Cut taxes for the rich and convince poor people it smart

[MetroWord]

Originally Posted by NxtGen

Unemployment is high. The number is meaningless because it is a manufactured result of selective calculation and assessment.

I was responding to your buddy, who said unemployment is at 4.9% and shopping malls are packed with people.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by aridon

Trickle down economics is a complete joke and we have 30 years of proof that it doesn't work.

We have historically high profits, we have historically high productivity and yet wages are stagnant. Why? There has been nearly ZERO capital investment yet companies are swimming in cash and profits while wages are stuck in the 1970's.

All the while the middle class and below has gotten screwed with:

1. Ridiculous inflation in housing (including rent) and education
2. Higher barriers to entry into the job markets
3. The extinction of the Defined benefit plan
4. Far more foreign competition

Yet people are like, "well screw those peasants they are poor they just haven't worked hard enough". As they sit back and collect their pension and enjoy the house they bought out of high school without any student loan debt for a steal while the wife stayed at home. Wonder why people today are having issues trying to live and get started on the same wage but with much higher costs.

The middle class and below are WAY OVERDUE for a reach around.

wages are stagnant???

median annual household income 1970 ..... $7600
median annual household income 1980 ..... $16700
median annual household income 2015.....$55,000


big jump and progress since 1970 even bigger progress since 1980

the middleclass has gotten screwed by the globalist liberals and their 'stick it to them' policies

actually most americans are saving...and have 401k, profit sharing, and many have actual pensions

even mcdonalds and walmart offer 401k and profit sharing

the biggest employer in the USA....the federal government

BTW..the US GOVERMENT is the LARGEST employer...that is fact, not walmart

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by okcthunder1945

It seems like only the wealthiest have seen it lately and you want to make it easier for them to hold on to it. I prefer a strong middle class, you know where most of the consumer spending occurs.

and yet what liberals do is screw the middleclass

[NxtGen]

Originally Posted by MetroWord

I was responding to your buddy, who said unemployment is at 4.9% and shopping malls are packed with people.

My buddy? I don't even know that poster and it is the first time I have responded to them.

Did you read that I corrected him as well?

Please, explain how your process of reasoning somehow was able to establish that this person was my "buddy" as you put it.

I am fascinated how some peoples minds process such conclusions.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

wages are stagnant???

median annual household income 1970 ..... $7600
median annual household income 1980 ..... $16700
median annual household income 2015.....$55,000


big jump and progress since 1970 even bigger progress since 1980

the middleclass has gotten screwed by the globalist liberals and their 'stick it to them' policies

actually most americans are saving...and have 401k, profit sharing, and many have actual pensions

even mcdonalds and walmart offer 401k and profit sharing

the biggest employer in the USA....the federal government

BTW..the US GOVERMENT is the LARGEST employer...that is fact, not walmart

But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.

For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades | Pew Research Center

[whogo]

Originally Posted by freemkt

But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.

For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades | Pew Research Center

I make a lot more than I did 40 years ago. Even in real wages.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by whogo

I make a lot more than I did 40 years ago. Even in real wages.

SO DO MOST YOUNG PEOPLE because that's how earnings curves generally work.

Everyone starts out at a low wage, then wages increase as the worker gains job experience, add in a promotion here and there and wages typically peak roughly around 50 or so, then earnings decline (perhaps early retirement, reduction in hours) until most people have lower retirement incomes.

But as high rollers age, retire, and die, their low-wage young replacements move up the earnings curve, so the overall numbers get averaged out.

[skepticratic]

Originally Posted by okcthunder1945

Why do people keep falling for this? Why do poor people keep falling for this? Is it due to the hope maybe one day you can take advantage of the tax policies designed for the rich?

While I do think tax policy, and most policy in general, is geared toward the super wealthy, it's not as simple as how much they are taxed.

You know how a lot of people say regulations on business are bad for business? And then people say big business owns the politicians? Based on that alone, it doesn't make sense the business is regulated, as those businesses would be funding people that hurt them. BUT that's not how it works. Big business can handle the regulations while small businesses usually struggle under their burden. This hurts the lower classes (including middle class) significantly more than rich people getting tax cuts, rather or not they should get those cuts. And I'm not advocating for completely unregulated business, but I am arguing for smarter regulation that places value on smaller, more ethically run companies and businesses over larger, multinational ones.

So while I think Reaganomics is a failure, it's not simply because of how tax breaks are awarded. It's because other aspects of economic policy favor the super rich, which can help GDP grow but usually doesn't do anything for wages. Since Reagan, wages and GDP have not grown at the same rate. Wages are down, as income inequality has gone up. And no, Reagan alone is not responsible. He started the trend that basically every president since has continued.

So while I liked and voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary, his hammering on making the 1% pay there fair share by taxing them more really didn't move me much. I like the sentiment, but taxing isn't really the key issue we need to think about. It's deeper and more complex. It's entirely possibly to reduce wealth inequality without having a progressive tax system. A flat tax could do it, as could a regressive tax (see many European countries as proof of this) could have the same effect in the right conditions.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by okcthunder1945

So why aren't they doing that here in America? They have gained most of the wealth since 2008, why isn't that trickling down?

So you think we have a supply problem not a demand problem?

Hard to open businesses and factories here in America without paying customers...

It did trickle down. Rich CEOs sent American jobs to China, Mexico and other countries.