There is no such thing as trickle down economics. That's a made up term by the left. Reagan's economic plan worked. Not sure how you say it didn't.
The wisdom of Thomas Sowell and black culture in America
- Thread starter Boilermaker03
- Start date
Carter economy compared to Reagan proves Reagan was superior as will Biden’s successor
Not talking about Ukraine. I bet if you think real hard you can come up with another global event that is impacting economies and causing inflation all over the world.
Last edited:
And what the left fails to comprehend is the “rich” support so much in the private sector. If the “Rich’s” income is reduced by taxes who do you think it will impact the most?
Like Covid that had lower energy cost before and during the Trump administration. Trump lower energy cost vs high Biden costs. The facts are clear this is Biden’s mess and he’ll pay a huge loss come November
Not according to the Treasury department.
I'm sure you can point to raw dollar amounts to show higher government revenue in 1989 as compared to 1980, but you and I both know it's more complex than that. Besides, even if you DO look at just raw dollars, federal revenue has increased EVERY YEAR since 1960 except for 1971, 1983, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2008, and 2009. Wonder which party held the presidency in almost all of those years...
SOURCE
Answer the question. Why don't you assign any responsibility for debt creation to Republicans?
Oh c'mon you people. It also coincided with a massive increase in demand when production was still at low pandemic levels .
I agree Trump had an increase in energy cost at the end of his term but how has Biden helped increase supply? You have to admit Trump’s policies would have promoted greater supply than Biden?
It doesn't matter if it is a made up term or not. No one said that it was an official term. Like I said Bush the Elder called it "Voodoo Economics". That is definitely un official. Whatever you call it, trickle down was how it was to suppose to work. You give the rich tax breaks and the money was suppose to "Trickle" down to the middle and lower classes. Jobs, wage increases whatever. Never worked then and never will.
So you’re saying the government is better at spending our money than ourselves? Never worked never will
Nope. I’m saying that taxes for rich should be raised. Taxes for the middle and lower classes should be lowered, permanently. If they lowered taxes for both, I can dig it. However, lowering taxes is always at the expense of the middle and lower classes.
What’s “rich”? Data indicated Trump tax reduction helped middle and working class
IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most
Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups.
thehill.com
Not sure where I would put the cut off. However, Biden always uses the $400,000 cut off. Seems fair to me.
I just updated my previous post showing Trump tax law helped middle and working class. The problem with setting dollar level categories is it does not address cost of living locations. $400k is not “rich” in California or other high cost of living areas. IMO the best way to address this is to have a flat tax for everyone with limited deductions
I'm not sure percentage of the tax break is quite the right measure. Someone with low income might have gotten a bigger break by percentage, but that would make little difference in their actual income. According to the data this author references, someone in the $40k-$50k bracket on the chart got an 18% tax break in 2018 as compared to 2017, a difference of about $500 over the course of a year. Hardly enough to make a difference in one's overall financial picture. Meanwhile, someone in the $5-10 million bracket got only a 3.48% break, paying, on average, almost $70k less after Trump.What’s “rich”? Data indicated Trump tax reduction helped middle and working class
IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most
Republicans’ 2017 tax reform law did exactly what was promised: It lowered taxes for all income groups.thehill.com
Seems disingenuous to say that the working and middle classes got the most help when the upper brackets' tax break was worth more than the total income of someone in the middle when they didn't need it. It's not like you're rich if you get to keep $6.1 million, but no longer rich if you only get to keep $6m -- or as if that amount of money is the difference between whether you can invest in a company or not.
By another measure, the people making $10m or more got to split about $13 billion between 22,000 people while those making $40-50k had to split about $6 billion between 12 million people.
Just for comparison, here's another analysis: https://www.policygenius.com/taxes/who-benefited-most-from-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/
Last edited:
Well how many jobs have you had from someone poor?
If you had to pay the tax rates of the rich, I have no doubt you'd sing a different tune. Tax rates should be flat. Period. The Progressive tax rate is anything but. It's regressive and it causes conflict.
Why should someone have to pay more in tax for being more productive? It's counter intuitive. A flat tax with limited deductions is what needs to happen. OR get rid of income tax all together and have a consumption tax. All economists tend to agree it's better to tax on spending vs income.
No, that IS the right way to look at it. You could cut 15% from someone lower income and 2% from someone higher and the higher income will still have a bigger break in your scenario. Percentage is the only fair way to assess it.
Agree to disagree, I suppose. And it's not MY scenario, it's the scenario that happened in 2018. The percentage difference doesn't change the fact that people in the middle and working classes saw virtually no tangible benefit from the tax cuts while people who didn't need it got 10s or 100s of thousands of dollars each.
I take it you're declining to acknowledge that both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for the debt?
Last edited:
All of them? Really? That's a helluva claim. There's not one economist who disagrees with this model? Note: This is not a comment on the merit of the idea.
This question rests on the belief that someone who earns more income is necessarily more productive. I'm not sure that's true.
Ok, saying all was probably a stretch, but most.
"Strange as it may sound, most economists would agree that having zero taxes on capital income is theoretically the best thing to do."
Consumption Tax - Econlib
Some of the most significant tax changes in recent years have concerned the taxation of capital income. In 2003, Congress cut the top tax rate on dividends to 15 percent—significantly greater than the zero dividend tax that President George W. Bush wanted, but far below the 40 percent many...
www.econlib.org
It's absolutely true for the majority of the high earners. Of course there are going to be some that aren't, but it's a very small amount. People that earn a lot of money tend to work their asses off. I know it's popular to think that the VP's and CEO's of companies just make everyone do all the work, but that's total horseshit. Those people tend to have no lives because they spend all of their time working.
That is the point of all this. On the surface you are focusing on the tax rate that says what they are suppose to pay. With all the loop holes that they get, they end up actually paying a lot less and most likely less than I pay.
Bullshit. I pay 38%. I pay a shitload. I can't live the life I've worked for the way I'd like because a large amount of my income is being stolen.
I made no such claim. But it's also popular among Republicans to think that people who don't earn very much only have low wages because they're lazy. I mean, if they just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and started working harder, they could be rich, too, right?
How do you compare productivity between someone who works 60 hours a week at three part-time jobs that pay $10/hour and a CEO who works 60 hours per week while making, say, $10k a day? How do you compare the productivity of a factory manager to that of the individuals who work on the line? Productivity and income are not equivalent.
Guess you better just increase your productivity so you can have more money.
And, if your income tax rate is 38% (somehow, despite the fact that the top tax bracket is currently 37%) that means your income is over $540k or so. I have absolutely no sympathy for you. I'm sorry you can't live the life you want on half a million a year (minimum), but to come on here and complain about it when millions of people are just trying to pay rent and eat and to suggest that YOUR time is more valuable than theirs is just....I don't even have words for it.
Sorry if that comes off as mean. I hope you're actually just exaggerating the amount you pay in taxes or are including social security and medicare and/or counting state local and sales taxes. But, regardless, there are a bunch of people working just as hard as you that don't have nearly the quality of life you do.
Also, you STILL haven't answered the question of why you only blame Democrats for debt creation when, clearly, both parties do it.
But, speaking of productivity, this conversation has dramatically reduced mine for today, so I'm out.
Last edited:
This is a very small number of people. It's exceedingly rare that someone is working below minimum wage and trying to support a family.
"About 865,000 workers had wages below the federal minimum."
"Age. Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented just under one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up 48 percent of those paid the federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers (ages 16 to 19) paid by the hour, about 5 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with 1 percent of workers age 25 and older."
"Full- and part-time status. About 4 percent of part-time workers (people who usually work fewer than 35 hours per week) were paid the federal minimum wage or less, compared with about 1 percent of full-time workers."
"Industry. As has historically been the case, the industry with the highest percentage of workers earning hourly wages at or below the federal minimum wage in 2020 was leisure and hospitality (about 8 percent). Three-fifths of all workers paid at or below the federal minimum wage were employed in this industry, almost entirely in restaurants, bars, and other food services. For many of these workers, tips may supplement the hourly wages received."
This is typical since people in these industries tend to work for tips.
Characteristics of minimum wage workers, 2020
In 2020, 73.3 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 55.5 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 247,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
www.bls.gov
I never said that productivity and income are equivalent, but it's a pretty good indicator. The people at the top typically work 80+ hours a week. On top of that, they provide incomes for millions of other people as well as provide us products that we use on a daily basis.
My tax rate includes state and local. I don't make THAT much.
I grew up poor, so I know what it was like. I wouldn't necessarily say my life is some cake walk now just because I have money. In fact having money presents it's own challenges.
Democrats are responsible for the majority of social programs/welfare. Those are the largest reasons for our debt creation. So yeah, I mostly blame Democrats. I think we should have some sort of safety net, but nothing like we currently have. We have a welfare system that keeps people dependent. We need to change it so that people are weened off as they begin to succeed vs just cutting them off, which deters people from succeeding.
We used to have charities that would help people get on their feet and were doing a much better job before the welfare system. The poverty rate was declining before the "War on Poverty" began. Shortly after, the rate of poverty stopped declining and even has a slight uptick.
"In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began. "
The War on Poverty After 50 Years
This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This...
www.heritage.org
Last edited:
If I wasn't having such a large amount of my earnings taken from me at the jump, I'd spend more money on thing's I'd like to have/do. Imagine what that would do for the economy. The government is terrible at using our money. Only the private sector can use it in a more productive way.
Ffs. Should he just call up the Exxon chairman and tell him to increase supply........or maybe he can increase oil production by executive order?
I admit if your goal is too produce as much oil as humanly possible with no regard to anything else, you would be able to increase the supply of oil.
Now you admit the president has no control over how much oil is produced in the USA. Should he just call up the Exxon chairman and tell him to increase supply........or maybe he can increase oil production by executive order?.......and that 90% of oil produced here is on private land..........and the oil companies CAN PRODUCE MORE if they choose to.......and the the price of oil is high all over the world, it's not just HERE. You understand that right? And that we still imported oil when we were "energy independent"? And additional oil we produce......without more production by OPEC and others won't mean nary a damn thing to oil prices.
Lol Did I say the President hàs no control over how much oil is produced in the USA? No! Nice try in moving the goal posts. Upon taking office Joe through executive action rolled back Trumps energy policies. As a result this exasperated the situation. Cause and effect in action
Last edited:
It worked to exacerbate income inequality, completely financialize the American economy and disempower manufacturing and unions, and set the stage for the dissolution of the middle class. Great job Ron.
Who gives a fukk about income inequality. That doesn't matter as long as everyone (or most everyone because nothing is perfect) is able to support themselves and have a comfortable life. Income inequality happens in just about any system. Capitalism allows it to be anybody vs those in power of government.
Look at Walmart for example. Their CEO makes tens of millions of dollars right? Well if you took away ALL of their income and gave it to the employees equally, guess how much everyone would get? $10. That's it.
Dis-empower unions? (for some unions that would be a very good thing) Dissolution of the middle class? Bullshit. People talk about the middle class shrinking and that being a bad sign, but many times they fail to show where those people went. Many times they move to upper class.
Also, the middle class would be stronger with a consumption tax vs the income tax. By taking home all of their pay, they could decide themselves how much they want to spend (get taxed) or save. The way things are right now, they don't have a choice.
Most high schoolers have a better understanding of economics than you do.
If most high school students believe that income inequality is the bogyman and income equality is the only way to go, then they are being taught like good little communists. Let's all be poor together!
oh dang I didn't realizer you're bad at every type of math
Ironically I’ve done better economically as we moved from conservative to more liberal states. Started in Indiana then Michigan then California and now Hawaii. Thank you Democrats for letting me take advantage of income inequality in your states. Tic
Dammit but I did ''realizer''ed you are bad at every type of anything that requires using your brain.
Dang, a typo. You got me. It makes everything you've said correct and not dumb as hell.
Latest posts
-
-
-
That is a LOT of money and potential voters!- Latest: TwinDegrees2
-
