Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Taxes were cut and regulation reduced. That was what Bush did when he was elected.
Trickle down is ...
So, there is no such thing as supply side economics; no economic theory that suggests that by lowering taxes and cutting regulations, businesses will be in a better position to invest and employ more people? That basic tenet of Republican economic theory of the last fifty years is a fiction?Trickle down is ...
A fiction of the ideological left which literally describes The Welfare State produced BY the Left.
Here, they use small words, maybe you will get it:You do, recall, that Reagan then raised taxes, right? That over the course of his 8 years the % of GDP paid in taxes was actually higher than it was under Carter?The problem with Greece is that no one PAID their taxes.
dear, we pay our taxes and we're $20 trillion in debt with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Please just read these posts but don't respond to them. Thanks
You were given tax cuts by Reagan despite his increases in spending, not the least of which was his escalation of the Cold War. You were given tax cuts by GW Bush despite our being faced with the extra costs of two wars to fight. Both McCain and Romney wanted to cut taxes while increasing military spending.
See the pattern here. Since Vietnam, we stopped paying for the wars we fight and the costs of the military that supports our fighting those almost incessant wars.
THAT is where this country went wrong fiscally. Period.
Trickle down is supply side economics. I would ask you to google it but you are not bright enough to understand economics to begin with.There is no such thing as "trickle down theory", Nimrod. It is merely a term used by liberals who dont understand economics. It's like social darwinism. Only liberals use the term.What the fuck does that have to do with Reagan?
I am pointing out the "trickle down theory" term was not invented for Reaganomics. In fact, Reaganomics wasn't invented by Reagan or his staff. They just rebranded it.
The "trickle down theory" (Reaganomics) and those who have derided it, have been around for over a century.
The "trickle down theory" name was invented long before Reagan.
No, Honey Boo Boo. "Trickle Down" is a derisive misnomer mocked up by the Losing Side in the Cold War (that's your side)
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Trickle-Down Theory'
President Reagan's economic policies, commonly referred to as "Reaganomics" or supply-side economics, were based on trickle-down theory. The idea is that with a lower tax burden and increased investment, business can produce (or supply) more, increasing employment and worker pay. Reagan initially slashed the top income-tax rate from 70% to 50%. Trickle-down policy’s detractors see the policy as tax cuts for the rich and don’t think the tax cuts benefit lower-income earners.
A contrasting theory, Keynesianism, is based on stimulating demand through government spending and other government interventions. An increase in government spending necessitates an increase in income-tax rates – the opposite of what trickle-down theory advocates. Trickle-down theory does not support government intervention in the economy.
According to the trickle-down theory, if tax rates are lower, people have an incentive to work more because they get to keep more of the income they earn. They then spend or invest that income, and either of these activities will improve everyone’s prosperity, not just the prosperity of those in the highest income brackets. What’s more, in the end, the government may actually collect more income tax despite the lower tax rates because of the additional work performed. The Laffer Curve shows how this relationship works. If the government taxes 0% of income or 100% of income, it takes in no money. In between these two extremes, tax revenues vary because different tax rates encourage people to work more or to take more leisure time.
Read more: Trickle Down Theory Definition Investopedia
Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter
Keynsian economics have been successful in Canada, Great Britain, Scandinavia, and most of Europe. Keynesian economics lifted the world out of Bush's supply side recession of 2008.
As usual Rabbid has it wrong.
Wealth does "trickle down", when the wealthy are encouraged to spend.
Democrats discourage spending by taxing the wealthy.
Republicans encourage spending by reducing taxes.
Keynsian economics have been successful in Canada, Great Britain, Scandinavia, and most of Europe. Keynesian economics lifted the world out of Bush's supply side recession of 2008.
As usual Rabbid has it wrong.
too stupid as always. We have the highest corporate taxes in the world , not Canada or Britain. Oh, and the PM of Britain for the last 5 years is Conservative. As a typical liberal you lack the IQ to comment here.
Wealth does "trickle down", when the wealthy are encouraged to spend.
Having them pay taxes does not stop them from inventing things or accumulating great wealth.Wealth does "trickle down", when the wealthy are encouraged to spend.
Trickle down is really flood down!!! Wealth floods down when the wealthy are encouraged to invent new products like all the ones that got us from the stone age to here.
Does not, unfortunately, work that way in the long run.
Having them pay taxes does not stop them from inventing things or accumulating great wealth.
Taxation of an activity discourages that activity.100% stupid and liberal of course. When you tax venture capital you tax new ventures like Apple Amazon Tesla etc etc and reduce the number that can get funded.Having them pay taxes does not stop them from inventing things or accumulating great wealth.
Simple enough for the liberal IQ??
We have taxed venture capital for 80 years. Have we not invented anything? Apple has done pretty well since its founding in the 70's, regardless of the tax rates. Clinton raised rates in the 90's and economic growth soared. Your opinions are contrary to the facts we have observed.Having them pay taxes does not stop them from inventing things or accumulating great wealth.
100% stupid and liberal of course. When you tax venture capital you tax new ventures like Apple Amazon Tesla etc etc and reduce the number that can get funded.
Simple enough for the liberal IQ??
No, it does not discourage that activity. What a fucking moron. What was the tax rate during the greatest period of economic growth in the twentieth century in this country, the 1950's and early 1960's? The best period of economic growth in the last forty years followed the Clinton tax increases. We know what happened when tax rates went up and down with regard to economic growth and what you are claiming is simply not factually true.Taxation of an activity discourages that activity.100% stupid and liberal of course. When you tax venture capital you tax new ventures like Apple Amazon Tesla etc etc and reduce the number that can get funded.Having them pay taxes does not stop them from inventing things or accumulating great wealth.
Simple enough for the liberal IQ??
Taxation of commerce discourages commerce.
Liberals want to raise taxes on commerce....?
Taxing ammunition does not discourage the purchase of ammunition?No, it does not discourage that activity. .Taxation of an activity discourages that activity.
Taxation of commerce discourages commerce.
Liberals want to raise taxes on commerce....?
Irony - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaWhat a fucking moron
Taxes were extremely high under Reagan, yet "subsidies" were allowed to flourish. That is what encouraged spending.If you actually contemplate his post, you can tell he's subtly hinting that the rich need lower taxes and it'll trickle down. Mr H, are you an idiot?You can't explain the obvious to these people. It's not that they are simply stupid. It's complicated with a determined ignorance. And they are very determined.Did you even read the damn study? This covered 100+ countries, and you're full of shit, this refers to the world, not just partisan America, and taxes were cut for the rich, decades ago, and yet, it's not trickling down, at all, yeah, yeah, we know how republicans want to cut taxes for the rich, it's a fucking disaster, productivity is at all time highs, incomes are shrinking, wages are stagnant, and the rich just keep getting richer. What do they need, more tax cuts? LOL.Wealth does "trickle down", when the wealthy are encouraged to spend.
Democrats discourage spending by taxing the wealthy.
Republicans encourage spending by reducing taxes.
I was there you malevolent fuck.
Yeah, I'm that old.
Go back to bed.
what you are claiming is simply not factually true.
Taxing ammunition does not discourage the purchase of ammunition?No, it does not discourage that activity. .Taxation of an activity discourages that activity.
Taxation of commerce discourages commerce.
Liberals want to raise taxes on commerce....?
Taxing abortions does not discourage abortions?
Taxing the casting of a ballot does not discourage voting?
Taxing the the choice to not obtain health insurance does not discourage the choiceto not have health insurance?
You tax an activity, you make it harder to undertake that activity - thusly discouraging it.
Irony - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaWhat a fucking moron
And your comments are evidence of utter stupidity and a blindness to historical reality. Money that is invested is not taxed. If I invest in technology to make my business more efficient, the money I spend on that technology is an expense that I deduct from my income. If If an investor knows that his million dollar investment will result in a return of 500,000.00, do you really think he will forego that investment if his return is taxed at 30% versus 25%? Do you think that he would forego the $350,000.00 after tax profit because it will not be $375,000.00? If that is what you think, I guess that is why you work at Wal Mart.what you are claiming is simply not factually true.
so then the more venture capital the libcommie govt taxes away the more venture capital venture capitalists have to invest in the Apples Amazons and Tesla of the world??
See why we have to be 100% positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance??
