Muh trickle down

Can you explain this, capitardist?

>Short answer: You cant
>Long answer: You cant

...

Who are you quoting on the top half?

profit trickles up
investments are made first in the hopes they will make a profit.

I don't know buddy. But whenever my boss pays me it sure looks like trickle down.

When did Sup Forums become a megaphone for Occupy Democrats?

Saged

No glass can grow like that.

Lmao there should be a cap on savings at 10 billion. So rich people spend

>glasses beneath move because they are not getting wine
>top glass falls and breaks

...

I fucking hate Commies and /leftypol/ and all those other kikes, but the commie is right.

"Trickly down econ" works as well as "Trickle-up econ" ... e.g., it doesn't.

Wipe out the debt and start over. Its seriously the best way of doing things.

>10billion
There should be a total assets cap of $20,000,000.

Any wealth over this is confiscated.

Fucking destroyed

Yes, thats a graphic designed to falsely illustrate matter magically disappearing in to a determined space, when in reality the other glasses would (and do) fill up.

Bait

If you want to get mad about our economics anyway you should know the actual bullshit.

You can't collect on your full social security until you're 66, they drop your insurance at 65 forcing you to collect gimped social security or choose be uninsured for an entire year which is now illegal.

On top of this your money is basically a worthless goy token that represents government debt to banks. Your work goes to paying off the government's debt to bankers.

Liberals say trickle down only works when the government does it.

Liberalism is a mental disorder

Daily reminder that "Trickle down economics" are a lefty strawman.

Trickle down is just a way to trick dumb amerilards into thinking they actually get something out of not taxing the rich when the reality is that the rich people save their money instead of spending it. That's why they're rich in the first place.

Fucking retard, it's not money that trickles down, it's investment. When rich people invest, they convert their wealth into different forms, typically into the form of jobs so that poor uneducated niggers like yourself can work. YOU are the investment here. And just like any investment, if it pays off they will make money. But that doesn't mean you are worse off because you have a job now and are also making money. Retard.

Pls,post more pictures like that,i need increase my folder.

The 'fat cat' is the bottle of wine in this analogy.

Give a poor person 100 dollars and they'll buy 3 plastic snowmen from Walmart.

Explain the roaring 20's then. They were a result of trickle down when it was still called scientific taxation. RIP Andrew Mellon. Viva Capitalism.
>in b4 great depression which was caused by the federal reserve AKA central (((communist))) banking

The basic gist of the theory, "trickle-down economics", is that with a greater potential to invest, as a result of cutting taxes for the wealthiest individuals, wealth should ultimately be distributed more equally "down" the chain of production, increase income for lower classes, and revenues (economic growth). In practice this has never been the case and data has shown that the only thing achieved by "trickle-down economics" is an increase in the disparity of wealth between the wealthiest individuals, the middle class, and the lower classes, at a more accelerated rate too. See reaganomics, "supply-side economics", and how it essentially killed the middle class in America. If such economic theories worked in practice you would see an increase in the middle class, yet the opposite was ultimately achieved.

It is based on the presumption that the wealthiest individuals WILL invest the extra money, but the reality is they still spend the exact same amount regardless of tax cuts, and what they spend in is usually not out of the goodness of their hearts to create jobs, but to make profits for themselves. Most wealthy individuals do not make money through the creation of industry, they make their money in the buying and selling businesses, liquidating assets, the real-estate markets, trading in the money markets, and so on. The rich are not rich because they care about the working class, and only a fool would think so. In short, the wealthy get richer, and the poor get poorer.

Have a (you), smartypants

>In practice this has never been the case
Except in the 1920's and the 1990's in the US.
>an increase in the disparity of wealth between the wealthiest individuals, the middle class, and the lower classes
If the poor get richer at a rate faster than inflation then who cares how much faster the rich got richer? You're being juvenile here.
>See reaganomics, "supply-side economics", and how it essentially killed the middle class in America.
I've seen it in action and it worked the way it was supposed to. It didn't kill the middle class it moved them up into the upper class. The classes aren't demographics, they're statistical categories, learn the difference.

"Imagine a political system so radical as to promise to move more of the poorest 20% of the population into the richest 20% than remain in the poorest bracket within the decade? You don't need to imagine it. It's called the United States of America." - Thomas Sowell

Get a job, you stupid communist.

People should have a maximum wealth limit, the excess should be taxed 100% and redistributed in wealth grants, some grants will be in shares of property or funds that earn income for wealth that is tied up in businesses.

So no companies can exist

Google is worth well over that limit along with any company that is tech based

There is no such thing as ''trickle down economics''. That is a liberal strawman.
People pay for goods. People who produce goods pay people to work for them.
There is no magic wine bottle pouring wine in an expanding glass.

>Communist doesn't understand economics.

Imagine my surprise.

Also, slide thread. Get informed, faggots. We're trying to save the west.

...

...

saged for stupidity and faggotry

"trickle down" really isn't a concept up for debate. commies try to pretend it is, but it's actually 100% solid economic theory.

if there's no money at the top, there's no economic growth and job creation

that's why liberal paradises like sweden finance their social programs through MASSIVE wealth inequality, and have almost half the tax rate on the top decile that we do in the US. the riches make jobs, GOOD jobs go to "poor" and middle class, then the government makes its money by taxing those groups, thus funding all of their successful welfare programs, which the left loves, and which socialist bernie sanders says "we should be more like sweden!" without ever recognizing how it's even done.

there's no question about it. it's not a discussion of "maybe trickle down economics works, maybe it doesn't". it's economic theory 101 and if you try to take money from the rich people you will end up starving your entire citizenry......which is what happens in socialism and communism...........

Most companies pay far more in wages to workers than they retain in profits per share after tax.

The "capitalists" are keeping a minority of the money, and paying a majority to the workers.

Communists aren't happy with the capitalists keeping a minority share of profits, and want them to keep ZERO. Communists think capitalists should contribute capital FOR FREE, and that workers should receive ALL the profits instead of just a majority of it.

Look this up yourself, check wages paid by Wal Mart or most other large corporation and compare it with after-tax profits. Wages paid are far higher.

>The basic gist of the theory, "trickle-down economics", is that with a greater potential to invest, as a result of cutting taxes for the wealthiest individuals, wealth should ultimately be distributed more equally "down" the chain of production
this is a total lie. "wealth inequality" is not supposed to be "more evenly distributed" in trickle down economics. there is supposed to be massive wealth inequality because the more money is at the top the more opportunities end up being created for those at the bottom.

so everyones quality of life goes UP (as opposed to communism and socialism, where everyones quality of life goes DOWN). but people like you just can't deal with seeing some people be really successful, even if it means that the poor people and plebs are doing really well (in the US even most of the poorest of the poor have fucking iPhones today) and so you want to ruin it for everyone.

western capitalistic society has essentially provided the highest standard of living that any organism has ever experienced, ever, and it's still not good enough for kids like you

i dunno. good job i guess. if you genuinely hate yourself, the world and want everything in it to burn, good job. you've done a good job creating that difficult situation for us :(