The Failure Of “Trickle Down”, and The Generation That Understands This

[The Derp]

Doesn't make sense. The rich not increasing spending with tax cuts means the tax base was not broadened? Odd that someone would argue against the economy in the Reagan years. Started my business then and saw things first hand. And with Obama. I don't need someone on the internet to redefine reality.

No, the rich not spending money means that cutting taxes doesn't lead to increased consumption by the wealthy. Which means the tax cuts do not pay for themselves, which is (was) the claim Conservatives (used to) make. So if you're now saying that tax cuts do not result in increased consumption to make up for the revenue gap, then they are not economic multipliers. The same thing always happens; taxes are cut, household debt skyrockets, deficits explode, debt grows. It's what happened during the Bush Tax Cuts, it's what happened in Kansas under the Brownback Tax Cuts, and it's what would happen if we tried them again.

As for your anecdote, if you are at the point in the debate where you have to submit unverifiable personal anecdotes in place of facts, then you've already lost. You wouldn't believe me if I said I was Tom Brady, so why should I believe anything you say about yourself that cannot be verified? Isn't it possible you're just saying this for the sake of your argument, even if it isn't true?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Bush tax cuts are a poor example because they are an anomaly. Bush cut tax rates across the board so the top marginal rate decrease was offset by the decrease in all other tax rates. If you cut a poor man's tax rate you're not going to produce more revenue

Trickle down economics does not work. They just repealed it in Kansas yesterday, overriding the veto of Brownback. Cutting tax revenue does not increase tax revenue. Never has and never will. What does increase revenue is raising wages and increasing spending, both of which are the reasons why revenues grew. From 1961-1964, spending grew by 25%. From 1964-1968, spending grew by 50%. The chart you posted from the Tax Policy Center also shows big spending growth during Reagan; 25% from 1981-1984 and then 25% again from 1984-1988. When you cut taxes, you cut tax revenue and there is no corresponding increase in consumption afterwards.

During the Bush Tax Cuts, the wealthy increased their savings, not their spending.

Once again no one was going to move to Kansas and New York state does the same thing.


.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Hopefully yes, but it seems every generation grows up later than the one before.

I am hoping that the coming up generation will see how pathetic their parents are a grow up faster.

/---- I'm hoping the up coming generation can form a complete sentence that people can understand.

Dumbed Down by Design

Grammar Nazi! What's wrong with confused unstructured gibberish? It sounds as musical as crickets chirping.

/----

• Cold is with the monkey's ears and toes.

• Cats dogs and babies its Tuesday.

• Travel trips taken away go.

• Friends are baskets and hats.

• Wishes are hopping and trees are wet.

• TV shows on radios are lazy.

• Food is sitting with weather flying.

View attachment 131739

Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana

 

[The Derp]

Would you like me to show you how the two Supply Side regimes were also the most fiscally profligate EVER?

I think you should, for the sake of this thread.

 

[The Derp]

Once again no one was going to move to Kansas and New York state does the same thing.

No, what NY does is offer those tax cuts but only if the corporation setting up shop does so on or adjacent to state colleges.

That's a very important distinction that is left out in the broad generalizing of New York's taxes.

 

[The Derp]

/---- So you Libtards think the more money the Gubmint confiscates from the people will cause them to spend even more money?
You Libtards think that a reduction in discretionary income will spur economic growth?

Whenever taxes are cut, household debt grows. What that means is that people are going into debt in order to spend. Which means the tax cuts are not growing anything other than debt.

And no, Conservatives are the ones who think cutting discretionary spending will somehow translate to growth. In 37 years of bullshit, they've been unable to prove that.

 

[The Derp]

But there is no evidence any of that happened. ZERO!

There is evidence Russia hacked our elections. The investigation happening now is trying to determine if the Republicans and Trump colluded with Russia to do so. The fact that Trump is on camera encouraging Russia to hack the DNC is proof that they are colluding. But even if you refuse to accept that, the Grand Jury has issued subpoenas for docs and testimony related to Russia. They only do so if there is enough circumstantial evidence to justify it.

 

[The Derp]

False.

Wrong as usual.

Here's the perfect example from Kansas. Below is the Kansas budget with and without the repeal of Brownback's tax cuts.

When you look at the numbers below, what is it you are seeing?

 

[The Derp]

Actually, I'm limiting myself to the growth rate of Federal income tax revenues

Bush cut taxes in 2001, revenue was then below 2000 levels for four straight years. In that time, two record deficits appeared and the surplus was erased. Not to mention that during the Bush Tax Cuts household debt doubled. Which would mean the theory, that consumption increases if taxes are cut, is a load of horseshit, isn't it? The only thing that increased during the Bush Tax Cuts was household debt.

If what they're saying is true, then the blue line wouldn't increase, it would decrease.

 

[The Derp]

Libs do it to smear capitalism. And they do it because socialist have taken over the movement. All this noise boils down to capitalism vs. socialism and Trump is the personification of how evil capitalism is.

We already have plenty of socialism in this country already. Socialism and capitalism can peacefully co-exist in the same state; they have both in all our European allies, as well as our allies in Japan, Korea, and Israel. It's ridiculous to say that any economy is 100% capitalism. None of them are. But regardless, the problem isn't capitalism. The problem is the human condition of greed, which is something Conservatives never seem to account for...

 

[IcebergSlim]

Would you like me to show you how the two Supply Side regimes were also the most fiscally profligate EVER?

I think you should, for the sake of this thread.

I usually open with this...

Greenspan is Clinton's unlikely defender | Toronto Star

In his autobiography, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World (Penguin Press), Greenspan, 81, makes clear that his patron Ronald Reagan, who appointed him to head the U.S. central bank board in 1987, was a reckless steward of the nation's finances, eclipsed in economic irresponsibility by current president George W. Bush.



Clinton was in a fiscal bind when he came to power in 1993, and the record deficits of Reagan and George H.W. Bush put him there. "The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back," Greenspan writes. "I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world."


Then, assuming that their heads haven't gone all Scanners, I go to the numbers...

 

[IcebergSlim]

Actually, I'm limiting myself to the growth rate of Federal income tax revenues

Bush cut taxes in 2001, revenue was then below 2000 levels for four straight years. In that time, two record deficits appeared and the surplus was erased. Not to mention that during the Bush Tax Cuts household debt doubled. Which would mean the theory, that consumption increases if taxes are cut, is a load of horseshit, isn't it? The only thing that increased during the Bush Tax Cuts was household debt.

If what they're saying is true, then the blue line wouldn't increase, it would decrease.

You're gonna want this for your collection



Let's look at a graph I used two years ago, from work done by James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.


The Economic Blue Screen of Death

 

[JoeMoma]

I started my career within 2 weeks of Reagan taking office. I came from a lower middle class family with no money and lots of debt. Mortgage interest rates were 18% car loans were over 20% thanks to Carternomics. 8 years later I was kicking ass and taking names thanks to the turnaround Reagan brought about. Call it whatever you want, Reaganomics worked for anyone willing to work.

Bump.

Liberals like to repeat over and over that "Trickle down" doesn't work. Well it set us up for economic prosperity for many years.

Actually, I DEMONSTRATE - using the data - that Supply Side is a hoax.

You ankle up with your Bold Assertions....

You are WAAAAYYYYYYY out of your league here, boy........

Run along.

I confess to jumping into this thread kind of late. I skimmed the first 50 or so posts and failed to find your demonstration using data.

That might apply had I used the past tense......I didn't....

But I'm more than happy to help you out...

where would you like to start, with the effect on Revenues?

Would you like me to show you how the two Supply Side regimes were also the most fiscally profligate EVER?

Start wherever you want. No one is holding you back on USMB. If the it's stuff you already posted, you can simply tell me the post number. However, since messaged boarding is a leasure time activity for me, I'm not going to make it into work by reading hundreds of posts to find it.

 

[Boss]

So you say Reagan broadened the tax base, yet the tax burden grew on the wealthy as more folks didn't make enough to pay income taxes, and the EITC was expanded. There is no argument that lowering top marginal rates leads to revenue growth. The wealthy save their tax cuts, they don't spend them. So it's impossible to see revenue growth from tax cuts if those tax cuts are not being spent, right? These are what the facts show. Moody's Analytics specifically looked at the rate of spending increases for the wealthy following tax cuts. Their conclusion? There isn't one.

Jeesh.. what you're doing now is taking the Reagan tax cuts on top marginal rates which produced MORE tax revenue and using that increased revenue as a basis for an argument the tax burden was increased! How much more intellectually dishonest does it get?

EIC was not expanded until 1986, it has nothing to do with Reagan's tax cuts. Thanks for finally admitting the point I've been making for two pages, that lowering top marginals increases revenue. That, in of itself, proves the wealthy don't save their tax cuts, they generate more wealth that generates more tax revenue, dummy!

Why you want to jump to "spending", I have no idea... it's superfluous. Spending doesn't generate income tax revenue... earning more income does. They may earn more income through investment... investment isn't spending. If a billionaire takes his $20 million tax windfall and reinvests that in his business, you're (Moody's) counting that as "savings!" Well, it's NOT savings... it's reinvesting, creating new jobs and more taxpayers... earning more taxable income. ....Trickling Down!

 

[Mr.Blonde]

So Medicare, Social Security, and Defense are things you don't think the government should be involved in?

If it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution than no I don't believe the federal government should be doing it. So of your three examples I only support Defense spending.

Before you start that means education, agriculture, labor and everything else that specifically isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

Except that the exact opposite has happened. You Conservatives love to complain about the tax burden, and how 47% pay no taxes. That figure was much lower before you started cutting taxes. So you don't broaden the tax base when you cut taxes, you shrink it. That's what's happened since cutting the top rate from 70% to 39.6%. So you say that taxes have to be cut, then you complain that people don't pay taxes, then your solution is to propose...more tax cuts...which further reduces the number of people who pay taxes, which you complain about, then the cycle repeats.

So why not explain to all of us how your beliefs and ideology isn't just a big ol' circle jerk?

I don't believe in an income tax. I find it to be immoral. I believe in only usury fees and a very small borderline non existent sales tax.

I feel that income tax breeds class warfare. I don't see the rich as my enemy, but the government and all the parasites that work for the federal government (military is exempt from being parasites, but almost everyone else I view as such)

 

[Iceweasel]

Libs do it to smear capitalism. And they do it because socialist have taken over the movement. All this noise boils down to capitalism vs. socialism and Trump is the personification of how evil capitalism is.

We already have plenty of socialism in this country already. Socialism and capitalism can peacefully co-exist in the same state; they have both in all our European allies, as well as our allies in Japan, Korea, and Israel. It's ridiculous to say that any economy is 100% capitalism. None of them are. But regardless, the problem isn't capitalism. The problem is the human condition of greed, which is something Conservatives never seem to account for...

Socialism is state owned means of production. You don't even know what the word means.

 

[danielpalos]

So you say Reagan broadened the tax base, yet the tax burden grew on the wealthy as more folks didn't make enough to pay income taxes, and the EITC was expanded. There is no argument that lowering top marginal rates leads to revenue growth. The wealthy save their tax cuts, they don't spend them. So it's impossible to see revenue growth from tax cuts if those tax cuts are not being spent, right? These are what the facts show. Moody's Analytics specifically looked at the rate of spending increases for the wealthy following tax cuts. Their conclusion? There isn't one.

Doesn't make sense. The rich not increasing spending with tax cuts means the tax base was not broadened? Odd that someone would argue against the economy in the Reagan years. Started my business then and saw things first hand. And with Obama. I don't need someone on the internet to redefine reality.

Our massive debt, is the result. Spend and finance, is the only Thing, right wing knows how to do.

 

[Iceweasel]

So you say Reagan broadened the tax base, yet the tax burden grew on the wealthy as more folks didn't make enough to pay income taxes, and the EITC was expanded. There is no argument that lowering top marginal rates leads to revenue growth. The wealthy save their tax cuts, they don't spend them. So it's impossible to see revenue growth from tax cuts if those tax cuts are not being spent, right? These are what the facts show. Moody's Analytics specifically looked at the rate of spending increases for the wealthy following tax cuts. Their conclusion? There isn't one.

Doesn't make sense. The rich not increasing spending with tax cuts means the tax base was not broadened? Odd that someone would argue against the economy in the Reagan years. Started my business then and saw things first hand. And with Obama. I don't need someone on the internet to redefine reality.

Our massive debt, is the result. Spend and finance, is the only Thing, right wing knows how to do.

I thought obie added 10 trillion to it?

 

[danielpalos]

So you say Reagan broadened the tax base, yet the tax burden grew on the wealthy as more folks didn't make enough to pay income taxes, and the EITC was expanded. There is no argument that lowering top marginal rates leads to revenue growth. The wealthy save their tax cuts, they don't spend them. So it's impossible to see revenue growth from tax cuts if those tax cuts are not being spent, right? These are what the facts show. Moody's Analytics specifically looked at the rate of spending increases for the wealthy following tax cuts. Their conclusion? There isn't one.

Doesn't make sense. The rich not increasing spending with tax cuts means the tax base was not broadened? Odd that someone would argue against the economy in the Reagan years. Started my business then and saw things first hand. And with Obama. I don't need someone on the internet to redefine reality.

Our massive debt, is the result. Spend and finance, is the only Thing, right wing knows how to do.

I thought obie added 10 trillion to it?

Bailing out the rich, not blacks.

 

[Boss]

Socialism is state owned means of production. You don't even know what the word means.

What they do is take the concept of collectivism and morph that conveniently into "socialistic" which they then pass off as a form of Socialism. By doing this, they can make virtually any governing or managing structure a "Socialist" one.

Utilizing our freedom and democracy in order to provide for the collective is NOT Socialism. They want to point to these constitutionally democratic systems and say... look, those work well, therefore, socialism works well too!

The truth of the matter is, even in the examples of democratic collectivism they typically cite, the results are never the most efficient. We don't implement them for efficiency, we do so for effectiveness. Let's take the Post Office for example... The private sector has proven it can provide the service of parcel and post delivery much more efficiently and cheaper than the US Postal Service. It's not as "effective" because a free market capitalist system isn't interested in covering areas which have no profitability. The incentives are all wrong in a free market system to provide an effective solution for everybody.

It's because of this realization the framers outlined Article I Sec. 8 and granted government certain enumerated powers. It's not because it's more efficient but it's more effective. The most efficient and cheapest way to do anything is through a vibrant free market system with competition.