money to have a lot more than you need and can spend it how you want. Thus this is the incentive for achieving.
>There is no force involved dipshit
If my option with where I live is pay taxes or get jailed, then that's force.
>There is no force involved dipshit
Manufacturing consent...
> And you're naive if you think your electricity and water bill pays for the amount of infrastructure building and repairing
And where do those funds comes from you retard ? Yes, correct, from the taxpayer.
It could be included DIRECTLY in the price of water and electricity, in which case :
- Productive people wouldn't have to subsidize it for dumb proles.
- Patrick Balkany wouldn't have the opportunity to take a cut to build his new swimming pool.
Venezuela did what they did themselves.
Perhaps it's on you to prove that Standard Oil was bad. They did have smaller competitors of course, but Standard Oil competed by keeping prices low and maintaining their own shipping.
Nowadays, government is more involved in the goings on of companies. Is that better? People here may have noticed that The Republicans voted to remove restrictions on the sale of private data. This was to remove a policy of Obama's - which was not necessarily to prevent everyone from selling data - just everyone but Google. This is called regulatory capture, and is what makes big business, big business. Government manipulation.
because peasants are usually inferior
-genetically
-ambition wise
-skill wise
-intelligence wise
-charisma wise
the economy puts them in their place like it should do. i dont care how smart you think you are if the free market kicks your ass down repeatedly and tells you that you are a peasant. You are a peasant and should be treated as such.
>community building
Oh yeah, that pays the fucking bills.
Are you fucking stupid?
If I have money and choose to open a chick fil a franchise, capital trickles down in the form of wages for the people I will employ.
If I have money and I put it into a hedge fund, fuck all trickles down.
That is why the Government makes sure I get taxed to death for opening up a restaurant, but I get to pay no taxes for putting my money in a hedge fund. Trickle down averted
Wait, I am lost on what you disagreed with on what I replied with.
How do you handle the superiority complex, Sup Forums ?
Do you have the ability to have any kind of respect for women, the poor, subhumans, anyone having even the slightest trouble to live in a society where opportunities for money-making are everywhere ?
I'm always polite, but how do you respect anyone ?
Even the rich people i can't respect since they waste so much money on social signaling frivolities.
Do i simply need to find the right kind of people ?
Is respecting no one and seeing anyone else like the mindless worthless ant they are actually normal ?
I personally never agreed to taxes. It's not by my consent. Never voted for anyone who raised taxes. Why do I have to, at the barrel of a gun, be forced to pay for things immoral to me? You just can't face the truth that what you're doing is robbery. Just a more cowardly type of robbery.
No, I'm sure your government finds all kinds of ways to waste money, but our utility companies operate independently of our governments. California electricity crisis was a thing because Democrats (socialists) in California refused permits for new power plants to be built. More an example of what's wrong with your system.
how do you not see that the government taking your money and handling the fiscal policy of the economy better than you can is a benefit to you
In France, the whole economic life is centered around the idea of stealing other people's money, in exchange for shitty abstract notions like "In the name of solidarity", "For the greater good", "To build communities" etc...
Sometimes politicians discuss why they are exponentially losing promising young taxpayers expatriating (i.e. me).
The conclusion is usually another abstract notion like "They don't have opportunities" or some shit, and the solution for that is, obviously, more socialism.
> Redistributing money for niggers to drink malt liquor is a better investment than what individual would have done.
Found the nigger.
Quite an assumption to make that the government handles my money better than me. They're $20 Trillion in debt, and much of it spent handing money to people who don't want to work, or studies on angry fat lesbians.
Is Taiwan good ?
Going to Japon myself, any idea what's it's like there compared to Taiwan ?
unless your financier is a retard your hedge fund has investments in the economy. it still trickles down. the only way to preven trickle down is to take money out of the economy, oh wait you cant do that unless you take it out of a bank and put it in a safe. lmfao.
if you vote in retards to handle your fiscal policy its the will of the people. take it out on democracy kids.
also US answers to nobody, they can utilize infinite DEBT to fuel their economy. this is a good thing.
Won't the people just adapt the situation next time and improve?
It sounds kind of absurd to claim the majority is just retarded therefore the government should just handle the situation.
If you believe that I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
the stock market is a legalized ponzi scheme. It provides almost nothing of value to the economy outside of new york city.
Japan is overrated because of the Animey.
Taiwan has the same kind of security, excellent healthcare, ranked 4th at PISA test (quality of the education system), but much much cheaper.
So it's not a country to earn lots of money for a few year in a small apartment like Tokyo, Singapore or HK, it's more a country to live in with your kids after trying a few other Asian countries.
humans arent created equal unfortunately
do you even know what stocks are?
I didn't vote these people in, and opposed Obama every step of the way as he siphoned off $10 Trillion to his buddies. Governments operate by creating dependency. I would rather have no government at all than what we have now.
And yes, our infinite credit card does have a master, and that is Saudi Arabia. Part of the larger problems in the Middle East, and the West, is the result of that.
In theory it's about how rich people spend money.
It reality, they don't spend the money, they hoard it. It doesn't trickle anywhere.
I just explained it to you, a legalized ponzi scheme
No, but it's literally evolution and natural selection, isn't it?
We respect people enough to expect them to be able to do something with their lives. Women and minorities can provide service to the world, and aren't your fucking pets, Pierre.
If i can make good money in France, i can make good money anywhere considering France have the most retarded work laws ever.
Incidentally, reading up on Japon's work law gave me a boner that have yet to subside.
So basically, you recognise Japon is better because it's full of human japanese instead of subhuman chinks, right ?
Seeking not merely to move, but become citizen of.
Japon seems like the best bet, taking all metrics into account along with long-term viability as a people and country, just wanting to make extra, extra, extra sure by extracting personal experience from random anons.
Metrics are good and all, but personal experience is vital to get a good picture.
>I have a question: how does trickle down work?
shit rolls downhill.
Trickle down economics is a bold faced lie, implying that if we give corperations larger tax breaks, they will give some of that saved money to anyone other than their shareholders (they won't)
Burgers are the first to jump in defense of this stupid economic system when it has failed you the hardest of all
You're 20 trillions in debt, you have two of the most profitable corporations (Apple and Google) who managed to evade tens of billions in taxes despite outsourcing the vast majority of their production, while importing foreign labour to work on their tech
Rich people haven't invested back into their country for decades, why do you think you need shit like FATCA ? Your country is being bled dry by the supposed investors in charge of making i rich. They just jam their money into Caiman bank accounts or use some bogus charity to launder it
And cucks like you or this guy jump right in to defend this complete bullshit like it's the best thing to happen to your country. You throw your own people under the wagon, you deny your own founding values of a country made for its people, and praise how it turned against its own citizens
Disgraceful
Tickledown works because of the multiplier effect. If you have a rich guy, he will spend more on consumer discretionary purchases. Which means lower class wage earners will benifit because service sector jobs will see wild upticks in both goods manufacturing and services done.
The problem is that
1. Offshoring means that all the economic profits are never actually spent in the country where wages cratered or slave wages were paid to develop the goods traded (hi China/Mexico/Russia).
2. Nobody wants shitty goods and everyone would rather take their Oligarch cash piles and go hide it in Art, Real Estate or other stuff which the FBI can not track for money laundering. Which breaks the whole "trickle down" effect.
3. which is why china put on fuck you capital controls, but even that proved a bad idea.
(Read more Zero Hedge)
Can you offer me anything beyond appeal to emotion and shaming, jose ?
I assure you that it's not working at all, in fact it keeps backfiring.
Logic, metrics, facts, well-rounded argument, anything even a little bit concrete to offer me ?
free market capitalism is
government intervention is required to stop the hoarding of resources (particularly by the lower class who dont understand its bad for the economy) and the creation of monopolies
as well as the concept of entity or department handling infrastructure (or name your department here), being answerable to the people (in theory) and following regulations being more efficient than wealthy individuals doing their own thing.
idk