So, when exactly will trickle down economics start working?

So, when exactly will trickle down economics start working?

Other urls found in this thread:

cnet.com/news/telecom-monopoly-overcharging-mexicans-billions/
telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/05/global-debt-hits-all-time-high-of-152-trillion-as-imf-warns-of-w/
wsj.com/articles/japan-may-be-exception-to-pikettys-thesis-1423451451
youtube.com/watch?v=858t44psmww
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Ask HRC. She's the neocon.

>doesn't factor out war economy impacts
>doesn't factor in nafta
>doesn't factor in china entry into WTO
>thinks he understands the world
let grown ups post. lurk more child.

Thanks for trumping the record!

>Trumping the record.
That's new, almost as original as Drumpf or whatever the fuck the television said.

...

>That's new,

And so are you

Obama and Shillary gave trillions to wallstreet, fuccboi

inb4 "lol no they didn't"

When did I deny that?

There are a lot of forces at play here.

Firsty, yes. Wall Street is fucked up, it's funneling IMMENSE power and influence to the top .02% of the population. In fact, if you chopped that .02% off of the top group, the difference between them and the rest of the 80% would be decreased immensely.

Now, for why the bottom 20% has fallen off so much is due to only one thing-- immigration. We have more people in this nation now that we can pay less than ever before. This is part of the funelling of money to the top .02% as well.

This isn't a symptom of the top exploiting the bottom. This is the top trying to utterly destroy, culturally and politically, everyone below them.

Listen,

Economy is global.
A factory can open anywhere.
Production can be put anywhere.
An industry can be built anywhere.

Why should I open my business in your town?

If you're taxes are high and your regulations are stifling, I won't. I'll open it elsewhere.

So hear me, locations compete for businesses.

If you offer tax incentives and only have the actually needed regulations, you can attract business.

That business will bring jobs.
People working those jobs can pay taxes.
Their communities are better.
Inner cities are revived.

Everything is better.


>muh trickle down economics
>muh we need to tax businesses more
>muh evil rich people

When off shore manufacturing is minimized. Do people actually believe that purchasing foreign made goods help. Everyone goes on about purchasing goods from an independent store but no one pushes for goods that are made in America, Canada, W. Europe etc.

"Ya purchase your Chinese trinket from a mom and pop shop, you are helping the cause," such nonsense.

the economic autist strikes again

>why should you care about good living standards LOL
>all labor should be paid 5 cents an hour
>health and safety standards are gay
>public infrastructure is useless

libertarians are the worst

>the economy would be better if all public property was owned by monopolistic billionaires

cnet.com/news/telecom-monopoly-overcharging-mexicans-billions/

>Strawman arguement

Not even close to what I'm talking about. You're policies are the policies of Detroit and every other failed liberal shithole with a destroyed economy not because of blacks like you probably want to scapegoat but because they put themselves out of business.

>trickle down meme
Jeez

When will you people learn taxation is immoral and this is not about wealth redistribution.

Only every time it's ever been used.

Do you have a cell phone? A computer? Central heat and air?

It's working.

It's not a strawman

he's a globalist neolib shill that thinks outsourcing and mass immigration are "good" for the economy. In reality they have caused global economic stagnation

telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/05/global-debt-hits-all-time-high-of-152-trillion-as-imf-warns-of-w/

Honestly every globalist like him needs to be hanged for treason

>muh Detroit

ah the cry of the cuckservative

I hope you're joking, but you probably aren't. Detroit was a paradise when it was full of whites. The Black riots in the 60s drove out all the whites. There's a reason the suburbs of Detroit are fine while the city isn't. It has nothing to do with vague "policies" besides the Detroit mayors constant corruption which isn't so much a policy but the inevitable result of black rule in any area. Blacks are incredibly susceptible to corruption.

>So, when exactly will trickle down economics start working?

Does it feel like you are being pissed on by those in power?

>(((They)))

Whoever made those graphs should kill themselves

The wonder of capitalism is actually fund allocation by the masses. The people collectively share information and figure out the ventures with the best chance of a return and financially back them.

Things like wars in the middle east, donating money to alqueda / FSA, giving money to people that literally are on food stamps and have no plan to ever NOT be on food stamps.. These aren't activities with a high return.

The fact that any middle class worker ends up paying 15-25% of their income to these pursuits that nobody asked for is the biggest tragedy of government.

We're a consumer based economy. Let the people have their money, they will choose the best things to invest it in themselves.

I mean capitalism works, socialism works. The thing that doesn't work in both cases screwing everything up is people.

This graph is measuring gigantic income brackets instead of actual flesh and blood human being who will enter and leave multiple brackets throughout their lives. If you measure individuals from the bottom 20%, you will see a very large majority, above 90%, has left that bracket within a span of 10 years. In addition, if you measure individuals in the 1% instead of measuring the entire bracket as one entity, you will see many individuals with widely fluctuating incomes entering and leaving, many owners of stocks that have gone up or business that have done well over a certain year. If we keep an eye on individuals in this bracket, their income is not only less consistent than at the bottom, but is also growing by much less.

Many of the people in the US who are in the upper income brackets are not rich and do not have crazy wealth in offshore bank accounts. Most of them are typical hard-working people who have gained skills throughout their career at much more modest incomes and now see finally reached their peak earning years.

When you measure brackets instead of flesh and blood people, it makes it easy for intellectuals and politicians to fabricate a specific crises that conveniently only they can solve by putting themselves into a position of power.

>send jobs outside of country
>muh trickle down no work

Name one time an alternative has worked?

Rents are long term REAL profits (i.e. in excess of profits under competitive market conditions).
Sometimes you invent something to get rich.
But the biggest contemporary source of Rent is public policy.

Aka Rent Seekers lobby for pork barrel spending and entry barriers in the form of arbitrary rules and industry licensing (which favor large businesses with dedicated funds and legal offices).

Given their propensity for spending in general, Democrats are the largest source of pork barrel spending and given their desire for interventionism (see the ACA) Democrats (and the offices they populate) are the largest source of labyrinthine industrial laws.

The people who lobbied for these rents where those who became disproportionately rich.

>middle class and low-income faggots keep throwing money into corporate/conglomerate fires while nice upcoming stores and businesses die off
>act more jewish than jews when it comes to spending literally a few more shekels at the smaller stores
>cry about the 1%

you didn't address any of my argument

>fund allocation by the masses

Under globalism billionaires control everything and continue to get more power while the working class is destroyed.

maybe you should rethink your simplistic position

To expand on this. Trump is right. In every way.

The shittiest thing about having the elite in charge of the tax payers money is they can now take risk-less gambles with other people's money.

Take Clinton for example. She accepted ~$25M from the Saudis. That's really bad. But what's worse is the question everyone is missing:

Why did the Saudis POSSIBLY donate 25 million to her. What could they want from her?

They want military actions in the middle east by the US. They likely want Assad to fall. This is why Clinton is doing this.

How much has the tax payer paid for this? More or less than $25M? I would argue, especially if you take Iraq into consideration... orders of mangnitude more.

Even though the 'deal' is on the whole LOSING money for the US. Clinton is profiting from it by abosrbing the small monetary return, and passing the majority of the loss onto the tax payers. It's your tax money, and children's blood that's being spent in the middle east. It's Clinton that gets the (relatively) small monetary reward.

What Trump is suggesting is fine. If you want to rip up shit in the middle east. ATLEAST make it worth it.

If we are expending 3 trillion a year in military budget, The Saudis better be willing to pay the US government 4-5 trillion for it to happen. Not 25 million in a shady deal to a single politician.

This is why Trump has a better chance of getting the economy back on the rail.

grow up you need a grown up

>Thinking this is about taxation
>and not about the fact that globalists like Clinton outsource jobs and bring in tons of immigrants to depress wages and increase bottom lines for elites

You're an idiot

Instead of arguing against the central point, i.e. that overtaxing businesses leads to job losses, you assume that he's in favor of paying people pennies to work in sweatshops (which is what the do in China, where all the jobs are, because businesses are taxed an outrageous amount).

>Literally the definition of a Strawman Arguement

It's working fine. The trickling is going to the workers like it's supposed to. It just so happens they live in China.

i agree, reality should conform to my ideals

The same billionaires that got bailed out by the tax payer under essentially gun-point by a government?

Given capitalism, empires rise and fall. Companies come out of nowhere storm the market, make billionaires, get innovated out, and their billionaires disperse their money back into the crowd/other businesses.

Only under thick socialism do companies have the power to legislate against innovation to hold their billions for unnatural durations.

Think about the Rothschild. Why do you think they immediately went from successful gold merchants to attempting to control governments with funding?

Because the government is the one easy route to maintaining billions indefinitely regardless of innovation or the efforts of others.

i forget how Sup Forums works and how you post a huge wall of text response that is worked on and well thought out and are completely ignored for not-an-argument tier bullshit

Trump soon. All our dreams will be made reality, and America will be saved.

Immigration affects only the bottom 10% of wage earners and boosts the median wage. It's almost certainly due to Reagan tax cuts

I liked your post, but we're all responding to a 1 post by this id thread like dummies.

Taxation is not immoral. Taxation is how a man becomes a citizen. Without taxation, we would become a feral people. Violent and scared.

The problem is we now consider "welfare" a class and the middle class has been destroyed. And this:

Also the industries that built America are being thrown out by shit bills and "climate science" when we have clean alternatives.

Wtf does that have to do with the post though you'd still expect bottom earners to see a wage increase if trickle down worked regardless of fluctuations one experiences between the brackets in his lifetime. This is still an apples to apples comparison there was still fluctuation between the brackets back then as there is now.

>When will you people learn taxation is immoral and this is not about wealth redistribution.

These people aren't keeping the poor fed of their own volition

THE US DOES NOT HAVE TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS YOU FUCKS. YOU HAVE VERY HIGH TAX RATES. REEEEEEE
This is from free trade and third world/illegal immigration

>THE US DOES NOT HAVE TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS YOU FUCKS. YOU HAVE VERY HIGH TAX RATES. REEEEEEE

I hope your not talking about corporate tax

>This is from free trade and third world/illegal immigration

Nope immigration depresses the wages of only the bottom 10% of earners and increases median wages. If you think free trade is bad for the middle class and your not talking about ''''''''''''''''''''''free trade'''''''''''''''''''''' then your too far gone. This doesn't make sense anyway because in many regards Reagan was quite protectionist and ''''''''''''''''''''''free trade'''''''''''''''''''''' started in the 90's with NAFTA

everyone but me gotta learn

outsourcing comes primarily from a desire for cheap labor not "less taxes"

They manipulate the governmnet

inb4 "abolish le government" Ancap memes as if that is ever possible

m8 i'm not going to argue economics with someone who can't even use "you're"

There's a smuggy somewhere for this exact situation.

Whatever leaf you clearly have no argument if you're going to resort to that kind of shit

You can't even use a capital you clearly don't know economics

>trickle down economics

Try to form the argument without buzzwords.

automation, immigration, free trade, and (((investing))) favor capital owners over labor.

taxing the rich and spending more on social welfare programs isn't going to solve income inequalty. It just subsidizes the working poor. So that it is less awful to be working poor.

You want to solve income inequality, look to Japan.

wsj.com/articles/japan-may-be-exception-to-pikettys-thesis-1423451451

youtube.com/watch?v=858t44psmww

>Its called SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS YOU DWEEB

Actually contribute something don't just bitch about the wording

There is no such theory as Trickle-Down Economics

It was a strawman created by neoliberals to criticize Ronald Reagans economic policies.

If you can find any dissertation or paper from someone holding a PhD. in economics that actually carries that title, write Thomas Sowell and enjoy your $5000. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Socialism doesn't work.

>inb4 the retarded stormfag inevitably says "hur it works with white people"

see

MONEY FROM HELICOPTER

There are better capitalist systems than the US though. Not everything that isn't a straight up Tea party wet dream economic system is socialism

Trickle-Down Economics is a pretty gross misrepresentation of a demonstratable economic theory

Supply-side economics is a theory that simply states if you lower taxes, you will eventually receive higher revenues from taxes at a later point due to the increased economic activity brought about by lower taxes, and that people are simply more willing to pay their taxes if they are reasonable

>Supply-side economics is a theory that simply states if you lower taxes, you will eventually receive higher revenues from taxes at a later point due to the increased economic activity brought about by lower taxes, and that people are simply more willing to pay their taxes if they are reasonable

Yeah and that didn't happen under either the Bush or Reagan tax cuts in fact the exact opposite happened and the taax increase under Clinton was actually what was able to increase revenue

This can be fixed by having a command economy.

"Trickle down economics" is an "economic theory" that doesn't actually exist and is a caricature of an argument made by people against high taxes. The original argument goes that government revenues would actually be higher if they were to lower taxes (because it would allow more money to be in the hands of the private sector and spur private growth). The left then warps this argument and turns it into "rich people shouldn't be taxed, it will eventually reach poor people trust us."

What are you talking about? He said socialism worked and I disagreed, I didn't call any state socialist.

It never will. There's only a finite amount of wampum in the world. Economics is a zero sum gain. If you lower taxes on the rich, they will only take that extra money and lock it away in a vault forever, it won't go back into the economy and spur further growth, create jobs that create further jobs, etc.

Now, go limp back to your communal dwelling, and remember to appeal to the local party commissar for an extra chocolate ration this month.

I'm not arguing semantics, just that trickle down is NOT specifically supply side economics. Trickle down is a term that refers to various types of theories, not just supply side. You only connect it to supply side economics because that's where the term got popular. Now if you want to discuss supply side economics thats all well and good but you need to use precise wording so not to confuse what you're even talking about.

>blaming low taxes instead of open borders, free trade, and wasting all your money on wars

>when exactly will trickle down economics start working

trickle down is just a metaphor for capitalism in general

people pooling their wealth together to do stuff creates more wealth, etc

Ronald Reagan increased income taxes, corporate taxes, and government spending. He was not an "austere" president.

I never implied it would be quick. It's a healthy policy if you're interested in thinking several decades into the future, and balancing a budget so that the lower revenue doesn't negatively effect your debt. Both of which politicians have no interest in doing, coincidentally. What kind of politician cares about responsible spending and long-term plans when they come up for re-election every few years?

Of course an immediate revenue boost will come with a tax increase. Who would've thought? It's certainly not healthy for the long term growth of an economy, though.

The problem is that people take credit to buy bullshit that they don't need, instead of focusing on becoming more productive. And this affects everyone else since you slowing down progress.

Trickle down is a meme because so many people use the term wrong.

What do you have against lower taxes? Im talking across all tax brackets, not exclusively the rich.

Tell us more about how Petrobras was a great success, monkey.

Positivism tells us that Post Keynesian is the way

I have no problem with lower taxes generally but I find meeting a limit so taxation doesn't damage economic activity would be the best course of action.

How does a large company regulates embezzlement? Why can't the government use the same Business Administration techniques?

>"Trickle down economics" is an "economic theory" that doesn't actually exist and is a caricature of an argument made by people against high taxes.

Its just the name we give to position, we don't make up the claims behind it

>The original argument goes that government revenues would actually be higher if they were to lower taxes (because it would allow more money to be in the hands of the private sector and spur private growth).

See>What are you talking about? He said socialism worked and I disagreed, I didn't call any state socialist.

Sorry I was wrong and he was wrong

>Ronald Reagan increased income taxes, corporate taxes, and government spending

He gave some of the biggest tax cuts ever enacted

So Is there any demonstrable evidence of this actually happening anywhere because this seems like a pretty dud argument. If tax revenue were to instead skyrocket after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts you would argue that they worked pretty much making the best given evidence irrelevant considering that you could just fall back to the 'not enough time' position. Besides twelve years is some time and you might expect to see some kind of progress.

>trumping the record
You're supposed to thank them for dropping some Big-League Truth™

What if we ban debt?

So what happens when we introduce a flat tax on richies and they still tax evade? Or are they going to comply out of the goodness of their hearts because you're being 'fair.'

What happens when we scale back regulations, costs, ect ect (all to the detriment of a countries populace) to swoon back factory owners.

What happens when after all this, the factory owners come back then still hold their production hostage until they get benefits / subsidies threatening to move to Mexico or 'cheaper' countries constantly?

Fact of the matter is it's always going to be cheaper to produce somewhere else. If we have to sacrifice everything we've developed that makes our countries great (relative to China / India / other cheap shitholes) and bend over backwards for the privilege of some soulless rich kike raping us six ways to sunday and still profiting off it.

Nixon took us off the gold standard.

>When you need to explain inflation to someone

>Its just the name we give to position, we don't make up the claims behind it
It's poisoning the well and it's intellectually dishonest. The name "trickle down economics" gives a connotation of the rich handing down whatever is left to the poor. It's emotionally charged dribble.

>He gave some of the biggest tax cuts ever enacted
He also raised taxes after receiving blow back. I will admit that in the shortrun, large tax cuts proposed by people like Reagan, Trump, Rand, and Johnson would result in larger deficits. It only makes sense that the immediate result would be lower revenues, that and the fact that Reagan increased government spending. Luckily, the goal (at least for me) is to drastically cut spending, so in my ideal situation revenues wouldn't even matter.

A large problem with only talking about lowering taxes is that a lot of the time it is irrelevant. If you lower taxes without cutting spending the money needs to be obtained somewhere else, usually borrowing or creating more money, which causes inflation and lowers the value of people's money. It's just another route the government can tax.

>le trickle down
When will this meme die? Trickle down economics isn't a thing. Also, who cares if the poor get poorer and the rich get richer? Only a small fraction of people actually stay in the lower bracket for more than a few lands, and even fewer people stay in the top bracket. People move in and out of brackets all the fucking time, and most of the poorest people are young kids getting their start in life. Get fucked.

'Trickle Down' is the politicized term for Supply Side economics (Give money / tax breaks to the rich so they invest and spread their wealth throughout the country via job creation / investment).

Just because you don't like the negative connotation associated with 'trickle down' doesn't mean it's not a legitimate lay term for a form of economic policy and hasn't been a well understood term for literally decades at this point.

Sincerely and with no malice or anger, are you like 14? Are you like

When you get a job and quit waiting for money to trickle down to you, faggot.

we've never had trickle down

what happens when you put taxes at 100 percent

When government is gone. That's literally the only thing that is stopping the inevitable wealth creation that occurs under real capitalism.

>Give money / tax breaks to the
>taxing less is now giving money

you are legitimately of the retard variety

>Just because you don't like the negative connotation associated with 'trickle down' doesn't mean it's not a legitimate lay term for a form of economic policy
It's legitimate to attack the usage of the phrase "trickle down economics" when there are literally people in this thread pretending as if any supply side economists said that "money will trickle down goy."

Aside from your reductum ad absurdum, the EPA is a little out of control on some things. I'm not talking about requiring personal protective equipment or clean etc.. I'm talking about, for example, Glock can put tennifer coatings on their guns in Germany but when they wanted to move production here, one of the problems was that they couldn't do it because the EPA didn't like that it used a certain dangerous chemical. Germany is doing it. Red Wing was told they couldn't use a certain glue anymore because the EPA didn't think it was a safe glue so they used it as an excuse to send production of all but their most expensive models to China. I'm talking about some of those kinds of things and frankly we already offer incentives to corporations, on a local level, to woo them into certain areas. It's a win win.
You could not have the jobs and the corporation will pay your municipality nothing or you could be competitive, get a smaller percentage of taxes from them.
Does that suck? Sure but the only other way is to focus solely on tariff's and trade deals. Trump has made this a central theme of his campaign, along with less regulation.

You can call it trickle down economics but you're never going to revitalize the shit areas of our cities without jobs and jobs are created by businesses. You need to give businesses a reason to go into an area with their factory or whatever. That's literally my only point but I'll make another. Innovation follows production. So it's great to move your production out of the country and think you're so smart and innovative that you'll stay ahead through intellectual material and innovation but that's just not a reality.

I think that's literally Communism?

> Hey mack, you're going to spend 90 grand on that thing you need right? Don't worry about it famiglia SUBSIDIIIIIIIIEEEEESSS!

> Hey mack, you were going to pay 50 million in taxes? Don't worry about it famalam TAX EXEMPTIIIIOOOOONS!

> Hey mack, you were going to do [BASIC RECIPROCAL ACTION FOR THE COUNTRY IN WHICH YOU DRAW WEALTH] right? Don't worry about it famalamadingdong [INSERT GOVERNMENT/BUSINESS SUPPLICATION PROTOCOL HERE!]

Or conversely.

> Hey Government, mack here, if you don't Subsidize us, give us Tax Exemptions or pretty much double dip fund us to stay in your country we'll leave.

At the end of the day, money is not always cold hard cash.

But that's the logic of Supply Side.

Not that richies will just start throwing wads of cash at poor cunts, but that by easing restrictions on the rich, the money would flow, and everyone in the country would benefit, either through jobs (not happening), economy (not happening for 99% of society), society as a whole (not happening) and their communities (not happening for 99% of society)..

The money has flown, it's just flown in a direction that like 80% of society doesn't like, it's flown in a direction that has made pretty much all aspects of adult life more difficult for newer generations.

People want to know why a government looking out for 300 million enacts policies that only help 5 million.

has nothing to do with trickle down or otherwise .. nixon ended the gold standrd in 1971 .. free government money always benefits the people at the top .. bottom up money also goes back into the pockets of the corporations (the poor spend that money duh) .. blame lbj guns and butter for overheating the economy and pushing up inflation ..

Whats with the spooky webm?

It hasn't worked for the past 7 years, so probably never.

>big companies sell you products
>employ you and pay you good wage

>big companies outsource to foreigners
>cut overhead
>sell products at same price + inflation/year
>you are now unemployed/make lower wage due to competition

Gee I wonder why TDE doesn't work anymore.

>LOGIC DON'T MATTER, MUH FEEEEEELS
>FUCK THE BOURGEOIS
When did Sup Forums become a leftist communist shithole?

It doesn't work. No one thinks it works or will work. Thank the boomers and the Gen xers for falling for it. A rising tide only raises ships if the water starts on the ground....obviously that's not what happened here. Reagan was an incompetent hack and the Republicans are wrong to venerate him. Stick with the Founders and you can't go wrong.

Bitching about the EPA and completely changing your countries taxation policy, economic policy, ect ect is not the same thing. I think i misread your post as a more hardline position (thought you were an le warlords ball ancap), but still.

Answer one question though. If we change everything to make society easier for businesses. What's to stop businesses from continuing to exploit us / the government? If we cut taxes, remove regulation, bend over backwards and these companies still threaten to leave to china and india?

Not only that, but if we did make these changes, wouldn't that give more power to multinationals and massive businesses? Like if you were arguing for a one set of rules for small business another for big business i could understand, but the shifts and changes you would need to make to encourage small businesses to grow would be like pouring gasoline on a fire that is corporate cronyism.