If Trickle Down Economics doesn't work, then how do you explain the love for Stimulus?

[Leo123]

Seriously you can't be this ignorant. The programs they supported that directly gave people money is NOT trickle down. It's direct payments to people.

When money is pumped into the markets very little of it makes it way down. It's why the markets are at record highs. You give someone with 20 million dollars another 5 million they don't have a reason to spend that. They already have enough to buy what they want. So it just goes into the markets.

So the question really becomes, why do you support giving millionaires even more but not people struggling at the lower rungs of the economy?

Government giveaway programs do NOT give the same donation amount (tax revenue) directly to people. Most of the money goes to bureaucracy.

 

[Rigby5]

Exactly. He could turn his profits into investment (not taxed) or leave them as profits (at 100% taxed)

nope, he first must declare the income which falls into a tax bracket that you gave 100%, so after he pays his taxes, he has zero dollars. dude. taxes come first, not investment.

Nope.
When you invest in corporate improvements, you take those off your taxes as expenses first.
The only time that is not true is if the improvement has a long life and you are forced to amortize the investment out over a number of years.
Any corporation can always pay zero taxes by just giving the employees more salary until there is no corporate profit left to tax.

 

[JimH52]

Exactly. He could turn his profits into investment (not taxed) or leave them as profits (at 100% taxed)

nope, he first must declare the income which falls into a tax bracket that you gave 100%, so after he pays his taxes, he has zero dollars. dude. taxes come first, not investment.

Nope.
When you invest in corporate improvements, you take those off your taxes as expenses first.
The only time that is not true is if the improvement has a long life and you are forced to amortize the investment out over a number of years.
Any corporation can always pay zero taxes by just giving the employees more salary until there is no corporate profit left to tax.

But they buy their own stocks....so....the middle class is screwed again.

 

[pknopp]

Seriously you can't be this ignorant. The programs they supported that directly gave people money is NOT trickle down. It's direct payments to people.

When money is pumped into the markets very little of it makes it way down. It's why the markets are at record highs. You give someone with 20 million dollars another 5 million they don't have a reason to spend that. They already have enough to buy what they want. So it just goes into the markets.

So the question really becomes, why do you support giving millionaires even more but not people struggling at the lower rungs of the economy?

Government giveaway programs do NOT give the same donation amount (tax revenue) directly to people. Most of the money goes to bureaucracy.

Unfortunately much of it does.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is the dumbest Thread I have ever seen....obviously you don't know what Reagon's trickle down theory is.

What is it? When did he propose it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly. He could turn his profits into investment (not taxed) or leave them as profits (at 100% taxed)

nope, he first must declare the income which falls into a tax bracket that you gave 100%, so after he pays his taxes, he has zero dollars. dude. taxes come first, not investment.

Nope.
When you invest in corporate improvements, you take those off your taxes as expenses first.
The only time that is not true is if the improvement has a long life and you are forced to amortize the investment out over a number of years.
Any corporation can always pay zero taxes by just giving the employees more salary until there is no corporate profit left to tax.

But they buy their own stocks....so....the middle class is screwed again.

No one in the middle class benefits when stocks go up.......DURR

 

[JimH52]

Cohen predicts indictments of "low hanging fruit" within 30 to 60 days. The pressure will be on Weiselberg and his son.....to flip.

 

[Care4all]

Higher taxes on corporations or big businesses generally encourage businesses to invest in their business to grow their business, more employees hired, instead of handing their money made in profit, over in taxes.

Lower tax rates discourages reinvestment in to the company expansion....the opposite of higher taxes.... They buy back stock, instead.

show me where a company paying higher taxes has development growths. You got it backwards, but hey, you are a demofk.

The biggest growth and expansion of businesses eras in the USA occurred during times of higher tax rates....near double in tax rates than we have now for corporations.

And why was that?

I'm not certain Bear, I have not delved in to the details!

 

[Rigby5]

This is the dumbest Thread I have ever seen....obviously you don't know what Reagon's trickle down theory is.

What is it? When did he propose it?

{...
Trickle-down economics, also known as trickle-down theory or the horse and sparrow theory, is the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. In recent history, the term has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum.[1][2] Empirical evidence shows that the proposition has never managed to achieve all of its stated goals as described by the Reagan administration.[3][4][5][6]

Major examples of Republicans supporting what critics call "trickle-down economics" include the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.[7] In each of the aforementioned tax reform taxes were cut across all income brackets, but the biggest reductions were given to the highest income earners,[8] although the Reagan era tax reforms also introduced the earned income tax credit which has received bipartisan praise for poverty reduction and is largely why the bottom half of workers pay no federal income tax.[9] Similarly, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 cut taxes across all income brackets, but especially favored the wealthy.[10]

The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen. David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:[11][12]

It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory.
— David Stockman, The Atlantic

Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[citation needed] Some studies suggest a link between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and a 2020 study which analyzed 50 years of data concluded that trickle-down economics does not promote jobs or growth, and that "policy makers shouldn't worry that raising taxes on the rich [...] will harm their economies".[4][13][3]
...}

 

[Dadoalex]

The left loves stimulus, so long as it's driven by dementia instead of the orange man.

But the left hates trickle down. In their minds the more you take from employers the more likely employees are to get a raise. Let's call it what it is instead, they desire govt. entitlements, because that's the only other direction, and that starves a country under socialism. But the PROGS talk anyway, they do that a lot. In PROG, the less money you make the better car you drive, debt & bad decisions are personal too.

Trickle down economics is just a term. For those who think rationally it's really up & down, an exchange of money ongoing. If that shit don't work, then explain why economic stimulus is different, go!

Your economic ignorance is astounding.
Trickle down came from Republicans. It was Reagan's rationale for his tax cuts.

It has since been proven worthless.
Pumping money in at the top only drives excess. 200 foot yachts don't drive economic growth. Only egos.
Putting money in at the bottom drive spending which drives hiring which drives more spending...The rich still get just as rich just a little slower and the expansion of the middle class will continue to drive the economy upward.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is the dumbest Thread I have ever seen....obviously you don't know what Reagon's trickle down theory is.

What is it? When did he propose it?

{...
Trickle-down economics, also known as trickle-down theory or the horse and sparrow theory, is the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. In recent history, the term has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum.[1][2] Empirical evidence shows that the proposition has never managed to achieve all of its stated goals as described by the Reagan administration.[3][4][5][6]

Major examples of Republicans supporting what critics call "trickle-down economics" include the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.[7] In each of the aforementioned tax reform taxes were cut across all income brackets, but the biggest reductions were given to the highest income earners,[8] although the Reagan era tax reforms also introduced the earned income tax credit which has received bipartisan praise for poverty reduction and is largely why the bottom half of workers pay no federal income tax.[9] Similarly, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 cut taxes across all income brackets, but especially favored the wealthy.[10]

The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen. David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:[11][12]

It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory.
— David Stockman, The Atlantic

Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[citation needed] Some studies suggest a link between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and a 2020 study which analyzed 50 years of data concluded that trickle-down economics does not promote jobs or growth, and that "policy makers shouldn't worry that raising taxes on the rich [...] will harm their economies".[4][13][3]
...}

Trickle-down economics, also known as trickle-down theory

Thanks. When did Reagan propose "Trickle-down economics"?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Higher taxes on corporations or big businesses generally encourage businesses to invest in their business to grow their business, more employees hired, instead of handing their money made in profit, over in taxes.

Lower tax rates discourages reinvestment in to the company expansion....the opposite of higher taxes.... They buy back stock, instead.

show me where a company paying higher taxes has development growths. You got it backwards, but hey, you are a demofk.

The biggest growth and expansion of businesses eras in the USA occurred during times of higher tax rates....near double in tax rates than we have now for corporations.

And why was that?

I'm not certain Bear, I have not delved in to the details!

So you failed world history, darling?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The left loves stimulus, so long as it's driven by dementia instead of the orange man.

But the left hates trickle down. In their minds the more you take from employers the more likely employees are to get a raise. Let's call it what it is instead, they desire govt. entitlements, because that's the only other direction, and that starves a country under socialism. But the PROGS talk anyway, they do that a lot. In PROG, the less money you make the better car you drive, debt & bad decisions are personal too.

Trickle down economics is just a term. For those who think rationally it's really up & down, an exchange of money ongoing. If that shit don't work, then explain why economic stimulus is different, go!

Your economic ignorance is astounding.
Trickle down came from Republicans. It was Reagan's rationale for his tax cuts.

It has since been proven worthless.
Pumping money in at the top only drives excess. 200 foot yachts don't drive economic growth. Only egos.
Putting money in at the bottom drive spending which drives hiring which drives more spending...The rich still get just as rich just a little slower and the expansion of the middle class will continue to drive the economy upward.

Oh really?


LoL thanks for the laugh

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pumping money in at the top only drives excess.

Cutting taxes at the top increases supply.
Handing money to the bottom increases demand.

 

[Crepitus]

The left loves stimulus, so long as it's driven by dementia instead of the orange man.

But the left hates trickle down. In their minds the more you take from employers the more likely employees are to get a raise. Let's call it what it is instead, they desire govt. entitlements, because that's the only other direction, and that starves a country under socialism. But the PROGS talk anyway, they do that a lot. In PROG, the less money you make the better car you drive, debt & bad decisions are personal too.

Trickle down economics is just a term. For those who think rationally it's really up & down, an exchange of money ongoing. If that shit don't work, then explain why economic stimulus is different, go!

Economic stimulus is different because much of it doesn't go directly to the already Uber wealthy like tRump's (and Reagan's) tax cuts did.

A rising tide doesn't trickle down, it surges up.

 

[Slade3200]

The Top have decided to take more profits

Those bastards!
Burying the profits in the backyard. Hiding it under the mattress.

Just awful!

Huh? Who said anything about that Captain Random??

Wait, the rich guys don't bury their profits?
What do they do with them?

They invest them and accrue interest

Damn rich guy, investing in businesses that create useful products and support jobs.

Heartless bastard!!!!

Huh? What are you talking about?

Your whining about rich guys taking more profits.

I am whining? Not quite Todd. I’m just stating how things are. If you think I’m wrong then explain why. stop misinterpreting the things I’m saying

You weren't whining that the rich guy earns profits?

That's a relief.

Nope, take your partisan blinders off and you might see more clearly

 

[Slade3200]

While the rich guy would just buy another car with it. And that car would most likely be an import, like a Mercedes, or a BMW, and Audi, a Jaguar, Lexus etc.

The rich guy spent his money? Bastard!!

How much sales tax did he pay on that car?
How much money did the car dealership earn?
How many jobs did his purchase support?

$3000 ; $10,945 ; 5673

Sales tax, business earnings and jobs ought to be outlawed, eh?

No those are all key elements in our economic system. You are having serious comprehension issues today Todd. Maybe you need a nap??

I have no issues, just mocking your (and Gene's) issues.

You are mocking your own misinterpretations of the things that I’m saying. I don’t know what you think you’re getting out of that... Is that satisfying to you?

Yes, mocking economic illiteracy is satisfying.

You’re the one misreading and misinterpreting the things I’m saying. So your illiteracy is causing you to incorrectly mock my legit statements and that’s satisfying to you. Ok. Well that’s just plain comedy to me.

 

[Slade3200]

While the rich guy would just buy another car with it. And that car would most likely be an import, like a Mercedes, or a BMW, and Audi, a Jaguar, Lexus etc.

The rich guy spent his money? Bastard!!

How much sales tax did he pay on that car?
How much money did the car dealership earn?
How many jobs did his purchase support?

$3000 ; $10,945 ; 5673

A wealthy person can fly to Europe, buy a car there for far less, put 1000 miles on it so it is labeled as used, and then bring it back to the US without paying any taxes or US dealership charges.

Sounds tricky. What’s your point?

The point is that the poor don't have the tricky options of avoiding helping to boost the US economy like the wealthy do.
I am not saying the wealthy always do avoid helping the US economy, but they can and often do.
Such as Apple moving all its production to China or a wealthy investor buying stock in Foxconn.

The poor were not supposed to exist. Ask LBJ.

Compare the quality of life for the “poor” back during the days of LBJ and how they are today. Do you think there’s a difference?

The poor back then was art a far lower tax level. Why the hell do you spend all of this money and still have it? This sucks! And it is now beyond tiresome.

You got those tax rates ready to post yet? I’d love to see what you were talking about

 

[Rigby5]

This is the dumbest Thread I have ever seen....obviously you don't know what Reagon's trickle down theory is.

What is it? When did he propose it?

{...
Trickle-down economics, also known as trickle-down theory or the horse and sparrow theory, is the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. In recent history, the term has been used by critics of supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics". Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum.[1][2] Empirical evidence shows that the proposition has never managed to achieve all of its stated goals as described by the Reagan administration.[3][4][5][6]

Major examples of Republicans supporting what critics call "trickle-down economics" include the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.[7] In each of the aforementioned tax reform taxes were cut across all income brackets, but the biggest reductions were given to the highest income earners,[8] although the Reagan era tax reforms also introduced the earned income tax credit which has received bipartisan praise for poverty reduction and is largely why the bottom half of workers pay no federal income tax.[9] Similarly, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 cut taxes across all income brackets, but especially favored the wealthy.[10]

The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen. David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:[11][12]

It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory.
— David Stockman, The Atlantic

Political opponents of the Reagan administration soon seized on this language in an effort to brand the administration as caring only about the wealthy.[citation needed] Some studies suggest a link between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and a 2020 study which analyzed 50 years of data concluded that trickle-down economics does not promote jobs or growth, and that "policy makers shouldn't worry that raising taxes on the rich [...] will harm their economies".[4][13][3]
...}

Trickle-down economics, also known as trickle-down theory

Thanks. When did Reagan propose "Trickle-down economics"?

{...
The phrase Reagan tax cuts refers to changes to the United States federal tax code passed during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. There were two major tax cuts: The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The tax cuts popularized the now infamous phrase "Trickle-down economics" as it was primarily used as a moniker by opponents of the bill in order to degrade supply-side economics, the driving principle used to promote the tax cuts.

• The first tax cut (The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981) among other things, cut the highest Personal Income Tax rate from 70% to 50% and the lowest from 14% to 11% and decreased the highest Capital Gains Tax rate from 28% to 20%.[1]
• The second tax cut (The Tax Reform Act of 1986) among other things, cut the highest Personal Income Tax rate from 50% to 38.5% but decreasing to 28% in the following years [2] and increased the highest Capital Gains Tax rate from 20% to 28%.[1]

At the time, people weren't substantially informed about the tax cuts, as an ABC News Poll in September 1986 showed that 63% of Americans didn't know enough about the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to say if it was good or bad.[3]
...}

Ronald Reagan pushed two major tax cuts as trickle down economics, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

 

[Rigby5]

Pumping money in at the top only drives excess.

Cutting taxes at the top increases supply.
Handing money to the bottom increases demand.

That may be true, but increasing supply is worthless unless there already is the demand for the goods.
It is an increase in demand that makes an increase in supply useful.