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

[Winston]

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.

Look you stupid shit, people paying rent have nothing to do with economic rents. Until you get a grasp of some really basic shit you are pissing in the wind. And your authoritarian central planners statement only confirms your ignorance. Very early in this thread I mentioned why China has been kicking our ass, because China has worked aggressively to ELIMINATE RENT SEEKING. While here in the US the damn shit has become epidemic.

 

[Winston]

H

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.

Pretty sure I have had more "schooling" in Economics than anyone in this thread. And yeah, probably before I got out of elementary school.

 

[Oddball]

Pretty sure I have had more "schooling" in Economics than anyone in this thread. And yeah, probably before I got out of elementary school.

Marxist economics, yes.

 

[Thinker101]

H

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.

Pretty sure I have had more "schooling" in Economics than anyone in this thread. And yeah, probably before I got out of elementary school.

Good for you, now all you need to do is work on your reading comprehension. That particular comment was in reply to Slade.

 

[Oddball]

Look you stupid shit, people paying rent have nothing to do with economic rents. Until you get a grasp of some really basic shit you are pissing in the wind. And your authoritarian central planners statement only confirms your ignorance. Very early in this thread I mentioned why China has been kicking our ass, because China has worked aggressively to ELIMINATE RENT SEEKING. While here in the US the damn shit has become epidemic.

Look you commie fuck, your Marxisitc authoritarian central planner bullshit has collapsed every time it has been tried.

All I had to see was you blabbering about the Koch brothers to know what we're dealing with.

 

[dudmuck]

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?

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

 

[Oddball]

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?

I want to know why that's of any particular harm to anyone, whether or not it is true..

You do realize that there's not a static commodity called "wealth" out there, that others are hogging up at the expense of everyone else, don't you?

 

[Oddball]

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

The very notion that people keeping what is theirs in the first place is "giving"them something, presumes ALL of your earnings belong to The State.

 

[Oddball]

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

No.

 

[danielpalos]

the general welfare clause is general not common.

What does this mean?

words matter. a general power must be comprehensive, not common.

 

[Winston]

Look you stupid shit, people paying rent have nothing to do with economic rents. Until you get a grasp of some really basic shit you are pissing in the wind. And your authoritarian central planners statement only confirms your ignorance. Very early in this thread I mentioned why China has been kicking our ass, because China has worked aggressively to ELIMINATE RENT SEEKING. While here in the US the damn shit has become epidemic.

Look you commie fuck, your Marxisitc authoritarian central planner bullshit has collapsed every time it has been tried.

All I had to see was you blabbering about the Koch brothers to know what we're dealing with.

Actually, the Koch brothers political activism as well as their educational donations are classic "rent seeking" behavior. They work aggressively to externalize their costs, and that gives them economic rents. And it's Keynesian, not Marxist, although Marx had a good understanding of rent seeking, just like a communist China does today.

Here is one example. In the western part of North Carolina the grocery chains have kind of carved themselves out independent territories. Here, it is Lowe's Food. West, toward Asheville, it is Ingles. South, toward Charlotte, it is Harris Teeter. Locally, well Lowe's purchased a location from Harris Teeter, just a couple miles from one of their stores. That made the nearest Harris Teeter fifty to sixty miles away and left Lowe's with no competing supermarket that was, well super. You know, large wine and beer selection, gourmet cheeses, dry aged beef. So, the price Lowe's can charge over and above the price they would have to charge if they had competition is called ECONOMIC RENT. Now ask yourself, have you seen the same thing happen in industries as diverse as Airlines to phone providers?

I mean if you really are interested in this issue, if you really want your question answered, well google is your friend. There have been some great articles, and even better white papers, written about rent seeking in today's economy, including increased consolidation and lack of enforcement of anti-trust regulations. But I doubt seriously you are interested in learning anything and merely want to rant and holler and spit out the same old partisan nonsense. You are only contributing to the problem and are doing nothing to help improve the economy or our political environment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

What happened under Bush? Yes, a slightly rising economy (the economy right now isn't rising) and then a huge bang and the economy dropped, 7 million people lost their homes and some rich people got even richer.

Kind of proves is, right?

It only proves that your knowledge of economics is deplorable. The housing bubble collapse did help bring the economy down, because it dried up consumer credit. The seeds of that bubble, and subsequent collapse, were sown years before Bush ever took office. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with trickle down economics.

You've said stuff, but none of it disproves in any way what I said. Funny that.

Yes, the seeds of the housing bubble were sown years before. They're still sown now, they always are. Part of the problem is that presidents can only serve two terms.

The doesn't mean that the Bush tax cuts didn't play their part in making the recession worse than it could have been had it happened in about 2003.

The first recession occurred two months after Bush took office. A result of the bad economics of the Clinton administration. The Bush tax cuts were instrumental in correcting that recession. The housing bubble, like the dot com bubble had little to do with "trickle down" economics.

Trickle down and supply side are the same thing, and neither is accurate as economic terms. Government has the ability to create, maintain, or destroy an economic environment that is positive for economic growth. Good economic growth is good for everyone who is participating in the economy, and therefore is referred to as raising all boats.

Trump has created a good economic environment through tax cuts and regulation cuts. This good economic environment has to be maintained by preventing socialists from cutting it off through more taxes and regulations.

Recessions happen all the time. Presidents continually want to make themselves look good for a short period of time.

The problem with Bush was that the recession that happened just before he left office was the second worst the US has ever seen.

You have to understand the economy can't overreach itself. It's not unlimited. You can try pushing for the sky, and if you do, it will fall away from you. The best bet is to try and keep the economy as steady as possible. As little up and down as you can get.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

What happened under Bush? Yes, a slightly rising economy (the economy right now isn't rising) and then a huge bang and the economy dropped, 7 million people lost their homes and some rich people got even richer.

Kind of proves is, right?

It only proves that your knowledge of economics is deplorable. The housing bubble collapse did help bring the economy down, because it dried up consumer credit. The seeds of that bubble, and subsequent collapse, were sown years before Bush ever took office. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with trickle down economics.

You've said stuff, but none of it disproves in any way what I said. Funny that.

Yes, the seeds of the housing bubble were sown years before. They're still sown now, they always are. Part of the problem is that presidents can only serve two terms.

The doesn't mean that the Bush tax cuts didn't play their part in making the recession worse than it could have been had it happened in about 2003.

The first recession occurred two months after Bush took office. A result of the bad economics of the Clinton administration. The Bush tax cuts were instrumental in correcting that recession. The housing bubble, like the dot com bubble had little to do with "trickle down" economics.

Trickle down and supply side are the same thing, and neither is accurate as economic terms. Government has the ability to create, maintain, or destroy an economic environment that is positive for economic growth. Good economic growth is good for everyone who is participating in the economy, and therefore is referred to as raising all boats.

Trump has created a good economic environment through tax cuts and regulation cuts. This good economic environment has to be maintained by preventing socialists from cutting it off through more taxes and regulations.

More Proof That Liberals Are Trustfundies Who Despise People Who Have to Work for a Living

Both Labor and Capital should unite in destroying job-killing Liberal indulgences.

Again, the economy isn't unlimited. You can push for the sky, but it won't be sustainable. You need to keep boom and bust as limited as possible. China's doing just that, because Chinese politicians are thinking in the long term.

Trump's thinking about 2 years from now.

 

[Oddball]

Actually, the Koch brothers political activism as well as their educational donations are classic "rent seeking" behavior. They work aggressively to externalize their costs, and that gives them economic rents. And it's Keynesian, not Marxist, although Marx had a good understanding of rent seeking, just like a communist China does today.

Here is one example. In the western part of North Carolina the grocery chains have kind of carved themselves out independent territories. Here, it is Lowe's Food. West, toward Asheville, it is Ingles. South, toward Charlotte, it is Harris Teeter. Locally, well Lowe's purchased a location from Harris Teeter, just a couple miles from one of their stores. That made the nearest Harris Teeter fifty to sixty miles away and left Lowe's with no competing supermarket that was, well super. You know, large wine and beer selection, gourmet cheeses, dry aged beef. So, the price Lowe's can charge over and above the price they would have to charge if they had competition is called ECONOMIC RENT. Now ask yourself, have you seen the same thing happen in industries as diverse as Airlines to phone providers?

I mean if you really are interested in this issue, if you really want your question answered, well google is your friend. There have been some great articles, and even better white papers, written about rent seeking in today's economy, including increased consolidation and lack of enforcement of anti-trust regulations. But I doubt seriously you are interested in learning anything and merely want to rant and holler and spit out the same old partisan nonsense. You are only contributing to the problem and are doing nothing to help improve the economy or our political environment.

i know what rent seeking is...I was yanking the fuck out of your chain and it worked.

Now take your poorly disguised Marxist central planner snake oil, and go peddle it to another Bernout who thinks you're a savant.

 

[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.

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.

I agree with you. I was talking about the several others I’ve been engaging with that don’t seem to want to dive into these kind of details

 

[Slade3200]

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?

I want to know why that's of any particular harm to anyone, whether or not it is true..

You do realize that there's not a static commodity called "wealth" out there, that others are hogging up at the expense of everyone else, don't you?

Yes I realize that wealth is not a static commodity.... economics at this scale is an extremely complicated system, which is why I made the assumptions that the 1% be considered a single entity and our wealth as currency and a fixed amount. Yes I realize there are several dynamic factors but I’m trying to talk about core principles which is much easier to do when you simply and generalize...

So if we consider wealth as a the value of ones assets including the % of currency they own, then we can examine how it flows and effects our society and economy.

Let expand it to the top 10%.... if the top 10% owns a large portion of our nations wealth and that % keeps growing, are you going to tell me you don’t think that has an impact on the rest of of the people, particularly the poor and middle class?

 

[Mac1958]

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.

You're invited to show me where my post is a "fairy tale".
.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Anyone and I do mean anyone can increase his net worth (wealth) starting today


IF they want to

That’s it, tell the workers to work harder
Beats telling corporations to cough up more of their profits

Tell me how much has your pay ever dropped because some corporation made more?

If you don't work for one of those corporations (and you probably don't) then what they do has absolutely no effect on your income

And I never once said anything about working harder all I said was that anyone can increase their net worth , which is all wealth is, starting today if they wanted to.

Not just me but the entire nation

As we continue to give corporations more tax breaks and lower tax rates, they give their workers less and less of the profits

Makes you question.....Why?

You assume if corps paid more taxes that you would make more?

Every red cent a corporation earns eventually gets taxed because it all ends up in the hands of a person who pays taxes.

It's always always always better when money stays with the public because the government has proven it cannot handle money responsibly

 

[healthmyths]

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.

What happened under Bush? Yes, a slightly rising economy (the economy right now isn't rising) and then a huge bang and the economy dropped, 7 million people lost their homes and some rich people got even richer.

Kind of proves is, right?

It only proves that your knowledge of economics is deplorable. The housing bubble collapse did help bring the economy down, because it dried up consumer credit. The seeds of that bubble, and subsequent collapse, were sown years before Bush ever took office. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with trickle down economics.

You've said stuff, but none of it disproves in any way what I said. Funny that.

Yes, the seeds of the housing bubble were sown years before. They're still sown now, they always are. Part of the problem is that presidents can only serve two terms.

The doesn't mean that the Bush tax cuts didn't play their part in making the recession worse than it could have been had it happened in about 2003.

The first recession occurred two months after Bush took office. A result of the bad economics of the Clinton administration. The Bush tax cuts were instrumental in correcting that recession. The housing bubble, like the dot com bubble had little to do with "trickle down" economics.

Trickle down and supply side are the same thing, and neither is accurate as economic terms. Government has the ability to create, maintain, or destroy an economic environment that is positive for economic growth. Good economic growth is good for everyone who is participating in the economy, and therefore is referred to as raising all boats.

Trump has created a good economic environment through tax cuts and regulation cuts. This good economic environment has to be maintained by preventing socialists from cutting it off through more taxes and regulations.

Recessions happen all the time. Presidents continually want to make themselves look good for a short period of time.

The problem with Bush was that the recession that happened just before he left office was the second worst the US has ever seen.

You have to understand the economy can't overreach itself. It's not unlimited. You can try pushing for the sky, and if you do, it will fall away from you. The best bet is to try and keep the economy as steady as possible. As little up and down as you can get.

And the problem with people like you is you have blinders on i.e. you ONLY see what you want to see!
Here are the FACTS about events that NO other president has ever faced during their terms that GWB faced.
Ranging from a recession that started in 2000, to 9/11, to worst hurricane SEASONS not just bad hurricanes, to housing collapse that today Barney Franks admits that the GWB administration was right in trying rein in Fannie/Freddie.
But you will not believe these FACTs but they occurred.

 

[Oddball]

Yes I realize that wealth is not a static commodity.... economics at this scale is an extremely complicated system, which is why I made the assumptions that the 1% be considered a single entity and our wealth as currency and a fixed amount. Yes I realize there are several dynamic factors but I’m trying to talk about core principles which is much easier to do when you simply and generalize...

So if we consider wealth as a the value of ones assets including the % of currency they own, then we can examine how it flows and effects our society and economy.

Let expand it to the top 10%.... if the top 10% owns a large portion of our nations wealth and that % keeps growing, are you going to tell me you don’t think that has an impact on the rest of of the people, particularly the poor and middle class?

As long as wealth creation isn't static -which it isn't- then what's the problem?....You keep claiming that there's an "impact", yet leave it at that extremely vague claim.

If the pool of wealth is constantly expanding (which it is), to the point that everyone with an ounce of get-up-and-go can get some, who gives a rats ass if some are accumulating more than others?