Prove to me that "trickle down" or "rising tide lifts all boats" are wrong?

[g5000]

How many times have we heard socialists bitch and moan about the filthy wealthy. The 1%ers! And how many times have we heard "trickle down" doesn't work or "rising tide lifts all boats" is wrong?

YET my simple question that even the most IGNORANT socialist, 1%er hater seemingly can't answer is this:

Do the filthy wealthy bury their wealth in the backyard or hide under their mattresses ?

Seriously folks what happens?
Those evil filthy wealthy 1%ers buy yachts. Yep they do ...who builds them?
They buy private jets. Who builds them?
They buy mansions. Who builds them. Who staffs them?

So ignorant people point out that "trickle down" doesn't work. Trump tax cuts were wrong. The little people aren't
getting the share and the filthy wealthy,
why they are ...."burying their wealth in the backyard or hiding under their mattresses"....???

Today's employment picture show more jobs than people to fill them!
Each of those NEW jobs creates TAX REVENUE to the federal government.
PROOF?
The economy added 3.2 million jobs since Trump took office:
Trump's Numbers (Second Quarterly Update) - FactCheck.org
Let's assume that each job pays Median household income in the U.S. rose to an estimated $59,055 in January 2018, an increase of nearly 0.4% from our December 2017 estimate of $58,829.Mar 1, 2018
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4152222-january-2018-median-household-income

So 3.2 million times $59,055 is at 12.4% payroll taxes $23.3 billion a year ... additional federal payroll revenue.

So what has happened to the $190 billion in gross income these 3.2 million job holders generated?
Did they bury in the backyard or hide under their mattresses?

Of course not...

So why then do ignorant people continue to use that phrase "trickle down" as a failure?
Look at the following chart and tell me how many of these 50 S&P companies are hiding their tax break
under the mattress or burying in the backyard?
View attachment 223060

Prove to me that "trickle down" or "rising tide lifts all boats" are wrong?

The federal budget deficit is soaring, and you can blame it all on Republican tax cuts

Done.

Paying the interest off on quantitative easing.


.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Man, that is some hilariously ignorant non sequitur shit right there!

 

[g5000]

The next point I want YOU and the others to explain is WHAT happens to the "filthy wealthy" increase in wealth through tax cuts?

What happens is that the next generation has to pay for the debt caused by the tax cuts, and they have to pay interest on that debt.

It's a massive redistribution of wealth. Taken from the pockets of our descendants.

 

[Winston]

Ok, I see your point. The 1% spends their money employing blue collar workers and buying goods that our business are selling. Fair point. But let me ask you something....

Let’s look at the sum of our currency as a whole and the 1% as a single entity for simplicity sake. Do you think the 1% are accumulating wealth or spending more than they make?

Let's say they're accumulating wealth....Does that mean that they're just stuffing money into big vaults, so they can roll around in it like Scrooge McDuck?

No, they are most liking investing it

OK....And what do the businesses that have that additional invested capital do with it in turn?

Are you under the impression that when one purchases a stock on the exchange some company is getting additional capital?

Sorry, but purchasing a stock is not investing. It is saving, if not gambling. It is no different than playing the slots in Vegas. So no, the wealthy and corporations are investing very little of their tax cut. Stock buybacks cannot be called investing, unless it is "investing" in higher executive pay through stock options. I believe one of the biggest problems with those that support the tax cuts is that they have no understanding of the difference between saving and investing.

 

[Winston]

You don’t have to lead me through the logic, I stated that they spend their money on employing workers and growing businesses before I asked my question. Now instead of responding to my question with more questions would you mind just giving an answer?

Are they accumulating wealth or spending more than they make? Do you see it as a positive or negative thing for our economy.?

If they can't potentially accumulate more by way of their investments, what's their motivation to invest?

If there's no way for the rich to possibly get richer, we're all going to be in one hell of an economic mess.

I agree that motivation for the wealthy to invest needs to stay intact however I don’t think the dollars in their bank accounts mean the same to them as regular folk. The wealthy aren’t worried about how to pay bills and afford the next family vacation, they are more concerned with legacy and power.

Do you always answer a question with a question? How about you give an answer to my questions and then ask ones of your own and we can go back and forth that way.

So for the third time. Do you think the 1% is accumulating wealth or not? Is it positive or negative for our economy?

The 1% is accumulating wealth. The problem is they are not EARNING that wealth. They are accumulating RENTS and that is negative to the economy, big time.

 

[Oddball]

The 1% is accumulating wealth. The problem is they are not EARNING that wealth. They are accumulating RENTS and that is negative to the economy, big time.

That doesn't tell me what that takes away from anyone, that they wouldn't already be giving up (i.e. rent or mortgage payments).

 

[Winston]

It is not someone....it is EVERY corporation on average paying their employees $7660 a year less than they used to

You're mixing the issues.

One is a jobs-market issue. The other is taxation.

They are paying less because the market allows it. Too many illegals have flooded the jobs market. Believe me. When the jobs market is balanced, they will pay top dollar for employees. They will practically throw money at candidates to lure them away from competition.

Taxation does not directly affect pay, although corporations are more likely to increase pay when they have a lower tax burden.

.

Corporations are more likely to increase pay when they have a lower tax burden

Incorrect. It is called opportunity cost. Corporations are more likely to increase pay when the marginal tax rate is HIGHER, not lower. When the marginal tax rate is fifty percent, well a company only loses fifty cents of every dollar in profit if they divert that profit to a pay raise. But if the tax rate is twenty percent they lose eighty cents of profit for that dollar diverted to a pay raise.

 

[Oddball]

Are you under the impression that when one purchases a stock on the exchange some company is getting additional capital?

Sorry, but purchasing a stock is not investing. It is saving, if not gambling. It is no different than playing the slots in Vegas. So no, the wealthy and corporations are investing very little of their tax cut. Stock buybacks cannot be called investing, unless it is "investing" in higher executive pay through stock options. I believe one of the biggest problems with those that support the tax cuts is that they have no understanding of the difference between saving and investing.

What's any of that to you?....What does that deprive anyone else of, that they would have otherwise?

 

[Slade3200]

You don’t have to lead me through the logic, I stated that they spend their money on employing workers and growing businesses before I asked my question. Now instead of responding to my question with more questions would you mind just giving an answer?

Are they accumulating wealth or spending more than they make? Do you see it as a positive or negative thing for our economy.?

If they can't potentially accumulate more by way of their investments, what's their motivation to invest?

If there's no way for the rich to possibly get richer, we're all going to be in one hell of an economic mess.

I agree that motivation for the wealthy to invest needs to stay intact however I don’t think the dollars in their bank accounts mean the same to them as regular folk. The wealthy aren’t worried about how to pay bills and afford the next family vacation, they are more concerned with legacy and power.

Do you always answer a question with a question? How about you give an answer to my questions and then ask ones of your own and we can go back and forth that way.

So for the third time. Do you think the 1% is accumulating wealth or not? Is it positive or negative for our economy?

The 1% is accumulating wealth. The problem is they are not EARNING that wealth. They are accumulating RENTS and that is negative to the economy, big time.

Apparently none of the people in this thread who support trickle down want to discuss the cause and effect of the 1% accumulating wealth.

 

[Thinker101]

You don’t have to lead me through the logic, I stated that they spend their money on employing workers and growing businesses before I asked my question. Now instead of responding to my question with more questions would you mind just giving an answer?

Are they accumulating wealth or spending more than they make? Do you see it as a positive or negative thing for our economy.?

If they can't potentially accumulate more by way of their investments, what's their motivation to invest?

If there's no way for the rich to possibly get richer, we're all going to be in one hell of an economic mess.

I agree that motivation for the wealthy to invest needs to stay intact however I don’t think the dollars in their bank accounts mean the same to them as regular folk. The wealthy aren’t worried about how to pay bills and afford the next family vacation, they are more concerned with legacy and power.

Do you always answer a question with a question? How about you give an answer to my questions and then ask ones of your own and we can go back and forth that way.

So for the third time. Do you think the 1% is accumulating wealth or not? Is it positive or negative for our economy?

The 1% is accumulating wealth. The problem is they are not EARNING that wealth. They are accumulating RENTS and that is negative to the economy, big time.

Say what? What kind of BS are you trying to spread?

 

[Winston]

The 1% is accumulating wealth. The problem is they are not EARNING that wealth. They are accumulating RENTS and that is negative to the economy, big time.

That doesn't tell me what that takes away from anyone, that they wouldn't already be giving up (i.e. rent or mortgage payments).

You do not understand the concept of economic rents.

Economic rent is always viewed as UNEARNED revenue. So like I said, they are not earning that wealth, they are collecting rents. Try "economic rent" in Wiki.

 

[Slade3200]

The 1% is accumulating wealth. The problem is they are not EARNING that wealth. They are accumulating RENTS and that is negative to the economy, big time.

That doesn't tell me what that takes away from anyone, that they wouldn't already be giving up (i.e. rent or mortgage payments).

So after asking you 4 times and not getting an answer is it safe to assume that you agree that the 1% is accumulating larger proportions of our nations wealth? And it sounds to me like you think that it has a neutral effect on the economy, is that right? Have you put much thought into the subject?

 

[Oddball]

Corporations are more likely to increase pay when they have a lower tax burden

Incorrect. It is called opportunity cost. Corporations are more likely to increase pay when the marginal tax rate is HIGHER, not lower. When the marginal tax rate is fifty percent, well a company only loses fifty cents of every dollar in profit if they divert that profit to a pay raise. But if the tax rate is twenty percent they lose eighty cents of profit for that dollar diverted to a pay raise.

1) All it takes is a few businesses to direct their increased resources into payroll to have an upward pressure on overall wages...This is an established cause-effect relationship.

2) What you are arguing in favor of is a tax policy that is punitive and uses the tax code as a form of social engineering...Taxes -fucked up as they are- should be used to pay for state services, not as a cudgel to compel performance to this or that social matter.

 

[Slade3200]

H

You don’t have to lead me through the logic, I stated that they spend their money on employing workers and growing businesses before I asked my question. Now instead of responding to my question with more questions would you mind just giving an answer?

Are they accumulating wealth or spending more than they make? Do you see it as a positive or negative thing for our economy.?

If they can't potentially accumulate more by way of their investments, what's their motivation to invest?

If there's no way for the rich to possibly get richer, we're all going to be in one hell of an economic mess.

I agree that motivation for the wealthy to invest needs to stay intact however I don’t think the dollars in their bank accounts mean the same to them as regular folk. The wealthy aren’t worried about how to pay bills and afford the next family vacation, they are more concerned with legacy and power.

Do you always answer a question with a question? How about you give an answer to my questions and then ask ones of your own and we can go back and forth that way.

So for the third time. Do you think the 1% is accumulating wealth or not? Is it positive or negative for our economy?

The 1% is accumulating wealth. The problem is they are not EARNING that wealth. They are accumulating RENTS and that is negative to the economy, big time.

Say what? What kind of BS are you trying to spread?

How about you make a counter arguement explaining why you think his statement is BS. Let’s try and be at least one step above elementary school kids learning how to debate.

 

[Winston]

You don’t have to lead me through the logic, I stated that they spend their money on employing workers and growing businesses before I asked my question. Now instead of responding to my question with more questions would you mind just giving an answer?

Are they accumulating wealth or spending more than they make? Do you see it as a positive or negative thing for our economy.?

If they can't potentially accumulate more by way of their investments, what's their motivation to invest?

If there's no way for the rich to possibly get richer, we're all going to be in one hell of an economic mess.

I agree that motivation for the wealthy to invest needs to stay intact however I don’t think the dollars in their bank accounts mean the same to them as regular folk. The wealthy aren’t worried about how to pay bills and afford the next family vacation, they are more concerned with legacy and power.

Do you always answer a question with a question? How about you give an answer to my questions and then ask ones of your own and we can go back and forth that way.

So for the third time. Do you think the 1% is accumulating wealth or not? Is it positive or negative for our economy?

The 1% is accumulating wealth. The problem is they are not EARNING that wealth. They are accumulating RENTS and that is negative to the economy, big time.

Apparently none of the people in this thread who support trickle down want to discuss the cause and effect of the 1% accumulating wealth.

I am more than willing. I just don't think you have the knowledge that would allow you to understand. You need to learn about rent seeking before we can even begin to discuss the matter. Why the hell do you think the Koch brothers donate millions of dollars to PAC's? They are seeking rents, and have been very successful at it. Why do you think so many companies have merged? They are seeking rents, not efficiency. And economic rent is nothing but negative to the Macroeconomy. Economic rents is why the rich have been getting so much richer and the poor have been getting poorer.

 

[Oddball]

You do not understand the concept of economic rents.

Economic rent is always viewed as UNEARNED revenue. So like I said, they are not earning that wealth, they are collecting rents. Try "economic rent" in Wiki.

I understand just fine...The term "rent seekers" is primarily used by authoritarian central planners, who seek to abuse the political and economic systems, as forms of social engineering.

In any event, you've not told me what the renters or mortgage payers have had taken away from them, which they weren't already giving up.

 

[Slade3200]

Corporations are more likely to increase pay when they have a lower tax burden

Incorrect. It is called opportunity cost. Corporations are more likely to increase pay when the marginal tax rate is HIGHER, not lower. When the marginal tax rate is fifty percent, well a company only loses fifty cents of every dollar in profit if they divert that profit to a pay raise. But if the tax rate is twenty percent they lose eighty cents of profit for that dollar diverted to a pay raise.

1) All it takes is a few businesses to direct their increased resources into payroll to have an upward pressure on overall wages...This is an established cause-effect relationship.

2) What you are arguing in favor of is a tax policy that is punitive and uses the tax code as a form of social engineering...Taxes -fucked up as they are- should be used to pay for state services, not as a cudgel to compel performance to this or that social matter.

Fair points... do you think it’s ever justified for there to be incentivizing elements in our tax code?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How many times have we heard socialists bitch and moan about the filthy wealthy. The 1%ers! And how many times have we heard "trickle down" doesn't work or "rising tide lifts all boats" is wrong?

YET my simple question that even the most IGNORANT socialist, 1%er hater seemingly can't answer is this:

Do the filthy wealthy bury their wealth in the backyard or hide under their mattresses ?

Seriously folks what happens?
Those evil filthy wealthy 1%ers buy yachts. Yep they do ...who builds them?
They buy private jets. Who builds them?
They buy mansions. Who builds them. Who staffs them?

So ignorant people point out that "trickle down" doesn't work. Trump tax cuts were wrong. The little people aren't
getting the share and the filthy wealthy,
why they are ...."burying their wealth in the backyard or hiding under their mattresses"....???

Today's employment picture show more jobs than people to fill them!
Each of those NEW jobs creates TAX REVENUE to the federal government.
PROOF?
The economy added 3.2 million jobs since Trump took office:
Trump's Numbers (Second Quarterly Update) - FactCheck.org
Let's assume that each job pays Median household income in the U.S. rose to an estimated $59,055 in January 2018, an increase of nearly 0.4% from our December 2017 estimate of $58,829.Mar 1, 2018
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4152222-january-2018-median-household-income

So 3.2 million times $59,055 is at 12.4% payroll taxes $23.3 billion a year ... additional federal payroll revenue.

So what has happened to the $190 billion in gross income these 3.2 million job holders generated?
Did they bury in the backyard or hide under their mattresses?

Of course not...

So why then do ignorant people continue to use that phrase "trickle down" as a failure?
Look at the following chart and tell me how many of these 50 S&P companies are hiding their tax break
under the mattress or burying in the backyard?
View attachment 223060

When you can demonstrate that tax receipts have increased beyond the size of the cuts and the larger deficit they created, and that those increased receipts have also paid for the current deficit increase, you'll have won this argument. That's the whole point of this, the whole point of the Laffer Curve: Increased tax receipts pay for all increased debt caused by tax cuts.

Until then, the economic expansion has been paid for by larger deficits, and are not a net gain. And we've done nothing but hand off more NET debt to our kids to pay for a temporary sugar high.

I'm not saying it won't happen. But it's obviously too early to spike the football or claim victory.
.

The whole point of the THREAD was Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite for criticizing an action that increased her wealth.
The next point I want YOU and the others to explain is WHAT happens to the "filthy wealthy" increase in wealth through tax cuts?
Just explain who builds the yachts they buy? Who builds the planes they buy? Who builds and staffs the mansions they buy?
Tell me you DON"T agree.. "they bury in the backyard or hide under their mattresses?

Explain to me how come the GDP has grown from 1929 of $1.109 Trillion in inflation adjusted to $18.051 Trillion in 2017 inflation adjusted.
Explain how this growth of 17% a YEAR since 1929 in inflation adjusted occurred.. even though the population has grown by less than 2%?
Explain how come in 1890, there were about 4,000 millionaires in the United States, Google Answers: statistics on millionaires, late 1800s
In terms of today's dollars one million in 1890 would be equal to $27 million today. FACT: The Inflation Calculator
How many people in the USA have net worth over $25 million today?
There were 172,000 households with net worth above $25 million... The Number of High-Net-Worth Households in the US Continues to Grow - Marketing Charts

So in the 128 years since 1890 there are 1,312 times as many millionaires. Again explain how that has happened?

Stop providing facts.

It only screws with their fairy tale.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How many times have we heard socialists bitch and moan about the filthy wealthy. The 1%ers! And how many times have we heard "trickle down" doesn't work or "rising tide lifts all boats" is wrong?

YET my simple question that even the most IGNORANT socialist, 1%er hater seemingly can't answer is this:

Do the filthy wealthy bury their wealth in the backyard or hide under their mattresses ?

Seriously folks what happens?
Those evil filthy wealthy 1%ers buy yachts. Yep they do ...who builds them?
They buy private jets. Who builds them?
They buy mansions. Who builds them. Who staffs them?

So ignorant people point out that "trickle down" doesn't work. Trump tax cuts were wrong. The little people aren't
getting the share and the filthy wealthy,
why they are ...."burying their wealth in the backyard or hiding under their mattresses"....???

Today's employment picture show more jobs than people to fill them!
Each of those NEW jobs creates TAX REVENUE to the federal government.
PROOF?
The economy added 3.2 million jobs since Trump took office:
Trump's Numbers (Second Quarterly Update) - FactCheck.org
Let's assume that each job pays Median household income in the U.S. rose to an estimated $59,055 in January 2018, an increase of nearly 0.4% from our December 2017 estimate of $58,829.Mar 1, 2018
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4152222-january-2018-median-household-income

So 3.2 million times $59,055 is at 12.4% payroll taxes $23.3 billion a year ... additional federal payroll revenue.

So what has happened to the $190 billion in gross income these 3.2 million job holders generated?
Did they bury in the backyard or hide under their mattresses?

Of course not...

So why then do ignorant people continue to use that phrase "trickle down" as a failure?
Look at the following chart and tell me how many of these 50 S&P companies are hiding their tax break
under the mattress or burying in the backyard?
View attachment 223060

Dude, seriously?

History proves they are wrong.

Duh.

Bullshit.

 

[Winston]

Are you under the impression that when one purchases a stock on the exchange some company is getting additional capital?

Sorry, but purchasing a stock is not investing. It is saving, if not gambling. It is no different than playing the slots in Vegas. So no, the wealthy and corporations are investing very little of their tax cut. Stock buybacks cannot be called investing, unless it is "investing" in higher executive pay through stock options. I believe one of the biggest problems with those that support the tax cuts is that they have no understanding of the difference between saving and investing.

What's any of that to you?....What does that deprive anyone else of, that they would have otherwise?

Saving is not a plus for the economy. Another concept for you to learn. The Paradox of Thrift. So when individuals save, instead of invest, they take away from the economy instead of add to it. Pretty simple really. Basic Macro, like 101 level. Even a competent High School course.

 

[Thinker101]

H

You don’t have to lead me through the logic, I stated that they spend their money on employing workers and growing businesses before I asked my question. Now instead of responding to my question with more questions would you mind just giving an answer?

Are they accumulating wealth or spending more than they make? Do you see it as a positive or negative thing for our economy.?

If they can't potentially accumulate more by way of their investments, what's their motivation to invest?

If there's no way for the rich to possibly get richer, we're all going to be in one hell of an economic mess.

I agree that motivation for the wealthy to invest needs to stay intact however I don’t think the dollars in their bank accounts mean the same to them as regular folk. The wealthy aren’t worried about how to pay bills and afford the next family vacation, they are more concerned with legacy and power.

Do you always answer a question with a question? How about you give an answer to my questions and then ask ones of your own and we can go back and forth that way.

So for the third time. Do you think the 1% is accumulating wealth or not? Is it positive or negative for our economy?

The 1% is accumulating wealth. The problem is they are not EARNING that wealth. They are accumulating RENTS and that is negative to the economy, big time.

Say what? What kind of BS are you trying to spread?

How about you make a counter arguement explaining why you think his statement is BS. Let’s try and be at least one step above elementary school kids learning how to debate.

I would but apparently you haven't made it out of elementary school.