Trickle down economics is the engine that can drive trump’s populist agenda

Trickle down economics is the engine that can drive trump’s populist agenda.

It’s your money why is the government taking it?

Trickle down economics without a secured border is harmful to the lower class.
Do one then the other.
Not both at once.

What the fuck is that graph supposed to be saying?

If we start taxing wealthy people then the bill eventually falls on the poorest in society

How?

It says $

That’s as far as I got

Wealthy people buy goods that working class people make.

If wealthy people have less money to buy goods from the working class then the working class suffers

Stfu the chart says $

You see $ going up? If it is then it’s because of Reagan. If not then communism or/and democrats.

You know who also buys goods that working class people make? Working class people. Why do you think that wealthy people would need so many more of these things than do non-wealthy people? Maybe a wealthy person has 5 TVs instead of 1, does that mean he's work 5 non-wealthy people?

Trickle down economics is the buzzword that can drive media’s socialist agenda.

>quietly floods country with shitskins
>hehehe look at this graph a first grader made and suck rich cock
>just forget they use their money to spread degeneracy and encourage the browning of your countries

youre not allowed to question pro amnesty republicans like reagan and trump

"Trickle down economics" is merely a term used by leftists, it's not a theory.

Leftists doesn't even know basic economics.

I can always spot the underage. Trickle down economics was a Democrat lie. Republicans never said it. Now occupy democrat teens repeat it because they don’t know any history.

Oh? Explain this. Reagan never said those words, but the policies he championed are completely described by them.

Wtf don’t you see the huge $ on the chart up there?

>he doesn’t understand the difference between connotative and denotative words
This is some basic high school tier stuff dude.

...

Jesus what a cunt

I'm not sure which is more absurd, the idea that if you give government money it will come trickling down to the poor, or that if you give it to the elites money it will. How about the State repeals their income taxes and we all have a chance of making money through voluntary transaction?

Furthermore, 'trickle down' is a gross misunderstanding of supply side economics. We do not want corporate subsidies, we ought to seek production incentives on the supply side by lowering taxes for all and decreasing regulatory burden.

>w-why would I bother explaining when it's so easy? you don't know? well you're an idiot then
Wow you've conconvinved me, I'm fully replilled now.

If you don't understand the basics, it's not my job to explain to you the nuances of macroeconomics. Overcome your burger education or go back to playing vidya games, you're out of your element here.

Fuck your trickle down bullshit and implement a goddamn FLAT TAX!

>Flat tax 50%
>Rich makes 300 mill
>Pays tax
>Still has 150 mill
>Middle class joe makes 50k
>Pays same tax
>Now only has 25k
Flat tax is trash, moron

So it's not about equality and fairness then? A flat tax is fair, progressive tax is not. Progressive tax is cancer.

Working class people in China, maybe.
America's working class doesn't produce shit, they just serve food and stock shelves with shit the rich imported.

So it's fair to take away some guy's 150 million but it's not fair to take away some other guy's 25k?
Eat shit and die, you commie cunt!

trickle down economics is a trick to help the rich jew more money out of literally every other person in the country. there's a reason america's best and brightest years were the ones following WW2 when taxes on the wealthy were the highest they'd been in the nation's history.

because the government will still take my money, at least under the GOP plan.

why are trumpcucks such bootlicking fairies?

>take away 150 million from dude
>dude still has 150 million, far more than enough to live a comfortable secure lifestyle with plenty of extras
>take away 25k from a dude
>dude now only has 25k, needs to live paycheck to paycheck with zero safety net and severely limited options in things they can do

So why does not every country set taxes to 100% today? Instant prosperity!

but that's wrong. poor/working people buy goods. wealthy people park and hoard their wealth to generate more wealth. at best, its invested in something that could "trickle down" but 50 years on practice have demonstrated this to be false virtually across the board.

>muh slippery slope
>that flag

keep flippin those burgers and lickin those boots, cletus

>take away 150 million, 6000 times more than 25k
>guy still has 150mil

Yeah what's the problem? The dude with 25k can get a better job if he wants more money. How about we don't tax people at 50% to begin with, that way they have more money. You argue like it's the person with 300mil's fault that the other guy can only earn 50k.

>this person doesn't support endless handjobs for rich jews born into wealth that have never worked a day in their life
>lemme shitpost a dumb extreme to strawman their point that'll get em

Trickle down economics it's a 1% bullshit.

99% misery.

Pray tell, why aren't every country on earth doing that? Clearly, that argument proves that the higher taxation we have, the better the economy will be.

It's not a trick, it's a joke.
No one who supports it uses the phrase "trickle-down" with a straight face. They're laughing at us because the government is their bitch and they can use it to steal our money and funnel it into their pockets with impunity.

They call it "trickle-down" because "the middle class can go fuck themselves" is a bit too on-the-nose to be quite as funny.

So what if someone is born into wealth? Should we punish kids of rich people merely because they're kids to rich people?

Retarded nigger commie.

KYS commie faggot

So what the fuck does that guy do that makes him 6000 times more important in terms of earning power than the other guy? Also
>just get a better job! ignore that rich fucks have shipped them all to third world countries to reduce manufacturing costs and then pocketed the vast majority of the savings!

How is it punishing them to leave them with 150 million dollars for doing nothing in their life other than being born into wealth? They haven't done shit to earn it.

Tax cuts for everyone!
Just don't look at this chart, debt-serfs.

Lowering taxes will result in much more net family income.
The black line below the red projects net family income if they didn't lower taxation.

>what does he do
Statistically it's very likely he's working harder and longer than the guy earning 50k.
Who are you to decide how important someone is or not? Clearly the guy must do something important to someone if he's earning that much. Whether that is providing a hedge fund with algos or selling socks to people.

Who are you to decide who has earned what? I don't think you have done shit to earn a life, therefore you should be put to death.

>Commie faggot.
>The wealthy will share their money with us
>It's not us making money for ourselves.

Poor people are human garbage that offer nothing to society, which is why they are poor.

The problem cant be solved by cutting income, you have to cut spending, the idea that youre going to grow your way out of the ridiculous debt you have is stupid, cut spending you fucks

the problem with trickle down is it only works under a perfect scenario where companies are nationalistic and the American market is their primary and biggest concern, and where they actually care about the country as a whole and therefore are willing to invest more in it when they have extra profits, instead of just saying "yay, more profits!" and letting wages slide so they can get even more.

even in the 80's this wasn't really the case. you had some leftovers from the 50's and 60's who might've applied that theory, (and in general, our economy was still fairly self contained, we allowed imported goods, but our companies still made things here) which is why the 80's were relatively prosperous, but the 80's also popularized the "greed is good" philosophy in banking and business, which resulted in boomers ruining the economy to fatten their pockets, and abusing every advantage they can get to make more, which includes offshoring the entire manufacturing sector, the heart of postwar American prosperity

>statistically he's working 6000 times harder or longer than the other guy by sitting in front of a computer trading money that isn't his, trust me despite providing zero sources
>immediately turns around and says you can't decide who's earned what despite defending and saying the dude earning 6000 times more than another dude obviously earned it
i don't even know why i bothered trying to argue with someone using a fucking gadsen flag and expected an actual debate instead of pointless shitposting.

VOODOO ECONOMICS

saving a nice concise summary of why trickle down is bullshit, thanks mate

>one should only be paid for how hard (subjectively decided by some retarded commie) one works
He's working hard enough to earn 300 million, I don't see the problem. Clearly someone is willing to pay him 300 million a year or he's working hard and smart enough to earn 300 million himself. Maybe he was just lucky and is now making 300 million a year, it doesn't really matter.

Learn basic economics and come back.

>wealthy people park and hoard their wealth
>investment in business doesn't provide business with more capital to hire workers and expand production
>working class people don't benefit from increased economic activity and hiring resulting from said investment
want to know how I know you're not wealthy?

Its Garbage.

Our current understanding of money is also utterly trash. Most economic models don't actually factor in money and do their best to find ways to not model it.

Keynes was right in that the slump of the 1930's was caused by the preceding bubble, leading to a loss of investor confidence, and thereby years of economic stagnation, and massive under-utilization of Capital.

Aggregate Demand, is the amount of money spent within the economy, and this is the important thing.

Do tax cuts lead to economic growth? Ceteris Paribus yes.
Why?
When you tax, you are removing money from the economy. If you tax less, then more money remains in the economy.
However, if you tried to then balance your budget, like retards for ever £/$ cut in taxation, a corresponding £/$ is cut from existing state spending.

This is why tax cuts don't ever work. The Government will cut taxes, and then will attempt to cut their own spending as well.

Honestly it would be better to do away with the terminology of taxation, and spending as its misleading. The main reason that money is taxed, is so that there is not a drastic increase in money floating around in the economy. Otherwise put, money is taxed to prevent inflation.

The question shouldn't be, where will the Government get the money? Money is created out of thin air when banks issue a loan. All banks require to make a loan is a % of reserve Capital.
The main cause of the current slump, is that Governments cut their forecast spending, meaning that there was less consumer spending, and accordingly businesses cut back their own investment projects seeing that if they made them, they would not make a profit. Along side this, we have taken on so much individual debt(not Government debt), that we have reached the point where Banks aren't creating money with loans, because people are only accepting loans at the rate they are paying their loans back. In monetary terms this creates a large deflationary pressure with most inflation due to QE

>You argue like it's the person with 300mil's fault that the other guy can only earn 50k.
poor earnings and work prospects are never the fault of the worker who didn't bother to obtain marketable skills goy. It's the responsibility of government and society to make sure those without marketable skills or with an untreatable genetic disorder (read black) are supported with programs.

>benefits of low taxation takes roughly 15 years to effect alter debt to gdp ratio
The only problem I see is that we can't go over 12 years without the DNC raising everyone's taxes to feed the niggers.

>When you tax, you are removing money from the economy.

But that's wrong. The government is part of the economy. It buys things just like everyone else.

>Poor people are human garbage that offer nothing to society, which is why they are poor.
This is undeniably true. If they had skills, knowledge, or abilities that the market desired they'd be paid well for them. Unfortunately, sitting on ass and getting diabetes isn't a marketable skill.

>The government is part of the economy. It buys things just like everyone else.
>giving money to the government as a passthrough to niggers is an efficient means to stimulate economic activity
It only works well if you're selling skittles and purple drank.

Your an idiot.

Assume a Government runs no deficit or surplus. Tax removes money from the economy. However, then this money is then immediately spent again.

If a Government runs a deficit, then they are spending more than they get in taxes, thereby introducing new money into the economy.

If a Government attempts to run a surplus, then they are taking money from the economy, and are not spending it, ie they are removing it.

Please stop being retarded.

Maybe there's an optimal level of taxation between 0% and 100%?

CAPTCHA: a. zoli ROAD

>establish progressive tax
>take $250 million from rich dude
>he uses his other 50 million to move his business to China
>take $0 from dude the following year
>guy who was making 50k now making 0k

The rich being rich isn't a problem so long as they aren't hoarding the money. If you want people to be better off, saturate the labor market with jobs and increase the value of a worker. The only way you're going to do that is by promoting both small and large businesses. This "gibs me dat" mentality where you justify taking anything that a person doesn't need is the absolute fastest way to turn the US into a 3rd world shithole that punishes success and rewards mediocrity.

>man works hard and saves up money to buy cattle
>breeds the stock, milks the cows, and slaughters the bulls once they've produced enough offspring
>sells the meat, milk, and cattle to earn back operating costs
>operates business with family for years, eventually starts making enough money to purchase luxuries like nice clothes, shoes, and an automobile

[in sub-Saharan African shithole]
>neighbors living in poverty start to get jealous of his success
>one day, all of the men in the village grab their machetes and slaughter all of the man's cattle, dividing the meat amongst themselves
>eating like kings for a week, they pat themselves on the back for getting their fair-share of prosperity
>one month later, everyone back in destitute poverty including the farmer

[in a functional first world nation]
>man is lauded for his thriftiness and is allowed to reap the rewards of his hard work
>his business grows, to the point that he and his family can no longer maintain the farm alone
>other men and women in the village are hired as farm-hands, cattle truck drivers, etc
>more business comes to the region, in order to deal with the influx of people wanting to trade, inns and restaurants are opened
>a village that was once destitute is now prosperous

0% seems optimal to me.

If you want a return to feudalism, sure.

Oh I forgot the u're

>When you tax, you are removing money from the economy.
Hold on. The government spends the tax money on infrastructure and gibs, thereby returning it in the economy. It's not like they're sitting on that money forever.

The government must either run at a deficit or a surplus. If they run at a deficit they print more money, if they run at a surplus they're hoarding money.

Again see (You) but without you being an idiot.

The act of taxation is to remove the money from the economy. In the same vein, spending money is introducing money into the economy.

Taxation and Spending is ultimately just a redistribution of wealth, from companies and individuals who pay the tax, to whomever, or whatever the Government spends the money on.

It is important to think about money in these terns however, because unless you do, you get fixated on plebeian bullshit such as: Where will the money come from?
It comes from the central banks.

A Government spending more money than it gets in taxes, results in inflation, as more money is spent before, than previously on the same level of wealth(Ceteris Paribus).

The current economic shit storm is entirely about the fact that Governments are trying to balance their budgets, while at the same time, Banks are getting more money in repayments, than they are creating in the form of new loans, which would be spent in the economy.

Governments cutting back spending.
Banks not issuing loans(the UK for example has 320% private debt to GDP).
This has resulted in Aggregate Demand falling, and stagnating, with no company wanting to invest, as they'd simply create capacity, that there wouldn't be the demand for.

>slaughters the bulls
>not selecting the best to replace current breeding bull and castrating the rest to sell to stockyards and small family farms for feeders.
I wouldn't recommend that you start a dairy anytime soon user.

What a crock of shit. A wealthy person with more money is only that, they aren't spending all that they have so more just pads their stock portfolio and whatever. It's the poor who spend every penny and support the economy.

Fortunately, I don't have to since I live in a functional nation that has job opportunities suited to my skillset.

>job opportunities suited to my skillset.
perhaps you should keep your examples closer to your skillset so you don't sound like a retard

>they aren't spending all that they have
If they did that they would no longer be wealthy.

There is an element of truth to statement.

Those with savings are able to invest in Capital, which directly benefits the poor (and sometimes) creates new wealth.

The fallacy is that this money is always spent, and spent domestically. Those with money will try to retain as much of it as possible.

If the market structure is one where you need to be proactive with your money or lose it's value over time to inflation, then the rich having this money will benefit the poor.

However, the current market structure is the rich and wealthy pumping up a set of absurd asset bubbles, such as housing, and commodities, making these unviable for the poor to then purchase. That is the problem, not the wealthy in and of themselves.

>Its your money why not just funnel it to rich jews directly.

Not a whole lot of sub-saharan African villages do large-scale chemical processing. I'm not sure what you hope to gain by autistically nitpicking a single line in a greentext that has little impact on the central point. You should make investments and let your money grow, not treat the businesses in your nation as piggy banks to be broken open whenever you want your gibs.

wew lad, I missed

see:

Very true. The more the top 1% spend the more middle class jobs are created. Lower the taxes on that top 1% and they can spend more. Lower the taxes on the middle class and they get to start spending more as well which will in turn create more jobs. Those new second round jobs create more middle class people who get to spend for a third round ect ect.

How haven't democrats figured this out yet? Oh that's right, they want poor people to stay poor and vote for them. As long as democrats look like they are helping poor people they will vote. As long as poor people don't have to work and get free shit they will the poor people will vote Democrat every time.

>wealthy
>no money
?????? Sorry but wouldn't it be harder for lower and middle class people to spend when they already have less money?

>shipped them to all to third world countries to reduce manufacturing costs

I'll let you sit on your own words for a while. I'll give you all the time you need to figure out why top-down economics works.

Fucked up my previous post, so let's try again.

Not a whole lot of sub-saharan african nations that do large scale chemical processing. That being said, autistically nitpicking a byline in a post with a largely unrelated central point doesn't accomplish much.

Except this never happens as for every $ cut in taxes, a $ is cut in Government spending. Both taxes and spending changes then zero-sum and all that has happened is no economic growth, merely a change in distribution.

And what's wrong with that? Government takes less so they have to spend less. Meanwhile average every day joes like you and me get to spend a little more. That extra few hundred bucks a month might make the difference in buying American made or some crap from china. It might mean better quality meat vs some crap from Walmart.

This >spending more as well which will in turn create more jobs
Is incorrect.

The level of aggregate demand would remain static. The laughable idea that people will all of a sudden begin buying American again, as your back up argument shows how weak your position was to begin with. That's really the best you could come up with?