You might hear these arguments a lot.
Trickle down economics don't work!
Reaganism is bullshit.
It only makes the wealthy wealthier.
Supply side theory is bunk.
If trickle down economics doesn't work, and doesn't benefit the middle and lower class. Then I ask, what happens to the middle and lower class when large businesses and the wealthy lose money?
If their gains don't represent your gains, why do their losses represent your losses?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Seems to be doing pretty good.
What do you hope to gain other than a distraction from your hopelessly unfulfilling life?
This.
Typical leftie panic.
Trickle down economics is a strawman.
"share of income" is a pretty bad measure to use if everyones income is going up overall and their quality of life is vastly improving (which is what has happened in the US since we started using this system).
also if "trickle down economics" doesn't work, then the left has to disown their beloved sweden and all of the european utopias that they act like are socialist paradises, because in reality those nations are NOT socialist and they use "trickle down economics" AKA "reaganomics" AKA low taxes on the rich and higher taxes on the middle class to stimulate their economy to the point where they can actually afford and pay for those systems.
so it's just a silly argument no matter how you slice it. to say "reaganism is bullshit" is just insane. the truth is that "trickle down economics" and "reaganism" are just memes the left thought up in order to distract from the fact that this is actually all economics 101. It's not "trickle down" or "reaganomics" it's literally the most basic tenets of 101 economic theory. give money to the rich so they can grow the economy, provide jobs, and create a better standard of living for people beneath them. it literally provably works all over the world no matter how you slice. there's no discussion even to be had about it.
it's just so funny how literally all of the places liberals point to overseas and say "look at countries like sweden! we need to be more like them!" all use literal "reaganomics" and "trickle down economics" in order to fund themselves and grow their economy. and then the same retard leftists, who genuinely don't understand the first thing about economics, or politics, or just generally the world around them, turn around and whine about "muh reaganomics" and "muh trickle down economics boo hoo hoo hoo".
Pretty much.
True Capitalism has never been tried
Supply side works without a central bank. It had worked only up until the FED and FIAT currency came into the picture.
Nice strawman you've made there.
To quickly address your point... if a company posts a loss for a quarter or a year, do the employees pay out of pocket, or do they still get paid their salary?
Would you still feel entitled to share in corporate profits if it meant you'd need to risk making nothing, or even negative money for your work, should the company do poorly?
One company that does all of it's manufacturing in china gave away $300m in bonuses that are taxed at a 50%, ONCE after getting a 6.2 billion dollar a year tax break. Hey, give me $100 a year and I'll give you $2 now.
You're fucking retarded.
As russians say, the loh with an ego is a driving force of healthy capitalism.
You fags are as retarded as indians that sold their land for blankets and beads
I personally appreciate your well thought out comment but remember you’re on Sup Forums and have wasted your time against a bait artist
This is another point worth making, is that the people in the highest bracket of income almost always run the risk of losing money in a year. People within the absolute highest bracket either have the majority of their income as stock from the company that employs them, earn mainly through investments, have elastic demand and income for their work, or have put personal investments into their own company. To put it more simply, their income is variable year to year, and their risk of losing a significant amount of their wealth is higher as well. I can't entirely remember what study I was looking at, but for America, something like 8% of the population have at least a single year where they are in the top 1% of earners. A strange statistic that arises from all this, is that the wealthiest households in the country are also the most likely to report a loss for their income. Something that also is unclear about the perception of the "1%" group is that they are not the same exact people year after year, and people within that income bracket may shift in and back out of it over the course of their life. There are very few people, if any, that remain within the 1% permanently and do not have any degree of risk for their primary source of income. Just something else to consider when looking at stuff like this.
Salaries stagnate often under the inflation rate and bonuses/benefits are cut.
In extreme situations, the end result is lay-offs, so essentially employees already do risk making negative money. When a company goes belly-up and their pension plans vanish, that is a loss of previously earned income.
To say that employees do not take risks already is somewhat condescending.
It should also be asked what the objective of company profits are: business growth and shareholder profit. Employees are shareholders. They often stake their entire lives in the company that employs them, so are they not entitled to their profits as well?
a 100 times this
it's the economical equivalent of pocket sand
>One company that does all of it's manufacturing in china
Congratulations you have figured out where all the money is flowing in a global economy. This is called trickle down economics where the excess wealth of first world nations funds investment into third world nations.
>if everyones income is going up overall
...which it is not.
how do you explain away the last couple of months you uneducated swine?
Keep being a loser faggot posting shit like this instead of being in the market and reaping the same rewards.
If by chance the faggot who called $ARLZ a meme stock is reading this, how about now, nigger? Oh, just another $40k.
are you insane? oh i'm sorry, you looked at all of those graphs on the rachel maddow show and on all of those left wing blogs which told you that people make the same amount of money now that they did in the 1980s, right? oh yeah, cuz you know, people still make 12,000 a year on average, right?
in case you're too stupid to get it, those numbers rig numbers by jigging factors like inflation, consumer price index, value of the dollar and other things to make it seem like people aren't "making more money" now but obviously they are. if you look around at the difference in the standard of living between now and the 1980s they aren't even fucking comparable so just fuck off with your ignorant bullshit kid.
So let me get this straight, the people who RUN THE BUSINESS for the CEOs and such don't deserve to make enough to live, and should have to work sun up to sun down just to be able to scrape by because they didn't "risk" anything?
At what point of the day does the president of ANY company do ANY of the actual labor of the job he/she owns? At what point do half of the business owners actually ever work?
You do realize that every businesses quarterly reports are going to be less and less every year because people are scrounging to make ends meet? Businesses are failing because no one can afford to do anything except go to work, and eat, which is all you need, for sheep.
Capitalism isn't meant to help the country grow, it's meant for the already rich, the ones with insanely brilliant ideas, or the idiots backed with enough confidence from their peers to try and make a change, whether that be music, movies, or any other form of "entertainment".
I understand where you come from with risks needing to be taken, and it's their money, but at the end of the day, with a couple million dollars, I can now legally own someone through minimum wage jobs, and poor/non-existent benefits. How is that right?
>At what point do half of the business owners actually ever work?
If business owners don't ever work and it's so easy, why don't you become a business owner?
>every businesses quarterly reports are going to be less and less every year
This is provably false.
>Capitalism isn't meant to help the country grow
Yeah, you really got us with that one. I wonder how actual wealth and value is created in a country. By the creation of goods perhaps? If only there was a system which created goods in the most efficient manner possible, maybe that would help a country "grow".
>with a couple million dollars, I can now legally own someone through minimum wage jobs
A workers' time is subject to the free market as well, if you offer minimum wage and horrific conditions, people will leave your job for better positions. You'd have to do something like hire migrants, by offering better wages than they could get within their own country. Maybe you're right though and we should get rid of money as our medium for exchange and go back to bartering for food and water so that you can't simply use money to "own someone".
The problem with wealth is it doen't trickle down, it bubbles up
That's not true for Norway, for example. Rich get taxed the hell out of it there. Was even worse in the past.
>If business owners don't ever work and it's so easy, why don't you become a business owner?
you literally deterred the subject with a cliche argument. I worked for someone whose net revenue was 4.3m a year after he split with his brothers, he worked at his store for maybe 2 hours a day to make sure I did my job, and went home to watch Football, been doing this since he was 20 because he dad came from Iraq and got a big check to let him sit on his fat ass. Also, this was meant more towards the presidents of top 500 companies who bought their seat and collect a paycheck every day because they're trust fund babies, or hit the jackpot/can lie through their teeth.
>This is provably false.
So show me statistics that show the past decades profit margins in comparison to the decade when the top 1% were taxed 85%.
>Yeah, you really got us with that one. I wonder how actual wealth and value is created in a country. By the creation of goods perhaps? If only there was a system which created goods in the most efficient manner possible, maybe that would help a country "grow".
You're right about value and growth, but once capitalism gets to it's end game, it's literally monopoly. It's who can buy out ALL of the houses on the board before they own them all, and then, where is the free market? Because it's not here anymore. Can you go purchase a building, turn it into a department store, and compete with Wal-mart?? Answer is no because their prices are maybe a penny over cost, and you won't make enough in sales to beat out that market anymore.
>A workers' time is subject to the free market as well.
Read paragraph 3, there literally isn't going to be a free market in the next 15 years once they win this big game of monopoly.
you fucking idiot piece of shit just shoot yourself. you faggots listen to too much left-wing television and read too many left-wing blogs and watch too much dishonest young turks.
>got a big check to let him sit on his fat ass
There is no sensible economic system where possession of usable assets does not translate into further economic gain. Simply because it came in the form of either money or a business doesn't matter. It could be a cow and the situation remains the same. You'd have to undo property ownership laws completely to have anything make a difference and jack the estate tax up to 100%. Is that any better?
>Declining profit margins
This is indicative of COMPETITION within business segments. Opposing the story of "everything is a monopoly" you seem to mention.
>Can you compete with Wal-Mart??!?!!?
What are jet and amazon doing?
>There won't be a free market.
Major conglomerates are scary and do seem to be popping up pretty steadily, so there is some concern there. Don't know if a ballpark 15 years is an appropriate timeframe but things are moving pretty fast.
Is this where you try to convince me that me getting a tax break is a bad thing because someone richer will get a bigger tax break? I don't take on welfare and am a taxpayer, I don't care how much other people make.
I personally don't believe in trickle-down economics. Increasing the market value of labor is hard, but I know this neat trick to give you a 5% raise by taxing you 5% less.
And it's not like the government spends the rich's money any better with endlessly inefficient bureaucracies with politicians laundering it. You're trading one rich asshole for another, and the other asshole has the power to take your money be force.
...
...
>Supply side is bunk
>Reaganism is bullshit.
>Makes the wealthy get wealthier
Socialism worked well for Venezuela, didn't it? North Korea? Cuba? Sweden?
I can understand how you many feel this way, OP, if you already are convinced that you love collectivism. Of course you would think that it's bullshit despite having a skyrocketing stock market and record low unemployment. Of course a communist like you would think this is terrible.
Let's take income inequality to it's logical conclusion: A few people have all the money while 99% of the country starves. Am I describing a capitalist country or a socialist country?
stay mad kid
why does everyone think sweden is socialist? for fucks sake it is literally the polar opposite of socialism. they literally use "reaganism" and the rest to finance their social problems. they have extremely low taxes on corporations and on the top decile. they get their taxes mostly from the middle class. lots of economic freedom too, another thing dems and socialists hate.
it's basically about as right-wing a system as you can get economically. the social programs are the boons they're able to afford from embracing the basic tenets of economics, which is what the left ridiculously refers to as "trickle down economics", when in reality is just basic economics 101.
YOU FUCKING RETARDS, MY GOD.
TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS IS NOT A THEORY FUCKING ANYWHERE. IT IS A BULLSHIT FUCKING STRAWMAN INVENTED BY LEFTISTS AND COMMIES, WHO ARE FUCKING MORONS AND DON'T UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS HOLY SHIT.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO CORRECT THIS NONSENSE?!
Americans deserve to suffer
FUCKING THANK YOU.
Income Inequality:
Increase the number of social parasites=increased income inequality.
Income inequality is a bullshit pretext used to confiscate more wealth from WORKING people. Want to convince me to buy off on your ideology? Propose an asset tax on billionaires. Show me how serious you are about income inequality. But you won't, because you seriously don't give a fuck about anything but your spoon-fed ideology.
I'll give you the time of day when you shill for an annual asset tax for the Zuckerbergs, Buffets, Soros billionaires that think they can control us and serve us their version of reality. The first thing you should consider: IF YOU EARN A PAYCHECK, these are not the 1%. Go for the billionaires, trillionaires who live happily off of dividends and capital gains, you communist fuck.
Socialist country.
Does everyone eat so good as Kim Jong Un? Or how about Maduro? The party leaders ALWAYS pillage the country in the name of the collective but are never starving like the people they pillage.
>what ((they)) tell you: tax breaks aid the increase in production
>what ((they)) don't tell you: industries have organised into cartels and the oligarchs virtually dictate prices in the 'free' market
>high end pay outpaces low end pay
>what you can get with low end pay has improved in quality and relative cost
>low end pay has still increased too
>bunk
Only if you are a retarded commie
Exactly.
Hence the puppet masters: Soros, Rothchild, Buffet, Bezos.
Go for the head.
i disagree on the other aspect of reaganism though
rate/magnitude of consumption can NEVER be controlled through the supply side 'push'
>poos complaining about supply side
>despite American companies raising milllions upon countless millions of poos out of poverty since 1980
You guys deserve to be poor
>American companies raising milllions upon countless millions of poos out of poverty since 1980
source required.
stop shitting up walmart aisles for once faggot. americans have virtually sucked dry paki testes up until about a couple of years.
Lol are you fucking kidding?
Flat tax is the best tax.
It's working pretty well for the most part, but I think it's fair to say that we need to address the fact that a large portion of the super rich are taking advantage of the system without doing their part in return. Instead of investing in our economy and letting everybody share in their success a bunch of wealthy people invest in third world shit holes to further line their pockets from cheap labor and worst of all they outright dominate markets and make it impossible to compete.
The whole premise doesn’t hold water. Conservatives argue that cutting corporate taxes will lead to them hiring more workers, raising wages, and building new factories. I say that’s bullshit. First of all American corporations are more profitable, and sitting on more cash than any time in the last half century. They shouldn’t need a tax break to do any of those things. Let’s talk about wages. Wages go up when there are more jobs than people qualified to fill them, not because the company has some spare cash to throw around. Hiring more employees and building new factories happen when demand for a companies goods and services rise. Again, not when they just have some spare cash lying around. Ford isn’t going to build a new factory to produce another million F-150s unless there is already a demand for them. Spare cash will almost always go to stockholders and executive bonuses, because the CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to do so. Increasing profit margins is and always will be priority one. A tax cut like this is a free, instant bump to profit margins. What a tax cut like this will do is give the stock market a boost, because all these companies are suddenly going to be more profitable, and we’re already seeing that happen these past few months. So invest away, it’s the only way for middle class folks to make money off of this tax cut, unless you count the scraps that they tossed our way.
Well, your graph tells it all. It doesn't effect per capita gdp because segmented markets -it just luxury and investment items more expensive.