|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Trickle Down Economics - Does It Work? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Its still not irony, not even situational irony, dumbass. It would've counted if I ever said that nothing I post is a joke. But I haven't. Sometimes I post things that are a joke, BFD.
But for you, everything you post is a joke. You have never once posted anything at all that has ever been worth anyone's time reading ever. Now, would you care to address the topic or what? Its trickle down economics... something that you are too stupid to make an intelligible comment on, or even understand. So why are you even here? Just to cause problems and talk shit. Pathetic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
CS writes: If when the rich people get warmer, everyone else gets warmer too, wouldn't that be the warmth trickling down? CS writes: Its trickle down economics... something that you are too stupid to make an intelligible comment on Priceless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi hooah212002,
I know of no one that doesn't live paycheck to paycheck, so what ones "annual salary" is, is useless. Would you agree that anyone that lives paycheck to paycheck contributes 100% of their income to the economy? Would you agree that anyone that lives paycheck to paycheck that was given $100 by the government would contribute 100% of that money into the economy? Would you agree that this would tend to stimulate the economy, with more stimulus provided the more people living paycheck to paycheck that were included? Would you also agree that any person that does not show an increase in wealth over a one year period has also contributed 100% of their income to the economy? Would you agree that any person that does not show an increase in wealth over a one year period and also was given $100 by the government would send 100% of that into the economy? Would you agree that this would tend to stimulate the economy, with more stimulus provided the more people that do not show an increase in wealth over a one year period that were included? Would you also agree that any person that does show an increase in wealth over a one year period has contributed less than 100% of their income to the economy? Would you agree that any person that does show an increase in wealth over a one year period and also was given $100 by the government would send less than 100% of that into the economy? Would you agree that -- assuming that stimulating the economy is the purpose of sending out $100 to people -- more stimulus would be achieved by giving $100 per person to the lower income people (those that do not show an increase in wealth over a one year period) than by giving it to upper income people (those that do show an increase in wealth over a one year period)? If the purpose really is to stimulate the economy then it should be obvious that giving money to the top income bracket is a poor method compared to giving the same money to the lower income brackets. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Recently I saw an article that said that the time is approaching when we will need to pay people to consume to keep the economy growing. This is due to (a) increased population and (b) increased productivity per person.
This is like the programs already in place where farmers are paid to NOT produce certain crops in order to keep prices up (and thus support the economy). Presumably these programs work because the net benefit is an improved farming economy, the money paid out is less than the increase in wealth generated by the rest of the agricultural industry. Does it not make sense then, that some minimum level of benefits be paid to people that allows them to be productive consumers? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : saw not sayby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I'm not sure how this is at all relative to anything I said, let alone the portion of my reply to Theo that you quoted. I was simply saying that, in my opinion, "annual gross income" figures are worthless to all but the obscenely wealthy I suppose, given that it doesn't figure in actual liquid assets that people are able to use, what with it not factoring in taxes and other things that get taken out of ones paycheck (child support for example).
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given."Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, more worthless crap from you. No offering of anything whatsoever. Do you just not understand how discussion boards work?
quote: You see, 'tard, that is called a conditional statement. The clue is by it starting with an "If". Sometimes they're referred to as hypotheticals. It is then followed by a question. The clue is by it ending with a question mark. That's this thing: "?" Do you have an analogy for something exhibiting a trickle down effect?Can you provide an answer to the question? Are you even mentally capable of typing something original and on point? Are you capable of providing more than one or two words in more than 1/3 of you posts?
CS writes: Its trickle down economics... something that you are too stupid to make an intelligible comment on Priceless. You've just proved my point. QED. Now, here is the sum total of the original postings by you in this thread:
quote: quote: quote: So what the fuck are you even posting here for? You outta get moosed for being such a pathetic troll. I mean, you're not even good at trolling. Absolutely worthless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again hooah212002
I'm not sure how this is at all relative to anything I said ... Just trying to relate personal experience back to the topic issue of stimulating the economy via trickle-down and whether it (t-d) is an effective use of funds designed to stimulate the economy. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
RAZD writes: Recently I saw an article that said that the time is approaching when we will need to pay people to consume to keep the economy growing. Is consumerism viable forever? For example, what will happen when the earth's finite resources are depleted? Do you think conservatism can ever be a viable type of economic system? Sure, for very small societies/villages, but what of big capitalistic societies? The earth will be hitting 8 billion soon. What kind of economic society will earth have at 16 billion? Or can consumerism push into space? It's a big universe, probably a lot of room for new Coca Cola marketing territory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
RAZD writes: If the purpose really is to stimulate the economy then it should be obvious that giving money to the top income bracket is a poor method compared to giving the same money to the lower income brackets. Not increasing someone's taxes is not the same as giving them money. What you're actually proposing is an increase in taxes on the rich to finance a stimulus program that provides money to the lower income levels. I'm not objecting to the proposal, just pointing out what the proposal really is. Invested money is also put into the economy. And there are other effects to consider, such as potential job losses. Maybe things would get better, maybe not. My only objections in this thread are to claims that the evidence already shows what would happen. Economics isn't a tidy little science where you can plug numbers into an equation and come up with an answer. For almost any economic plan you care to name you'll find economists who have crunched the numbers showing it will work, and provided examples of it working sometime somewhere in the past. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Here's an interesting graph I found in the Wikipedia article on US Income Distribution:
The graph is in constant $2007 dollars and provides a more accurate picture of what has been happening to incomes over the past 60 years. The higher your income the faster your income grows, but the incomes of all wage categories increased in real terms. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined:
|
Percy writes: The higher your income the faster your income grows, but the incomes of all wage categories increased in real terms. Hmm. To me, this graph to seems to show, since the Reagan years, the middle class (making about 40K) has pretty much stagnated (nearly flat lined). It would seem to demonstrate a failed trickle down economics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Percy
Not increasing someone's taxes is not the same as giving them money. ... Decreasing someone's taxes while not giving equal decreases to others is the same as giving them money.
What you're actually proposing is an increase in taxes on the rich to finance a stimulus program that provides money to the lower income levels. What trickle-down theory actually proposes is an increase in taxes on lower incomes to finance a stimulus program that is supposed to improve the overall economy. It is a poor choice of stimulus because the return is less that doing the opposite.
I'm not objecting to the proposal, just pointing out what the proposal really is. And I'm pointing out that trickle-down theory is a poor method of stimulating the economy versus providing the exact same stimulus to the lower income brackets. Dollar for dollar there will be more return from those that contribute 100% of their annual earnings back into the economy (ie their real accumulated wealth does not increase) than you would get from people that do not contribute 100% of their annual earnings back into the economy (ie their real accumulated wealth does increase).
Invested money is also put into the economy. ... In return for interest, dividends and other charges that take back more than was invested, thus putting less than 100% of that investment into the economy.
.... And there are other effects to consider, such as potential job losses. Maybe things would get better, maybe not. ... Jobs are created by entrepreneurs at all levels of the economy, and more jobs are created by people that hire workers than by people investing.
... My only objections in this thread are to claims that the evidence already shows what would happen. We have had trickle-down tax cuts for years and there has yet to be a single piece of evidence that it has actually done anything. We had trickle up mortgage failure that caused massive additional failures from the bottom to the top of the economic system. One can say with no small amount of irony that this failure of the mortgage system is due to the failure of the trickle-down tax cuts to benefit the lower income brackets: proof that it is a failure imnsho. One of the measures of cause and effect is the sensitivity of the system to respond to input: (1) trickle-down tax cuts: negligible effect, if any, after a decade of use.(2) trickle-up mortgage failure: immediate pervasive effect across all levels of the economy. Conclusion: better to feed the bottom than the top. If the same money that was thrown away with the trickle-down tax cuts had been provided to those people with the mortgages, then failure would not have happened.
Economics isn't a tidy little science where you can plug numbers into an equation and come up with an answer. For almost any economic plan you care to name you'll find economists who have crunched the numbers showing it will work, and provided examples of it working sometime somewhere in the past. Sounds a lot like "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose" rather than scientific evaluation of the available evidence. I repeat: (1) trickle-down tax cuts: negligible effect, if any, after a decade of use.(2) trickle-up mortgage failure: immediate pervasive effect across all levels of the economy. Conclusion: better to feed the bottom than the top. If the purpose of disbursing funds - whatever propaganda label you apply - is to stimulate the economy, then the virtually self-evident conclusion is that it is best given to the lower income brackets. "A rising tide lifts all ships" only works if you raise the water level for everyone.
... What you're actually proposing is an increase in taxes on the rich ... ... to pay their fair and just share to the government that regulates the economy that allow the market to work the way it does. Consider it a user fee: you benefit, you pay back to the system that allows you to benefit. The more you benefit, the more you pay back. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
The income of the 40th percentile rose 100% in real terms between 1950 and 1980, but since 1980 only 20%. But growth in the other percentiles also declined, here's a table:
The conclusion is inescapable that since the Reagan tax cuts the lower the income category the worse it has performed relative to the top percentile, whereas before that was not true. How would one go about establishing a causal relationship between the Reagan tax cuts and this change in the relative growth of income percentiles? The end of the Carter years were characterized by recession combined with high interest rates, and this is reflected on the graph with all income categories declining in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The lines don't begin rising again until well into the Reagan administration, but they never regain their previous growth rates. If we had kept the high top marginal tax rates would the the economy have recovered? Would the higher growth rates in income have resumed? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Percy,
In addition to what dronester said:
The graph is in constant $2007 dollars and provides a more accurate picture of what has been happening to incomes over the past 60 years. The higher your income the faster your income grows, but the incomes of all wage categories increased in real terms. When I look at the pre 1970 slopes versus the post 1970 slopes it is readily apparent that all groups but the top one grow at a slower rate post 1970 than pre 1970, thus demonstrating that the trickle down concept is actually adversely affecting these groups of the economy.
Message 208: The conclusion is inescapable that since the Reagan tax cuts the lower the income category the worse it has performed relative to the top percentile, whereas before that was not true. Exactly.
How would one go about establishing a causal relationship between the Reagan tax cuts and this change in the relative growth of income percentiles? Other than what you just provided? How would you go about establishing that this is not a causal relationship? By showing some other factor was involved that started at the same time and continues to this day. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ing Edited by RAZD, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi dronester
Is consumerism viable forever? ... Personal opinion: consumerism is not viable today as a stand alone program, but then neither is 100% socialism\communism. Rather there needs to be a mixture arrived at by consensus to maximize "the pursuit of happiness" for all. If that means taxing all income at 50% but also giving everyone $50 per day ... (The 50-50-50-50-50 tax and economic plan.), then that is what we should work towards. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024