I have seen this floating around for a while now and I want to have an honest discussion on it.
Does Trickle down economics work?
If not why?
If so why?
Yes we can sit and circle jerk all day but I want to hear your opinion on it Sup Forums, is it just a scheme for making the rich richer or is there actual merit behind it.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
tsowell.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtu.be
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
It is the only moral way to encourage large scale growth of jobs.
wish some would trickle down into my wallet ahahaha x
Curious, could you explain further?
I apologize as I am a bit of a layman when it comes to these things and I am genuinely interested in it.
It works for the people pol is obedient to, the top 1%.
see for yourself
It's a bit of a scam and unfair but not complete BS. I imagine a lot of rich people don't hoard their money, and it's not inconceivable that would-be tax revenue that's spent/invested ends up being part of another person's paycheck.
Ok so explain your stance to me in laymans terms.
This is not shitposting, I would love to hear honest commentary on it and I would love to understand why it is such a divisive idea.
...
Trickle down economics is simply encouraging large companies to expand in their own self interest to make more money, giving them tax breaks so they have more money to spend. This expansion is what creates jobs.
It is not perfect, but all other proposals involve abusing taxpayer money, more government control, and manipulating markets, so it is the best for jobs.
It doesn't trickle.
The Panama Papers proved that. Pic related.
Here's a great explanation by the man Gordon Gekko was based on.
Ok, I see the logic in what you are saying, but what about what is saying.
Does trickle down economics promote people to hoard finances offshore and if so what should be done about it?
Is Bernie the only Jew not to understand economics? Someone better check his Hebrew credentials because I think he's a fraud.
While I applaud the race baiting comment I am genuinely interested in this topic.
From the way you made the comment you sound as if you are for it, could you explain why?
Trickle down economics relies on the rich actually being honest and having interest in the people, which many of them do not. If you give the job creators more money with no sort of regulation of where it goes, they'll just see it as a bigger paycheck and nothing more.
How much do you earn per shill post on Sup Forums?
93 gorillion
Trickle down economics is not income redistribution, it is simply encouraging growth through tax breaks, which, if there is a lot of growth, happens to be very good for people at the bottom. If rich people would rather keep their money then use it to expand their business they are welcome to, however tax havens are not a fault of trickle down economics, they are a fault of law in general. The higher taxes are, the more people will generally hide away.
OK so it is a theory that relies on people not being greedy from what you are saying.
Is there a way to incentivize people to not hoard the money and get them to actually spend it on job creation?
>is it just a scheme for making the rich richer or is there actual merit behind it.
people considered it a scam during the Reagan years, it was just some bullshit about your check is in the mail
No, seriously, how much do you earn? I simply don't believe people spread so much disinfo on such a a regular and consistent basis.
...
>Does it work?
In what way? It seems to work for the country at large, and for corporations, investors, and other "wealthy" parties. It /can/ create jobs, but if America is any example, it mostly creates low-paying jobs.
>Why?
Maximizing profits is the sole goal of corporations, but it does not incentivize the creation of jobs, and even when jobs are created, there is no drive to provide better wages.
It's only reasonable to expect corporations and their leaders / investors to focus on their own profits. It's the point, after all.
But there are too many ways to increase profits that do not require the creation of jobs, or the increase in pay.
Normally I think that an economic or political system just needs to be hybridized with others to get something more stable, but with trickle-down, it feels like it's conceptually "all or nothing".
as a red-pilled trump supporter, i recognize the trickle down jew as wool pulled over the sheeps eye
>this image
OH BOY here we go.
Question: What does the wine represent, and where does it come from?
I spread facts, not disinfo. That's why you haven't been able to prove me wrong once. You can't argue facts so you just try to come up with insane conspiracy theories.
I have hundreds more like this.
Go ahead. Reply again.
Wife and I are in the top 3%. It works for us.
>What does the wine represent, and where does it come from?
it represents money, money that is supposed to trickle down...
>honest discussion
>Asks about "trickled down economics" which is a made up, emotionally manipulative leftist strawman.
And that's when I noticed the flag.
Calling it "trickle down" economics instead of supply side economics is a good sign that you're a retard. Not that supply side economics is flawless, but there's no point in explaining it to someone who can't even identify it properly. In a sense yes Bernie is right that it does lead to income inequality, but unless you're a Marxist it shouldn't be that much of an issue for you.
No it doesn't try again.
What would you suggest in place instead?
Also could you further expand on the "all or nothing" in your statement?
If the increased profits resulted in job creation it would work but just as often it is reinvested into things like property or stocks which just inflates the price without achieving any extra demand.
In Ireland we had the wonderful situation of various insurance companies using their money to go into battle against each other, which achieved nothing except them all growing broke and now they need to be bailed out with public money since various insurances are mandatory.
Decreasing income tax on workers actually would result in more demands for goods and services but workers are one of the least mobile things in an economy. Reducing tax on things that cant runaway would be silly wouldn't it?
The rich and the jobs just fuck off if you tax them.
>sanders supporter talking about economics is the equivalent of leaning quantum mechanics from a 3 year old with Downs syndrome
It doesn't work if the borders are being removed like they are now as the rich aren't usually patriotic they will offshore the jobs. So it does create jobs but ones overseas
If we close the borders economically again it would work
Surprisingly enough this is not shitposting, I am genuinely interested and I want to understand it.
I see all this divisiveness on it and I want to understand why.
Facts can be disinfo, dear leaf poster.
I know, you don't believe that any recession occurred during the early 00s, and blame the poor NASDAQ performance on """"bush keeping us safe from 9/11".
"Trickle down economics" is a straw man from the left. No one on the right actually advocates for it, they don't call a plan involving tax cuts "trickle down economics." The term came from anti-Reagan Democrats, not from conservative economists.
What you're decribing is indirect market manipulation. There's nothing immoral about market manipulation, we should be doing what works best.
So what is a better idea would be to lower the tax on the working people and encourage them to spend that tax break on goods and services instead?
>supply side economics
Even that isn't really a thing. "Supply side" simply means you believe that Say's Law is correct, it says literally NOTHING about any other economic theories you hold or policy prescriptions. You could believe in Say's Law and be a hardcore Soviet-style communist just as much as you could be some laissez-faire libertarian type.
That's not what I said. What I said was most of the economic damage that occurred in 2001 was because Bush kept us safe on 9/11. I say the keeping us safe part to mock conservatives.
Why don't you answer this. The Clinton economy created over 23 million private sector jobs over 8 years. The best record in American history. Conservatives have convinced themselves this was all due to MUH DOT COM. So tell me this. How many of those 23 million+ jobs were lost when MUH DOT COM crashed?
Ever get paid by a guy who is poorer than yourself?
Didnt think so.
tsowell.com
read for yourself
...
And Ronald Reagan wasn't president in 1980. You can't blame reaganomics.
What actually happened is that Frederick Herzberg dif a study and wrote an article that sold a million copies. It told businesses that once you pay people enough, raises dont make them happier or more productive.
>implying revenue didn't increase during Bush's term and that spending didn't go up even higher
Oh leaf, you're so funny
Reagan cut the top marginal taxes on the rich by 2/3.
There's very little wrong with tax havens in the first place. You're not suppose to give the gov all of your money. If you're not using your money, it makes sense to keep it somewhere that's safe from taxes.
Starting to read it now, thank you for the link, you are the first person to actually do it and I appreciate that.
People forget the old axiom of "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Revenue decreased massively under Bush's term. What are you some kind of right wing retard?
Bush and the GOP Congress turned a $230 BILLION Clinton surplus into massive deficits.
Republicans are a tax cut and spend party.
Bernie sounds as retarded as this lady with Uncle Milton!
youtube.com
The rich are rich because they use their money to make more money. They will spend it as long as there are profitable opportunities to do so. The left wing has historically been massive retards when it comes to money. It's wise to be skeptical of anything they say about economics.
This is a pretty concise way of putting it.
It worked great for China. Our wealth trickled right down into their economy.
>What I said was most of the economic damage that occurred in 2001 was because Bush kept us safe on 9/11.
And that's a flat out lie, you ignorant syrupnigger. The market was already in a fucking recession during 9/11. Again again again, look at this fucking picture. Green square is the market crash result of the .Com bubble. The red is 9/11.
I'm not arguing against the jobs created during Clinton. Not at all. I don't fucking care who did it. I'm just calling you out on your disinfo; because you're a pathetic liar.
OK so this may appear to be a bit of a question that seems a little slow.
Why do you need to put money that is already taxed into offshore tax havens, can the fiscal profits of a business from a previous year be taxed again?
Have actually. Didn't find out til later but the business was doing poorly for awhile in the 08 crash and he was actually giving up his own pay and sold his house so he didn't have to lay anyone off or lower their wages
...
Yeah it works for pissing off libshits.
Hang on, the picture fails to upload.
No. Rich just hoard the money instead of investing it.
Supply side economics implies a belief in the Laffer curve though
You know... I'm not one to get conspiratorial but I always thought she was a plant.
She says exactly what Milton wants her to.
Anyways Milton was so completely full of shit.
You guys aren't actually going to defend this are you?
"They invest it in factories"
I thought all you right wing retards complain that the factories have been shut down.
So admit Milton was wrong.
They don't invest it. They hoard it. Pic related.
HOLY SHIT POL BTFO!
...
That's actually interesting, but I think the idea is that generally it doesn't happen: most people's bosses aren't veritable saints who would rather become destitute than harm their employees.
it won't work if you don't let the big guys fail once in a while
I told you already, this picture shows exactly what I'm saying. That 9/11 caused tremendous economic damage. You didn't know that?
Stop avoiding the question.
Why don't you answer this. The Clinton economy created over 23 million private sector jobs over 8 years. The best record in American history. Conservatives have convinced themselves this was all due to MUH DOT COM. So tell me this. How many of those 23 million+ jobs were lost when MUH DOT COM crashed?
Can you relax. I'm not always going to respond within 2 seconds. I'm posting in other places as well.
Just relax Olaf. Breathe.
Didn't you give me this picture btw?
You blew yourself out last time.
>can the fiscal profits of a business from a previous year be taxed again?
Yes actually. However most of the money in tax havens is money earned oversea that businesses don't want to send back to the US in order to avoid taxes.
So before he paid you, he was richer than you.
They invested in factories in third world nations fuckhead.
I have a legitimate question.
Because of one side consistently cutting taxes and then the other side rising taxes when they get into power do you think this has conditioned business owners to deliberately use tax havens to avoid the whole entire tax scenario?
Get ready for a shit post of the century. Basic income is the only way to go. We're stacking on trillion after trillion of debt, we might as well skip the middle man and give the money straight to the end point. Why go through the rich people so they can decide.
So Milton was the fuckhead.
>"They invest it in factories"
They do. You are so inconceivably stupid, I just don't have words for it.
> That 9/11 caused tremendous economic damage. You didn't know that?
Look at . It shows nothing of the like. It shows that the market DEFINITELY already in a recession during 9/11, and 9/11 had a MARGINAL effect on the slope of market indices.
YOU STOP avoiding the question.
>The Clinton economy created over 23 million private sector jobs over 8 years. The best record in American history. Conservatives have convinced themselves this was all due to MUH DOT COM. So tell me this. How many of those 23 million+ jobs were lost when MUH DOT COM crashed?
Around 2 million, if you want to believe the department of labor. I'm not fucking arguing this you dumbfuck. What is your point with this question?
>What would you suggest in place instead?
Actual taxation.
Somehow incentivizing the creation of jobs and increases in pay.
Not that it matters at all unless you can get tax enforcement under control.
What some of you do not understand is that people with plenty of money now use the government to protect their wealth via Moral Hazards and Regulations. In a true free market people like George Soros would have to invest his capital in real productive business's to get a return instead of hedge funds guaranteed by the government. Its the government that is making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class non existent. Why do you think all the people at the top are so against free market Politicians like Ron Paul and Trump? And love Politicians like Hillary and Obama, its because people like Hillary give them advantages they could never get in a free market.
listen to the soothing economics man
Then the question is this, if you stopped taxing profits that have already been made then would this encourage companies to keep money in country rather than offshore?
(Example, if you earned $400,000 after tax in 2014 then that $400,000 does not need to be declared in 2015)
Also what could you do to encourage businesses to bring that money that they are holding offshore back into the country?
Not really because the corporate tax hasn't changed since I think 1986.
Corporations have only gotten more and more loopholes since then.
The up and down has mostly been with the top marginal tax rate. They've been fairly minor changes. Nothing extreme.
As that many disappears into offshore havens, not only does the economy get weaker, the velocity of money slows down, but the worst part is the lower and middle class
That's why raising wages is the best way to stimulate the economy imo. Buffett prefers expanding the Earned Income Tax credit. I'd recommend doing both.
>Does Trickle down economics work?
Does putting all your heaters during winter into one room and letting the heat trickle down from room to room warm up every room?
Trickle down economics is what idiots who know nothing about economics call "supply side economics"
The government making less money doesn't mean that money isn't "trickling down". The money isn't "trickling down" but it's not because the hurr durr republicans. Republicans are shit but so are democrats and they're both responsible for the shit thats happened. But ideally if all other factors are held constant then the money will be trickling down.
It does not work. It refuses to realize that people do profit without work and are actually hurting production. Tax cuts and tax increases won't do crap. The problem is the infinitely growing capital of loan capital There is too much money in the economy. There is more loan capital than production capital. Sharing the wealth is a delusion. lets say cards can get use a slice of bread. There are 52 cards. I own 32the rest own 1. We can share the wealth all we want but it doesn't change the fact that there is one slice of bread and that the price for it is high. 21 people can't eat one slice of bread. Going back to a gold standard is bad because it will be too deflated. Productive capital is finite but loan capital is infinite. Real wealth comes from production not currency. The wealth doesn't trickle down because money isn't wealth and everyone is expecting more money. Money is a medium of exchange for goods. We have more vastly money than goods and work our butts off for money. Working without being paid is slavery. Working for money that can't get you goods is also slavery.
Well put... It's rare to see someone who really understands the game. I wouldn't say trump is a free marketer though, he likes the rigged game as well and he plays it like a pro. But him understanding\using it to his advantage and wanting to change it are two different possible ideals. We can only hope.
> as a percentage of GDP.
Bolshevik swine. The entire premise of what your ilk mischaracterizes as "trickle down economics" is about the government taking more in absolute terms because it is taking a smaller slice of a larger pie that has been able to grow because the agents of its growth are not being robbed blind and so will invest their resources.
Trickle Down Economics is a buzzword that retards use when they attempt to describe a small facet of supply side economics and in no way actually represents supply side economics in anyway. Its like a grossly over used strawman and its often proof that people don't understand what it means let alone what Supply Side Economics is as a whole.
This graph is dishonest. Show the difference in productivity increase in STEM vs all other industries and you will see that STEM is the sole reason why productivity is increasing and all other fields remain fucking flat.
Don't argue with canacucks. They want to be the new Australia.
Useless analogy, I could just as easily say "does putting all your bathwater above one showerhead and letting the water trickle down onto you get you clean?" but it would be no more profound.
>Not really because the corporate tax hasn't changed since I think 1986.
Correction. 1993. Clinton raised it. The economy boomed. Also, I should have said corporate tax RATE.
en.wikipedia.org
Previously the top individual tax rate of 31% applied to all income over $51,900. The Act created a new bracket of 36% for income above $115,000, and 39.6% for income above $250,000.[2]
Previously, corporate income above $335,000 was taxed at 34%. The Act created new brackets of 35% for income from $10 million to $15 million, 38% for income from $15 million to $18.33 million, and 35% for income above $18.33 million.[3]
The 2.9% Medicare tax previously was capped to only apply to the first $135,000 of income. This cap was removed.
Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
The portion of Social Security benefits subject to income taxes was raised from 50% to 85%.[4]
The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
The AMT tax rate was increased from 24% to tiered rates of 26% and 28%.[5]
Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments.
Trickle down cannot work when jobs are exported.
If they hoard the money in their own country they have to horde it in the banks and the banks lend out more money. It's like you know literally nothing about economics.
Actually it still works, but only for the good of it all if you're a globalist.
Interestingly, George HW Bush, when he was running against Reagan, called it VOODOO economics.
youtube.com
Also, here's what Reagan's own budget director had to say about it.
This suggests that trickle down doesn't work as well when jobs are exported as when jobs are kept in the US. Is that right? Why would we want to give corporations tax breaks so that jobs can trickle down in Bangladesh?
Sure, there's a reason for pay growth to track productivity when that productivity is attributable to the contribution of the employees, as with the growth in human capital. When the productivity growth is attributable to the capital investment of an equity holder, there is no basis for the fruits of that investment to go to anyone else.
i want bernie sanders to die
So we cut tax revenues in the US that could be used for things needed in the US, in order to trickle down jobs in foreign countries? How do you get Americans to vote for that?
He earns his shilling fee much more than you do, Ahmed