The 'trickle down theory' is dead wrong

[M14 Shooter]

If the government is taxing the rich, then it is not the trickle down theory,is it? And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes. Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income.

:doh:
How much of your personal spending do you get to write off?
That businesses get to deduct expenses from their incomes in no way means people have an incentive to spend more when taxed more.

Let me use small words....

Because you don;t know any big words, eh?

The theory behind trickle down is if you cut taxes for the wealthy, they will INVEST more and that that will lead to economic growth; not that they will go out and by another Benz. Money that they invest; that they use to build the economy is a business expense.

All of that is nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you said.

You said:
And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes

You then immediately said:
Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income

Your 2nd statement does not support your first because "folks" don't get to deduct expenses like businesses do.

If you have no idea what is being discussed, stop commenting.

Sorry, I assumed a certain intellect here. I guess I overestimated. The discussion is about supply side economics or "trickle down".

I'm sorry - we're discussing what you said, as quoted.

1: And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes
2: Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income

Your 2nd statement does not support your first because "folks" don't get to deduct expenses like businesses do; that you refuse to understand this denotes the inability or unwillingness to admit how wrong you are.
So... which is it?

 

[2aguy]

If the government is taxing the rich, then it is not the trickle down theory,is it? And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes. Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income.

:doh:
How much of your personal spending do you get to write off?
That businesses get to deduct expenses from their incomes in no way means people have an incentive to spend more when taxed more.

Let me use small words....

Because you don;t know any big words, eh?

The theory behind trickle down is if you cut taxes for the wealthy, they will INVEST more and that that will lead to economic growth; not that they will go out and by another Benz. Money that they invest; that they use to build the economy is a business expense.

All of that is nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you said.

You said:
And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes

You then immediately said:
Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income

Your 2nd statement does not support your first because "folks" don't get to deduct expenses like businesses do.

If you have no idea what is being discussed, stop commenting.

Sorry, I assumed a certain intellect here. I guess I overestimated. The discussion is about supply side economics or "trickle down". You know,

1. Supply side economics is an economics theory built around the idea that by giving the rich enough money, tax breaks and deregulation, they will be freed from the constraints that allegedly prevent them from expanding their businesses and hiring more people.

Since we were discussing supply side economics, I assumed that most were at least somewhat familiar with that theory. You, apparently, are not. I guess I could have explained the theory first so slower students, like yourself, could follow along. People will spend their money to invest in their businesses (i.e. a deductible expense) rather than pay it in taxes.

See...that is where you get it wrong....

that by giving the rich enough money,

When you cut taxes you aren't "giving" the rich anything....you aren't "taking" money that they earned through their hard work, from them......you have it all wrong......from the get go.....

when you cut taxes they simply keep more of their money....if they are concerned that you statists are going to raise taxes in the near future they are less likely to take risks with their money......

Keep taxes low, keep government interference less....

Dennis Prager had on a chef yesterday on his radio show.....he was the personal chef to hollywood stars....two mentioned were Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson....he was following his dream...he was trying to open a pizza place in California..........at this point they just raised the minimum wage on him....and he had to let 3 people go and he hasn't even had his grand opening yet....that money now came out of his advertising budget......the added expenses he had to shell out for stupid things from the government were nuts....he had a pizza oven......and just before opening the health inspector said he needed a 50 ft. spit guard all around the oven....when he said...no customers were going to even get close to the oven the woman said...she was sorry but that was the regulation...the cost increases as he was trying to open up were just staggering......now he doesn't think he can stay open......

Low taxes, less government.....that is how an economy gets big for everyone.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

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.

This "people" has owned and operated a business under numerous administrations over the past four decades. You can't tax wealth while at the same time take away the incentive to spend. That is what Democrats do, you frightful fuck.

Wealth is not taxed; income is.

And you hear them talking about that as well........there is no money that you earn and save that is really yours in the eye of a statist.......

Right. Paying 24 % of your income in taxes leaves you with nothing. Your wealth is not taxed. Period. When you die, some of it might be, depending upon how much you have and how good your estate lawyers are.

24% is not all it is....and if it is that it is too high.......Sean hannity talked about his tax rate in New York....it was 62%....after all the local, state and federal taxes......

 

[paddymurphy]

If the government is taxing the rich, then it is not the trickle down theory,is it? And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes. Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income.

:doh:
How much of your personal spending do you get to write off?
That businesses get to deduct expenses from their incomes in no way means people have an incentive to spend more when taxed more.

Let me use small words....

Because you don;t know any big words, eh?

The theory behind trickle down is if you cut taxes for the wealthy, they will INVEST more and that that will lead to economic growth; not that they will go out and by another Benz. Money that they invest; that they use to build the economy is a business expense.

All of that is nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you said.

You said:
And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes

You then immediately said:
Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income

Your 2nd statement does not support your first because "folks" don't get to deduct expenses like businesses do.

If you have no idea what is being discussed, stop commenting.

Sorry, I assumed a certain intellect here. I guess I overestimated. The discussion is about supply side economics or "trickle down". You know,

1. Supply side economics is an economics theory built around the idea that by giving the rich enough money, tax breaks and deregulation, they will be freed from the constraints that allegedly prevent them from expanding their businesses and hiring more people.

Since we were discussing supply side economics, I assumed that most were at least somewhat familiar with that theory. You, apparently, are not. I guess I could have explained the theory first so slower students, like yourself, could follow along. People will spend their money to invest in their businesses (i.e. a deductible expense) rather than pay it in taxes.

See...that is where you get it wrong....

that by giving the rich enough money,

When you cut taxes you aren't "giving" the rich anything....you aren't "taking" money that they earned through their hard work, from them......you have it all wrong......from the get go.....

when you cut taxes they simply keep more of their money....if they are concerned that you statists are going to raise taxes in the near future they are less likely to take risks with their money......

Keep taxes low, keep government interference less....

Dennis Prager had on a chef yesterday on his radio show.....he was the personal chef to hollywood stars....two mentioned were Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson....he was following his dream...he was trying to open a pizza place in California..........at this point they just raised the minimum wage on him....and he had to let 3 people go and he hasn't even had his grand opening yet....that money now came out of his advertising budget......the added expenses he had to shell out for stupid things from the government were nuts....he had a pizza oven......and just before opening the health inspector said he needed a 50 ft. spit guard all around the oven....when he said...no customers were going to even get close to the oven the woman said...she was sorry but that was the regulation...the cost increases as he was trying to open up were just staggering......now he doesn't think he can stay open......

Low taxes, less government.....that is how an economy gets big for everyone.....

And, of course, history proves otherwise.

 

[2aguy]

:doh:
How much of your personal spending do you get to write off?
That businesses get to deduct expenses from their incomes in no way means people have an incentive to spend more when taxed more.

Let me use small words....

Because you don;t know any big words, eh?

The theory behind trickle down is if you cut taxes for the wealthy, they will INVEST more and that that will lead to economic growth; not that they will go out and by another Benz. Money that they invest; that they use to build the economy is a business expense.

All of that is nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you said.

You said:
And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes

You then immediately said:
Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income

Your 2nd statement does not support your first because "folks" don't get to deduct expenses like businesses do.

If you have no idea what is being discussed, stop commenting.

Sorry, I assumed a certain intellect here. I guess I overestimated. The discussion is about supply side economics or "trickle down". You know,

1. Supply side economics is an economics theory built around the idea that by giving the rich enough money, tax breaks and deregulation, they will be freed from the constraints that allegedly prevent them from expanding their businesses and hiring more people.

Since we were discussing supply side economics, I assumed that most were at least somewhat familiar with that theory. You, apparently, are not. I guess I could have explained the theory first so slower students, like yourself, could follow along. People will spend their money to invest in their businesses (i.e. a deductible expense) rather than pay it in taxes.

See...that is where you get it wrong....

that by giving the rich enough money,

When you cut taxes you aren't "giving" the rich anything....you aren't "taking" money that they earned through their hard work, from them......you have it all wrong......from the get go.....

when you cut taxes they simply keep more of their money....if they are concerned that you statists are going to raise taxes in the near future they are less likely to take risks with their money......

Keep taxes low, keep government interference less....

Dennis Prager had on a chef yesterday on his radio show.....he was the personal chef to hollywood stars....two mentioned were Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson....he was following his dream...he was trying to open a pizza place in California..........at this point they just raised the minimum wage on him....and he had to let 3 people go and he hasn't even had his grand opening yet....that money now came out of his advertising budget......the added expenses he had to shell out for stupid things from the government were nuts....he had a pizza oven......and just before opening the health inspector said he needed a 50 ft. spit guard all around the oven....when he said...no customers were going to even get close to the oven the woman said...she was sorry but that was the regulation...the cost increases as he was trying to open up were just staggering......now he doesn't think he can stay open......

Low taxes, less government.....that is how an economy gets big for everyone.....

And, of course, history proves otherwise.

Yes....everytime the government lowers tax rates the economy grows......Kennedy did it and Reagan and one other President and revenue to the government grew......and then the politicians spent it all.....

 

[2aguy]

What I never understand with silly people like you.....why should the politicians who did nothing to earn the money get to spend the money? Why would you want to give greedy, corrupt and many times, evil politicians one dime more than is absolutely necessary to run things...since they don't run things well...and most of the time wreck whatever they touch.

It is immoral to take more than 10-15% of anyones income....no matter if an individual earned it or a business or corporation.......And that is total...local, state and federal.......

 

[paddymurphy]

Let me use small words....

Because you don;t know any big words, eh?

The theory behind trickle down is if you cut taxes for the wealthy, they will INVEST more and that that will lead to economic growth; not that they will go out and by another Benz. Money that they invest; that they use to build the economy is a business expense.

All of that is nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you said.

You said:
And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes

You then immediately said:
Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income

Your 2nd statement does not support your first because "folks" don't get to deduct expenses like businesses do.

If you have no idea what is being discussed, stop commenting.

Sorry, I assumed a certain intellect here. I guess I overestimated. The discussion is about supply side economics or "trickle down". You know,

1. Supply side economics is an economics theory built around the idea that by giving the rich enough money, tax breaks and deregulation, they will be freed from the constraints that allegedly prevent them from expanding their businesses and hiring more people.

Since we were discussing supply side economics, I assumed that most were at least somewhat familiar with that theory. You, apparently, are not. I guess I could have explained the theory first so slower students, like yourself, could follow along. People will spend their money to invest in their businesses (i.e. a deductible expense) rather than pay it in taxes.

See...that is where you get it wrong....

that by giving the rich enough money,

When you cut taxes you aren't "giving" the rich anything....you aren't "taking" money that they earned through their hard work, from them......you have it all wrong......from the get go.....

when you cut taxes they simply keep more of their money....if they are concerned that you statists are going to raise taxes in the near future they are less likely to take risks with their money......

Keep taxes low, keep government interference less....

Dennis Prager had on a chef yesterday on his radio show.....he was the personal chef to hollywood stars....two mentioned were Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson....he was following his dream...he was trying to open a pizza place in California..........at this point they just raised the minimum wage on him....and he had to let 3 people go and he hasn't even had his grand opening yet....that money now came out of his advertising budget......the added expenses he had to shell out for stupid things from the government were nuts....he had a pizza oven......and just before opening the health inspector said he needed a 50 ft. spit guard all around the oven....when he said...no customers were going to even get close to the oven the woman said...she was sorry but that was the regulation...the cost increases as he was trying to open up were just staggering......now he doesn't think he can stay open......

Low taxes, less government.....that is how an economy gets big for everyone.....

And, of course, history proves otherwise.

Yes....everytime the government lowers tax rates the economy grows......Kennedy did it and Reagan and one other President and revenue to the government grew......and then the politicians spent it all.....

Actually, that is not historically true. Reagan cut and then raised taxes. As a % of GDP, taxes were 18.2 % under Reagan, 18.1 under Carter. Since he did not cut taxes as a % of GDP, the growth the economy experienced was not a product of the tax rate cuts.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If the government is taxing the rich, then it is not the trickle down theory,is it? And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes. Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income.

:doh:
How much of your personal spending do you get to write off?
That businesses get to deduct expenses from their incomes in no way means people have an incentive to spend more when taxed more.

Let me use small words....

Because you don;t know any big words, eh?

The theory behind trickle down is if you cut taxes for the wealthy, they will INVEST more and that that will lead to economic growth; not that they will go out and by another Benz. Money that they invest; that they use to build the economy is a business expense.

All of that is nice, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you said.

You said:
And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes

You then immediately said:
Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income

Your 2nd statement does not support your first because "folks" don't get to deduct expenses like businesses do.

If you have no idea what is being discussed, stop commenting.

Sorry, I assumed a certain intellect here. I guess I overestimated. The discussion is about supply side economics or "trickle down".

I'm sorry - we're discussing what you said, as quoted.

1: And why would folks refrain from spending because they are taxed? They would spend more to avoid paying taxes
2: Have someone explain to you how businesses get to deduct their expenses from their income

Your 2nd statement does not support your first because "folks" don't get to deduct expenses like businesses do; that you refuse to understand this denotes the inability or unwillingness to admit how wrong you are.
So... which is it?

You realize that you've entered a discussion of objective mathematics, with people who believe that a white woman IS BLACK, because she 'identifies' as black? The same people who believe that a MAN who identifies as a 'woman', IS a woman, because he 'feels' he's a woman?

If you've got a second, would ya help me to understand what you're hanging on to, that gives you the hope that such people have the slightest means to recognize any objectively founded concept?

They're quite mad, you know... and it's getting worse, by the hour..., I just read that some poor soul 'identifies' as a paraplegic, so he is asking his doctor to cut his arms off. This behind the person from last week who only wanted ONE ARM removed... .

SOooo... while I admire the debate and the optimism, I simply do not see the point of trying to understand the economic reasoning of a people who clearly no longer possess the sense that God gave a turnip.

 

[paddymurphy]

What I never understand with silly people like you.....why should the politicians who did nothing to earn the money get to spend the money? Why would you want to give greedy, corrupt and many times, evil politicians one dime more than is absolutely necessary to run things...since they don't run things well...and most of the time wreck whatever they touch.

It is immoral to take more than 10-15% of anyones income....no matter if an individual earned it or a business or corporation.......And that is total...local, state and federal.......

The politicians do not get the money, you do. It pays for so much more than you would ever admit.

 

[Political Junky]

trickle down is the derisive Progressive misnomer for Reaganomics

Actually, the trickle down theory has been around much longer than Reagan.

I give you William Jennings Bryan and his famous "Cross of Gold" speech in 1896:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

Obviously, William Jennings Bryan was right and Reagan was wrong.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

trickle down is the derisive Progressive misnomer for Reaganomics

Actually, the trickle down theory has been around much longer than Reagan.

I give you William Jennings Bryan and his famous "Cross of Gold" speech in 1896:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

Obviously, William Jennings Bryan was right and Reagan was wrong.

Why was Reagan wrong? And please, be specific.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wealth does "trickle down", when the wealthy are encouraged to spend.

Democrats discourage spending by taxing the wealthy.

Republicans encourage spending by reducing taxes.

Why did the economy boom after the Clinton tax increase in 93?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The elephant in the room is the corrupt idiots in government are the last people I would trust with our wealth, HELLO.

But you'd trust the corporate interests?

 

[Political Junky]

trickle down is the derisive Progressive misnomer for Reaganomics

Actually, the trickle down theory has been around much longer than Reagan.

I give you William Jennings Bryan and his famous "Cross of Gold" speech in 1896:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

Obviously, William Jennings Bryan was right and Reagan was wrong.

Why was Reagan wrong? And please, be specific.

Let me guess, you think "trickle down" has worked, right?

 

[2aguy]

What I never understand with silly people like you.....why should the politicians who did nothing to earn the money get to spend the money? Why would you want to give greedy, corrupt and many times, evil politicians one dime more than is absolutely necessary to run things...since they don't run things well...and most of the time wreck whatever they touch.

It is immoral to take more than 10-15% of anyones income....no matter if an individual earned it or a business or corporation.......And that is total...local, state and federal.......

The politicians do not get the money, you do. It pays for so much more than you would ever admit.

so...I live in Illinois...we have,about 30 billion in revenue and over 221 billion in debt....is that what you mean...that these corrupt, greedy politicians are good trustees of my money...better than I am?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Let me guess, you think "trickle down" has worked, right?

The only economic policy that is built upon the notion: 'trickle-down' is SOCIALISM... As "TRICKLE-DOWN" is the defining traits of State and Federal Subsidies OKA: Welfare.

Which, if you're keeping score is party to only one set of ideas, and that is the Ideological Left which advocates exclusively for socialism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

trickle down is the derisive Progressive misnomer for Reaganomics

Actually, the trickle down theory has been around much longer than Reagan.

I give you William Jennings Bryan and his famous "Cross of Gold" speech in 1896:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.

You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.

Obviously, William Jennings Bryan was right and Reagan was wrong.

Why was Reagan wrong? And please, be specific.

Because this happened:

 

[2aguy]

The elephant in the room is the corrupt idiots in government are the last people I would trust with our wealth, HELLO.

But you'd trust the corporate interests?

I don't have to buy their products....and who do you think hands over our money to these corporations you complain about.....the politicians you keep telling us need more of our money....so they can give it to their friends and patrons in corporations....

do you guys really think this through?

 

[2aguy]

Wealth does "trickle down", when the wealthy are encouraged to spend.

Democrats discourage spending by taxing the wealthy.

Republicans encourage spending by reducing taxes.

Why did the economy boom after the Clinton tax increase in 93?

Because the tax increase didn't kill of the Reagan boom immediately...it took Clinton two terms and raising taxes to kill off the Reagan economy......remember....at the end of his term the economy went in the tank......he almost made it out of office before it happened....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The elephant in the room is the corrupt idiots in government are the last people I would trust with our wealth, HELLO.

But you'd trust the corporate interests?

A corporate interests provides either a product or a service... I trust them to perform on their promise or I refuse to pay them.

Can I do that with Government, Gilligan?

(Gilligan, the answer is: "No Sir, you can't.")