Trickle Down Economics

Do RepubliCONs unironically believe in it?

Other urls found in this thread:

census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-130.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It's pretty sound if you think about it.

Businesses get a huge tax cut to give more incentive to open up more businesses, giving that area more jobs.

...

Ok, an who is gonna pay the taxes they aren't paying?

.

...

Well, you are. But you'll have good, steady employment.

And what's the kind of pay we get? Benefits? Unions? Yearly wages?

other countries that get looted

But trickle down economics does work retard.

Reagan becomes President in 1980.
30 years of trickle UP economics begins in 1980.
(see chart)

How does taxing businesses more help you become wealthier?

None of those, actually. Those are part of the reason why it's so expensive to maintain a business so they come from out of state to open businesses that don't have those.

"Trickle Down" is a term created by people against tax cuts who are trying to misrepresent the arguments for it.
If a govenrment is relying solely on taxing the income of its citizens, it's going to slowly fail, because you eventually run out of other peoples' money to steal. Consumption taxes and import tarifs are a much more fair and substaintial way to fund the government.

This is the most telling graph the is. Holy shit automation will kill all jobs in the future.

So let me get this straight.

They dump any kind of benefits, hire us for scrap wages, and then for THAT privilege we get to pay their taxes?

>Graph starts a 1980
When ever I see graphs like these, I just assume the decline started in 1967.

This is what commies think rich people do with their money.

>how giving money to people who know how to invest it works

What you really want are the endless buckets of nigger-chow served up to increase the Democrat slave numbers.

I guess you could have a revolution if you don't like it. But no, you will do what you always do: bitch about it on the net and then wake up and go to work tomorrow.

Your average welfare recipients lives with luxury Kings of old couldn’t even imagine.
Yes, it fucking works; how do you think people get rich in the first place?

>So let me get this straight.

They already pay way bigger taxes than you ,even though they use same infrastructure, police and army. They are literally punished for being wealthy. Most of industry owners made it up from nothing ,they've put effort to develop their product,then hired people and gave them secure life through payment and in the end cunts like you want to punish them for being brave and smart cuz muh communism.

simple solution, limit the size of the glass.
any citizen caught hoarding more than 100 million dollars gets the electric chair. their property goes to the state.

It's called trickle down, not flow down. Don't expect a huge windfall.

Protip: Your glass gets filled when you get a job.

>unemployment intensifies
Retards shouldn’t be allowed to look at graphs

you mean supply side economics

You mean supply side economics and yes it has great documentation showing that it works very well. "Trickle Down Economics" was what the leftist named it since they can't understand what supply side economics means.

Trickle down or voodoo economics is the original Bushism and its stupid. Here's how it works.

Corps dont pay tax and create jobs. Those working on the jobs pay taxes for government programs that protect them against the corps. The poor don't get shit.

And neither do the middle class. The middle class basically just pay into government schemes to benefit themselves hiding behind "but the poor" excuse.

You've got that shit backwards. The big cup is government. The smaller you shrink government the more things will flow to everyone.

As we all know, only 0.01% of the US population has a job and a house.

>libtard snowflake in her safe space is too lazy to fill her glass with her own wine

More news at eleven. But remember to donate, Bernie can still win!

Organize a collective bargaining agreement and really stick it to em!

Look at the x-axis.

Supply side economics work very well and there is a massive amount of documentation showing this. Only Marxist fags who ignore reality think supply side economics don't work. I bet you call it "Trickle Down" because CNN told you to.

>more incentive to open up more businesses,
If there's no additional demand, then expansion is fiscal suicide.

Most economists know that supply side is just an economic hoax to trick citizens, employees and consumers to pay the rent-seeking corporations' share of federal and state taxes. The feeble-minded fall for it every time.

The problem with this kind of discussion is that people will generally take things in terms of black and white or will just attempt to strawman the shit out of the other side.

The real question we should be asking is how do we incentivize business and workers? And how do we get the best quality of life for the average person?

Instead of going full gommunism or ancap memes we could talk about real solutions.

Trickle down economics? What School is this economic theory taught at?

>Ok, an who is gonna pay the taxes they aren't paying?

Who's going to stop buying shit there's no money for?

If Reagan didn’t have an open border policy trickle down would have worked for everyone. People seem to forget that Reagan was a bleeding heart.

>ok, and who is gonna pay the protection to the Mafia they aren't paying?

He also upped government spending which hurts the economy. If he had not done ether of those, the economy and the US people would have been far better off.

To be fair, they actually do that in China.

>.5% = filled

According to that chart Reagan's policies kept labor fair and Clinton fucked it up.

You lost all credibility of your words with that pic

>what are investments
>poorshit burger flippers think rich people pile their money up in bank like they do
Honestly adorable.

Yep every rich fuck throws money around into investments

I'm just tired of giving other people my money. Whether it's some parasite speculator, a nigger on welfare, or a government retard who will decide what offensive artist deserves it for being the most subversive to a stable society. Cut spending, cut taxes, and protect the border from spooks and spics, and the AVERAGE person's life will improve enormously, regardless of who is in power or what % of the total pie-chart people feel entitled to.

As far as what taxation plan works the best, haven't a clue, and not stupid enough to pretend that a graph will explain it to me while it ignores dozens of relevant variables.

libtards on suicide watch

Why all the hate on speculators. I do work as well, I speculate on the side.

Yeah, they do. Rich people who dont invest dont stay rich for long.

>The big cup is government.
The government has the 10% cup in the economy. The corporations have the 70% cup. If you don't understand math well enough to know which is bigger, 10% or 70%, then perhaps you should sit this one out and let the adults discuss.

>The smaller you shrink government the more
...corporations love it. They want to pay no taxes to increase profits, but that means they become free-riders at your expense. And they want Constitutional rights that are superior to you, because *fuck you* natural born Americans. And they want zero regulations so they can abuse the citizens, employees and consumers as they have always done.

Corporations write their own industry legislation and they know the GOP Congress will pass it because they have an army of lobbyists, billions in campaign cash and the GOP is still so endemically corrupt that they always win.

Investments are the cornerstone of wealth generation. The hard part is getting to point when you can live off them.

That's why argentina is a shithole.

Corps pays assloads of taxes.

>trying to be reasonable here
I envy your innocence new friend

>Supply side economics work very well
False. It's never worked at all.

>and there is a massive amount of documentation showing this
There's a massive amount of unfounded opinions. The data all prove that markets are demand driven.

> I bet you call it "Trickle Down" because CNN told you to.
You're even wrong about this. It was called "trickle-down" during Reagan's term in office.


When every consumer in an economy produces more than he/she consumes the standard of living goes up.

The production of the average worker in the US has gone up 400% since the 1950s.

The income of the average household has risen less than $10,000 during that same period.

When too much of the wealth in an economy is redistributed away from the consumers to the capital owners it's called wealth concentration.

Supply-side economics suggests that production, regardless of demand, is good for the economy. It's used to justify wealth concentrations that are parasitic to the economy and particularly harmful to wage-earners

Supply-side is a hoax. Positive economics and common sense prove time and again how demand drives production in every market economy.

The gov is more like 25%. And you're just pulling shit out of your ass about corps.

Possibly the stupidest idea I have ever heard on Sup Forums.

>No one invest their money.
How does it feel to be that dumb?

You also don't account for the creation of the internet boom under Clinton. All technological shifts cause a increase of wealth. Clinton got lucky and it has nothing to do with his policies

Jesus Christ that's terrifying

Anyone who uses hourly wages instead of total compensation is trying to shill you.

>Let's conveniently leave out the 51%-99% bracket to make this graph look really scary to communists so we get their votes.

>Corps pays assloads of taxes.
Not in America they don't. They evade taxes, ship their cash offshore, open tax havens, engage in tax inversions and a number of other unethical tricks. Meanwhile you and the rest of us make up the difference of what the corporations fail to pay, or the deficit grows.

No. “Trickle down” is a term invented by the left. The actual economic theory is called “supply side economics” and is the theory that if you give apple 350 million dollars they will creat a product people want and jobs to build said product. The liberal version is to give every American $1 to spend at Walmart.

As I understand it, American "liberals" believe in trickle down economics more. Taxing people to death and hoping the returns "trickle down" to you, after said money has been confiscated, is not good economic policy.

Misinterpreting "the rich didn't get right by spending their money" to mean they have Scrooge McDuck style money vaults holding piles of deflating paper money, I think.

Cut welfare, it's not necessary.

As opposed to Obama and his 'trickle up poverty'?

Thank you, President Trump!

Citation missing.

Also, I love how in your picture the dumb waitress with the women's literature degree has to work for the rest of her life for getting a fake degree as a waitress. That's karma in action right there. Maybe beg your dumb feminist professor for the money back since they had no qualms in taking your money for a useless degree?? It's a women's issue, so I'm sure they'll stick together.

You're fearmongering you idiot. Corps pay a higher % of income of any group.

I hate fucking leftists that think Republicans are for the rich and corporations when graphs like these can pinpoint exactly when democrats take office.

>You also don't account for the creation of the internet boom
Technology does push the Production Possibilities Curve to the right, however the dot com bubble was just that, an excessive and irrational valuation of tech stocks that their profits and growth could not possibly support. We are seeing the exact same P/E ratios with today's stock market. It will crash and the Middle Class will once again be left holding the bag while the .1% snatches up all the real estate, creating a new bubble somewhere else.

Conservasharts: retarded then, retarded now.... same shit, different day!!!

>If you have a degree and no job it's because you did women's studies, not because there's actually a shitty market
You do know that even STEM is oversaturated right now, right?

So does it work or does it not? Your graphs have caused me nothing but greater confusion

>yfw you ask them "What about Supply Side Economics?"

Globalization is what's happening. Money is still trickling down (rich folks/businesses certainly don't horde their cash in the bank), but it's being spent on foreign properties/investments so locals gets nothing.

we reduce spending

Well corporations like Mircosoft, Amazon, Google, Apple all stem from that economic period. They are the largest corporations in the world. Although I agree that wall street needs more regulation to prevent crashes

>Taxing people to death
Has nothing to do with Keynesian or Supply side economics. Thanks for playing.

It works, which is why they teach it in school and why most econ prof supports it. Trickle down economics is a made up term by leftist who doesn't understand economics.

Also I was indicating that most of Clinton's prosperity had to do with the dot com boom, not his magical policies

There's not single respectable economist who believes in Trickle Down theory. Even Thomas Sowell denounced it as political nonsense rhetoric and left-wing strawmanning.

Oh yeah? What percentage of corps do that you fucking moron?

I can guarantee you that the majority of corporations do not have or use tax havens and pay their taxes legitimately. A lot of corporations are mom and pop shops. A lot of corps make less than 200k a year.

> oh but Appl....

Apple is a multi billion dollar Corp that can afford lawyers and the best accountants money can buy to find tax loop holes. Meanwhile, us normal corp business owners just pay our taxes.

I get really annoyed with you Commie leftists fucks using bad apples to punish everyone. You pick out one example and try to brand us all like them.

If it’s so easy, why don’t you just start your own business?

Don't know much about trickle down but I work for myself and there are not to many poor motherfuckers that buy my products. Go Trump keep on bringing the economy back.

Yes, but that's a tiny minority, not the typical person with a degree working as a waitress. Also, ties nicely into my comment about protecting the borders. The real reason that wages have gown down over the last few decades is because with 10s of millions of surplus people, workers have no power. And still the liberal media will fill the air with bullshit about how we need more immigrants because Americans don't want to work.

This picture was made by someone who understands neither medieval nor contemporary economics. Do you know why the nobility existed then, and why there wasn't a French Revolution in fucking 1089? Because the nobility was the neccessary warrior class. The 99% worked the land to feed everyone because if they didn't everyone would starve. Meanwhile the 1% lived in relative luxury so they could afford the finest arms, armor and training to fight for the 99% if needed. Sure there wasn't any representation or shit like that (except maybe on the lowest city level and even then mostly for landed elites or very wealthy merchants) but given the fact that medieval society was more or less post-apocalyptic (existing in the shadow of the collapse of Rome until at least the high/late middle ages and the rise of citystates). They couldn't afford such luxuries.

The problem with the feudal system isn't that it was unfair per se, it's that it outstayed its welcome by about four centuries.

Reminder that Capitalism and Corporatism are two entirely different entities.

are you suggesting we should get rid of immigrants AND bankers? I like the way you think.

It works under specific conditions. Increasing the rich's share of income increases investment if and only if a lack of capital is the causal factor of a lack of investment. The problem is, in the US a lack of investment is as likely to occur due to political constraints.

>Yes, but that's a tiny minority
census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-130.html

Imagine insisting on something so demonstrably wrong just because it fits your ideological framework.

No, but confiscating wealth and hoping that it trickles back is the same argument used against supply side economic tax cuts. I only wager that liberals believe in it more.

right. American corporations ship their HQs, officies, and factories over seas to countries with lower taxes.

We raised taxes to get more revenue and we end up getting less.

If we lower taxes then they'll "evade taxes" again by coming to the US and we end up getting more.

All you have to do, is think about this problem for more than one step and it's obvious. But leftists dont really care about tax revenue they care about what the enshrined number, that is the tax rate, says about the moral character of the citizenry.

Corporatism is a subset of capitalism.

And the economy was better under him than jimmy. You are correct FYI

reminder that trickle down is a strawman. no one believes in it. reminder that the middle class gets a tax cut too. people just dont want to pay to feed niggers