Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The top 1% have been by far the largest beneficiaries of wealth increase in the last several decades and the middle class has been flat, why would a decrease in taxes do anything else but increase the disparity.
Your statement could only be true in a socialist/communist country or a country with slavery and castle system.
In America, roughly 80 percent of millionaires in America are the first generation of their family to be rich. They didn’t inherit their wealth; they earned it.
What does this mean? It means wealth trickles down to the poor in an head spinning rate - some poor people become the super rich while the rich lose their wealth!
But please don't let facts and truth get in your way.
No I don't believe in "trickle down" economics. I do know Hillary Clinton is not the president. A magnificent win for the American people.
Unfortunately, you apparently voted for someone who does believe in the trickle down theory. Were you unaware?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard
Anyone who wants to know the truth of trickle-down economics, google Kansas and Trickle Down economics. Kansas took trickle down to all new heights and performed a grand experiment on the people of Kansas. The experiment has wrecked and destroyed Kansas. Now, Trump want to follow Gov. Brownback's lead. Brilliant let's bankrupt this country like Brownback bankrupted Kansas.
You would have to be a real mental midget to actually believe trickle down works.. the economic statistics since 1980 emphatically show that it doesn't. Trickle down theory was a sham economic theory proposed to Ronald Reagan by wealthy people that knew it would benefit wealthy people more than anyone.
The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'" Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896
A 2015 paper by researchers for the International Monetary Fund argues that there is no trickle-down effect as the rich get richer:
[i]f the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.
The wild success of trickle down is evident in the decrease in the size of the middle class, the general flattening of earnings by the middle class, and the three recessions since implementation in the late nineteen eighties. - Tonyafd
Too many pages to sort through but someone referenced the increase in their 401K as a way the economy grows when corporations or individuals just hold more money.
Economics a little rusty but as people expand their savings (which is what a 401K is) does that expand the economy or allow it to grow?
How does Apple holding on to cash -- not expanding or adding more jobs or investing more in new products, etc...help to grow the economy.
It helps to grow the 'holdings' of some -- but does that mean more jobs, and more spending.
Too many pages to sort through but someone referenced the increase in their 401K as a way the economy grows when corporations or individuals just hold more money.
Economics a little rusty but as people expand their savings (which is what a 401K is) does that expand the economy or allow it to grow?
How does Apple holding on to cash -- not expanding or adding more jobs or investing more in new products, etc...help to grow the economy.
It helps to grow the 'holdings' of some -- but does that mean more jobs, and more spending.
I touched on that earlier corporations only tout 401k's because it saves them money in the long run. They do not "help" the economy. Anyone that believes that is a blubbering idiot. As I said, people would take a pension over a 401k match any day of the week.
I touched on that earlier corporations only tout 401k's because it saves them money in the long run. They do not "help" the economy. Anyone that believes that is a blubbering idiot. As I said, people would take a pension over a 401k match any day of the week.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
