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

[rightwinger]

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.

It is called contributing to a society

 

[danielpalos]

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).

Labor needs a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, to still be capitally useful in our fine and wonderful, first world economy. A first world is not inexpensive. We are worth it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

It is called contributing to a society

"Society" doesn't own my money

And If I don't want to "contribute to"Society"", I don't have to

 

[Oddball]

Labor needs a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, to still be capitally useful in our fine and wonderful, first world economy. A first world is not inexpensive. We are worth it.

Thank you NPC.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It is called contributing to a society

"Society" doesn't own my money

And If I don't want to "contribute to"Society"", I don't have to

Congress has the Power to appropriate Your money, ostensibly to solve problems for the Good and welfare general, of our Republic. Along with the common defense and paying the Debts.

 

[Oddball]

It is called contributing to a society

"Contributing" presumes that the resources are mine, and it's a voluntary action....This is the exact opposite of what "pay for tax cuts" means.

 

[danielpalos]

Labor needs a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, to still be capitally useful in our fine and wonderful, first world economy. A first world is not inexpensive. We are worth it.

Thank you NPC.

Thank you for having nothing but fallacy for Your Cause; and ceding the argument and point as a result.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

It is called contributing to a society

"Society" doesn't own my money

And If I don't want to "contribute to"Society"", I don't have to

Congress has the Power to appropriate Your money, ostensibly to solve problems for the Good and welfare general, of our Republic. Along with the common defense.

The government is NOT "society"

My taxes are to pay for what government services I use or may need it has nothing to do with "society"

 

[danielpalos]

It is called contributing to a society

"Contributing" presumes that the resources are mine, and it's a voluntary action....This is the exact opposite of what "pay for tax cuts" means.

what voluntary transactions? you don't believe in capitalism for the Poor.

 

[Oddball]

It is called contributing to a society

"Contributing" presumes that the resources are mine, and it's a voluntary action....This is the exact opposite of what "pay for tax cuts" means.

what voluntary transactions? you don't believe in capitalism for the Poor.

 

[danielpalos]

It is called contributing to a society

"Contributing" presumes that the resources are mine, and it's a voluntary action....This is the exact opposite of what "pay for tax cuts" means.

what voluntary transactions? you don't believe in capitalism for the Poor.

View attachment 223459

why should blacks vote for the party of right wing fantasy and right wing fallacy?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

It is called contributing to a society

"Society" doesn't own my money

And If I don't want to "contribute to"Society"", I don't have to

Read the Constitution
It starts.....We the People

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It is called contributing to a society

"Society" doesn't own my money

And If I don't want to "contribute to"Society"", I don't have to

Congress has the Power to appropriate Your money, ostensibly to solve problems for the Good and welfare general, of our Republic. Along with the common defense.

The government is NOT "society"

My taxes are to pay for what government services I use or may need it has nothing to do with "society"

You don't know what you are talking about. Congress is delegated the Power, not the right, to tax.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

It is called contributing to a society

"Society" doesn't own my money

And If I don't want to "contribute to"Society"", I don't have to

Read the Constitution
It starts.....We the People

SO what?

It says nothing about me being required to give you people anything

 

[RealDave]

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
January 2018 Median Household Income | Seeking Alpha

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

First of all, Obama created more jobs in his last 18 months in office, so your little orange buddy is doping worse.
The Republicans borrowed 1.5 trillion over ten years, that is 150 billion a year & you are a parading around a gain of 23 billion. I hve news, but even a dumbass like you should know borrowing 150 billion to gain 2w3 billion is really stupid.

Trickle down is when you hands the weathy billions of dollars in tax cuts, tax dodges & favorable tax legislation and only a small percentage trickles down.

The all boats are lifted with a rising tide is bullshit unless everyone gets lift the same amount.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

I’ve actually been asking you if you believe there is an impact and you’ve avoided answering 5 times now.

But now that you bring it up, yes I believe there is an impact from wealth inequality. let’s look at an extreme example that will emphasis my point. Let’s say the % of wealth owned by the top earners continues to grow and it gets to a point where they own 90% of our nations wealth. What does that do for the rest of us?

The largest impact I see comes in real estate and business ownership. When a few own and accumulate the wealth while he middle class and poor stay stagnant then the rich buy up the properties and business. More of the lower guys become renters and employees. It gets harder for the “little guy” to compete with the big businesses and it gets harder for them to be able to afford to own a house. The few control our habitat and commerce and we need up in a corporate socialism of sorts. If you dont like big government running your life then perhaps you should put big business on your radar as well because there are not many differences.

True that currency isn’t static but new Money is created by borrowing and the majority of that is done by the wealthy. Cost of living also isnt static, it is a rising figure like inflation. Like I said, it’s a complicated system but if you can simplify it down to the core and look at it then maybe we can identify some of the cause and effects of wealth inequality.

I’m not calling for socialism or some massive redistribution, I’m just trying to have an honest examination of economic cause and effects in a system like we have. I’m far from having all this figured out

 

[Oddball]

I’ve actually been asking you if you believe there is an impact and you’ve avoided answering 5 times now.

But now that you bring it up, yes I believe there is an impact from wealth inequality. let’s look at an extreme example that will emphasis my point. Let’s say the % of wealth owned by the top earners continues to grow and it gets to a point where they own 90% of our nations wealth. What does that do for the rest of us?

The largest impact I see comes in real estate and business ownership. When a few own and accumulate the wealth while he middle class and poor stay stagnant then the rich buy up the properties and business. More of the lower guys become renters and employees. It gets harder for the “little guy” to compete with the big businesses and it gets harder for them to be able to afford to own a house. The few control our habitat and commerce and we need up in a corporate socialism of sorts. If you dont like big government running your life then perhaps you should put big business on your radar as well because there are not many differences.

True that currency isn’t static but new Money is created by borrowing and the majority of that is done by the wealthy. Cost of living also isnt static, it is a rising figure like inflation. Like I said, it’s a complicated system but if you can simplify it down to the core and look at it then maybe we can identify some of the cause and effects of wealth inequality.

I’m not calling for socialism or some massive redistribution, I’m just trying to have an honest examination of economic cause and effects in a system like we have. I’m far from having all this figured out

"An impact" is marvelously vague.....I've asked you to flesh out this idea and you keep circling back to it, as though I'm supposed to read your mind as to what these mythical "impacts" are....It's about time you threw something out here for me to comment on.

As to your real estate scenario, that is exactly what the Fed did, when it pumped about $4 trillion into Wall Street and bought up the same mortgage-backed securities that crashed the market on '08...I think you'd be more concerned about the mega-wealthy "rent seekers" at the Fed owning all the marbles through their currency counterfeiting scam, than real operators out in the marketplace who are accumulating wealth trough far more legitimate means....In fact, I'm nearly certain that's the kind of thing that all this mantra mewling about "the 1%" is supposed to distract your attention from.

In any event, is there some other mythical "impact" that you can dream, up that may or may not be harmful, from a rich guy merely being rich?

 

[healthmyths]

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
January 2018 Median Household Income | Seeking Alpha

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

First of all, Obama created more jobs in his last 18 months in office, so your little orange buddy is doping worse.
The Republicans borrowed 1.5 trillion over ten years, that is 150 billion a year & you are a parading around a gain of 23 billion. I hve news, but even a dumbass like you should know borrowing 150 billion to gain 2w3 billion is really stupid.

Trickle down is when you hands the weathy billions of dollars in tax cuts, tax dodges & favorable tax legislation and only a small percentage trickles down.

The all boats are lifted with a rising tide is bullshit unless everyone gets lift the same amount.

NO ONE believes ANY comment that is obviously strictly a personal, subjective NON-SUBSTANTIATED statement such as yours! NO where is there any proof of your statement.

Contrast with MY comments are more often than not SUPPORTED by LINKS that provide the substantiation for MY comments.
So which do you think MORE people have confidence IN? YOUR unsubstantiated, personalized subjective observation?


First of all, Obama jobs were PART TIME JOBS!!!
FACTS...
1) Obamacare required an employer with 50 or more employees to have group insurance plan, Obama never understood that the employer would be faced
when the employer wanted to hire another employee to the 49 employees it would cost an employer an average of $284/month per employee.
50 employees times $284 equals $14,200 more per month.

Solution: Hire two part-time employees. No need to spend $14,200/month.

Now do you understand that simple math?
Why hire a full-time person that will cost $14,200 per month for a health care plan when you can hire two part-time people and
SAVE that $14,200/month?

That was proven by the below!

2) Proof: A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that:
94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.
The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time "gig" jobs in a variety of fields.
It shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs,
increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.
Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract

Finally I guess YOU being so stupid you can't even correct a simple "2w3 billion" typing error really believe that those "filthy wealthy"
Bury their tax savings in the back yard or hide it under their mattresses! YOU really believe that it appears!

That stupid belief dovetails with your total lack of why over the last year the median family income has increased 10%!

Median household income in the U.S. rose to an estimated $59,055 in January 2018,
According to Sentier Research, median household income in the United States rose to $62,685 in August 2018, which is an average /month of 0.77%!
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4209310-august-2018-median-household-income
At that rate then the end of 2018 will see median household income of $64,500 a 9.22% gain. Now is that "trickle down"???

Of course it is!

This increase of 9.22% is a higher rate than interest on CDs pay.

 

[Slade3200]

I’ve actually been asking you if you believe there is an impact and you’ve avoided answering 5 times now.

But now that you bring it up, yes I believe there is an impact from wealth inequality. let’s look at an extreme example that will emphasis my point. Let’s say the % of wealth owned by the top earners continues to grow and it gets to a point where they own 90% of our nations wealth. What does that do for the rest of us?

The largest impact I see comes in real estate and business ownership. When a few own and accumulate the wealth while he middle class and poor stay stagnant then the rich buy up the properties and business. More of the lower guys become renters and employees. It gets harder for the “little guy” to compete with the big businesses and it gets harder for them to be able to afford to own a house. The few control our habitat and commerce and we need up in a corporate socialism of sorts. If you dont like big government running your life then perhaps you should put big business on your radar as well because there are not many differences.

True that currency isn’t static but new Money is created by borrowing and the majority of that is done by the wealthy. Cost of living also isnt static, it is a rising figure like inflation. Like I said, it’s a complicated system but if you can simplify it down to the core and look at it then maybe we can identify some of the cause and effects of wealth inequality.

I’m not calling for socialism or some massive redistribution, I’m just trying to have an honest examination of economic cause and effects in a system like we have. I’m far from having all this figured out

"An impact" is marvelously vague.....I've asked you to flesh out this idea and you keep circling back to it, as though I'm supposed to read your mind as to what these mythical "impacts" are....It's about time you threw something out here for me to comment on.

As to your real estate scenario, that is exactly what the Fed did, when it pumped about $4 trillion into Wall Street and bought up the same mortgage-backed securities that crashed the market on '08...I think you'd be more concerned about the mega-wealthy "rent seekers" at the Fed owning all the marbles through their currency counterfeiting scam, than real operators out in the marketplace who are accumulating wealth trough far more legitimate means....In fact, I'm nearly certain that's the kind of thing that all this mantra mewling about "the 1%" is supposed to distract your attention from.

In any event, is there some other mythical "impact" that you can dream, up that may or may not be harmful, from a rich guy merely being rich?

What do you mean “marvelously vague”? I literally just gave two examples of the type of impact I thought it would have. Less owners more renters/employees. Do you not see this happening?

And I agree with your concerns about the Fed but that’s a different subject.

 

[healthmyths]

I’ve actually been asking you if you believe there is an impact and you’ve avoided answering 5 times now.

But now that you bring it up, yes I believe there is an impact from wealth inequality. let’s look at an extreme example that will emphasis my point. Let’s say the % of wealth owned by the top earners continues to grow and it gets to a point where they own 90% of our nations wealth. What does that do for the rest of us?

The largest impact I see comes in real estate and business ownership. When a few own and accumulate the wealth while he middle class and poor stay stagnant then the rich buy up the properties and business. More of the lower guys become renters and employees. It gets harder for the “little guy” to compete with the big businesses and it gets harder for them to be able to afford to own a house. The few control our habitat and commerce and we need up in a corporate socialism of sorts. If you dont like big government running your life then perhaps you should put big business on your radar as well because there are not many differences.

True that currency isn’t static but new Money is created by borrowing and the majority of that is done by the wealthy. Cost of living also isnt static, it is a rising figure like inflation. Like I said, it’s a complicated system but if you can simplify it down to the core and look at it then maybe we can identify some of the cause and effects of wealth inequality.

I’m not calling for socialism or some massive redistribution, I’m just trying to have an honest examination of economic cause and effects in a system like we have. I’m far from having all this figured out

"An impact" is marvelously vague.....I've asked you to flesh out this idea and you keep circling back to it, as though I'm supposed to read your mind as to what these mythical "impacts" are....It's about time you threw something out here for me to comment on.

As to your real estate scenario, that is exactly what the Fed did, when it pumped about $4 trillion into Wall Street and bought up the same mortgage-backed securities that crashed the market on '08...I think you'd be more concerned about the mega-wealthy "rent seekers" at the Fed owning all the marbles through their currency counterfeiting scam, than real operators out in the marketplace who are accumulating wealth trough far more legitimate means....In fact, I'm nearly certain that's the kind of thing that all this mantra mewling about "the 1%" is supposed to distract your attention from.

In any event, is there some other mythical "impact" that you can dream, up that may or may not be harmful, from a rich guy merely being rich?

There are people that may not be aware of the QE1,2 and 3... so here is an explanation!

Called QE1,2,3 this is what most people don't know the Fed Reserve did to prop up the stock market.
Quantitative easing also pushes down interest rates.
This damages the returns for traditionally safe investments such as financial vehicles including money market accounts, certificates of deposit (CDs), Treasurys and highly rated bonds. investors are forced into relatively riskier investments to find a return.
Many of these investors weight their portfolios towards equities, pushing up stock market prices.

How does quantitative easing in the U.S. affect the stock market?

Investopedia How does quantitative easing in the U.S. affect the stock market? | Investopedia

So how much did the Fed's QE1,2,3 pump up the stock market?
After spending $2 trillion on government bonds in an effort to stimulate the economy, the U.S. Federal Reserve can hardly admit that it doesn’t know how, or even if, it worked.
$2 Trillion Later, Does the Fed Even Know if Quantitative Easing Worked?

If any reader care's to understand how QE1,2 & 3 caused FALSE stock market growth that if it hadn't occurred the market would have been...

NOTE this was written June 2016 while Obama still was president.
The World Bank recently slashed its expectations for gross domestic product, cutting its 2016 global estimate to 2.4 percent from 2.9 percent, from 2.2 percent to 1.7 percent for advanced economies and from 2.7 percent all the way down to 1.9 percent for the United States. Growth in Japan, despite trillions of QE, is projected at just 0.5 percent, and the euro area, which also has been actively easing, is put at 1.6 percent.
(Mind you this was before anyone at the world bank knew what Trump's policies would do to the GDP which for 2nd quarter of 2018 was 4.2% for the USA.)

$12 trillion of QE and the lowest rates in 5,000 years ... for this?