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.
What many don't seem to grasp is just how many jobs that 1 yacht created. Just because somebody had the money to pay for such a large toy. They see him as greedy. I see that as him creating jobs. Get more of those rich people ordering yachts and then you have a whole industry with many, many jobs. Yep, trickle down.
I made a career crewing on sortfishing boats from bare bone charter operations to mid 60ft class custom sportfishing yachts that took me as a hired Mate or Captain plus another hired crew member all up and down the East Coast and on to various Caribbean and Latin American country's.
Many have no concept how many jobs were created by my bosses to have that boat built plus maintained. There is a huge industry and it is because of money had trickled right on down from the rich boat owner ordering his new luxery sportfish to the dockhand bringing the full hose.
Spot on!
Here's what happened the last time Congress tried to end trickle down...
Enter the luxury tax of the 1990s... Those "luxuries" supported entire towns' economies. The laid off workers (due to less demand for highly-taxed luxury items) no longer ate out at their local diners, patronized their local dry cleaners, sponsored their towns' youth sports leagues, etc.
That end of trickle down luxury tax was an utter disaster and actually ended up COSTING the Fed Gov extra money instead of bringing in more tax revenue to trickle up.
Quote:
"Job losses cost the government more than $24 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenue. So the luxury tax actually cost the government money."
And it didn't just kill the American boat building industry and other luxury industries. It also killed the businesses those boat building, etc., companies' employees patronized... all the Mom and Pop local businesses such as diners, dry cleaners, auto repair shops, hair salons, etc. No one sponsored the local kids' baseball, etc., teams anymore. It was just a total cascade of shutdowns due to just one single tax increase meant to put an end to trickle down and 'soak the rich' thinking trickle up would work better. Nope. It did anything but that...
More...
Quote:
"The fat cat still has his money," Mr. Harrison said. "It's the worker they've just slaughtered."
"Back in the summer of 1990, when the nation was still governed by the man from Kennebunkport, the budgeteers figured that the sort of people who buy yachts, private planes and jewelry and furs over $10,000 could afford to pay a little extra.
What went wrong with the luxury tax was that, in trying to go after the rich guys' toys, Congress put the toymakers out of business. The rich guys, meanwhile, bought other toys (including foreign-made ones) not covered by the tax; or they bought used toys and refurbished them; or they simply saved the money, waiting to spend it another day."
Thanks for the personnel management lesson. Maybe some people didn't know how it worked. I lived it for all my working life. (Retired now)
Anyway, I lived through times when just being a woman was cause for not being considered one of the most valuable employees who merited the bigger raises. ( there were actually 2 times when I was told by a boss that I earned too much... for a woman)
Other than that, unless a company gives out bonuses or profit sharing to the workers when they have an exceptionally profitable year, the wealth is not trickling down. It's just a job -- x dollars for x hours of work. A transaction, if you will.
This post is perfect and explains the problem. Since about the 1980's when you had all the corporate raiders and the greenmail schemes to avoid them, companies don't trickle down the success to the workers who are actually making the company work. It stays with the executive who regardless of their terrible job or their great job are making money and the stockholders.
Look at the Walt Disney Company. Bob Chapek is not a great executive at all. He wasn't even that good as chair if Parks, Resorts and Experiences. Several projects under Chapek both as chair if PRE and CEO have faced delayed openings and criticism for not being enough. He also mishandled working with actors especially when movie theaters reopened and instead of going to, you could order Disney+ premium access. He got paid a lot for failure.
The fact is while that happened, Disney lagged behind on paying employees an honest wage. Disney was among one of the last Orlando based amusement companies to offer high-ball employees back as the parks re-opened and retaining employees and avoiding "The Great Resignation" by offering them raises as well. All this going on when already high central Floridian rent went higher and higher. An average cast member at Disneyland in California or Walt Disney World in Florida, can hardly afford to live on their wages. I think in Orlando, one has to actually work about 60+ hours just to make end's meet.
Yet we continue to believe the rich are job makers and that the rich are infallible.
What many don't seem to grasp is just how many jobs that 1 yacht created. Just because somebody had the money to pay for such a large toy. They see him as greedy. I see that as him creating jobs. Get more of those rich people ordering yachts and then you have a whole industry with many, many jobs. Yep, trickle down.
I made a career crewing on sortfishing boats from bare bone charter operations to mid 60ft class custom sportfishing yachts that took me as a hired Mate or Captain plus another hired crew member all up and down the East Coast and on to various Caribbean and Latin American country's.
Many have no concept how many jobs were created by my bosses to have that boat built plus maintained. There is a huge industry and it is because of money had trickled right on down from the rich boat owner ordering his new luxery sportfish to the dockhand bringing the full hose.
Bingo, excellent post on how trickle down works. No yachts, no jobs.
It is funny how so many here seem to be against Trickle Down and they are convinced it does not work. I like what a responder wrote and that is Trickle Down equals Opportunity and that is what I was talking about in my post.
A rich guy buys a property, lets say Barrack Obama. His estate on Marthas Vineyard requires an army of regular Joe's to maintain. If he throws a party he hires more people from the caterers to the guys that build the temporary dance floor over the pool to security and the list goes on and on. It takes hundreds of people to make a success.
Obama throwing a party for his rich cronies extends opportunities to so many regular people and this is an example of Trickle Down.
I recently saw in the newspaper that a local couple donated $10million towards the expansion of the area Hospital. Imagine being so rich that you could donate $10million! but that is Trickle Down that will benefit every citizen rich or poor that goes to that Hospital.
I don't know why so many seem to hate the idea of Trickle Down economics. I suspect those that are against it don't care about the opportunities it offers and they would rather receive a hand out than work for it.
Sooo we trash Trickle Down and we turn to what? Universal income? That doesn't sound like America to me.
Silly thread. The Trump corporate tax cuts are recent proof of the success of trickle down economics. We had companies voluntarily increasing wages after that, giving out thousands dollar bonuses left and right, and increasing hiring. Why? They had more money to invest in their companies and people. I love how leftists complete ignore what is right before them.
I stated MY definition of what trickle down means. You are entitled to your own definition of what it means. I said that from the start of my posts on the topic.
WTH does Hunter have to do with this? Maybe you felt a need for a distraction? Whatever.
You can't use your own definition of what something is when you're also claiming that it doesn't work.
You're just criticizing it because it doesn't do what YOU think it should do.
But no one ever claimed that it WOULD do what YOU think it should do.
I can make up my own definition of anything in order to make the argument that it doesn't work.
This post is perfect and explains the problem. Since about the 1980's when you had all the corporate raiders and the greenmail schemes to avoid them, companies don't trickle down the success to the workers who are actually making the company work. It stays with the executive who regardless of their terrible job or their great job are making money and the stockholders.
Look at the Walt Disney Company. Bob Chapek is not a great executive at all. He wasn't even that good as chair if Parks, Resorts and Experiences. Several projects under Chapek both as chair if PRE and CEO have faced delayed openings and criticism for not being enough. He also mishandled working with actors especially when movie theaters reopened and instead of going to, you could order Disney+ premium access. He got paid a lot for failure.
The fact is while that happened, Disney lagged behind on paying employees an honest wage. Disney was among one of the last Orlando based amusement companies to offer high-ball employees back as the parks re-opened and retaining employees and avoiding "The Great Resignation" by offering them raises as well. All this going on when already high central Floridian rent went higher and higher. An average cast member at Disneyland in California or Walt Disney World in Florida, can hardly afford to live on their wages. I think in Orlando, one has to actually work about 60+ hours just to make end's meet.
Yet we continue to believe the rich are job makers and that the rich are infallible.
When you hear words like "honest wage," and "make end's meet," you know you're dealing with a person not interested in facts but rather emotions.
The benefits of throwing the elite/rich a bone in the hopes that that will cause a domino effect of the less fortunate benefitting hasn't exactly worked. The Rich continue to hoard and the broke continue to stay broke. If this idea works than why does the income gap continue to widened?
That's not trickle down economics. It's a rant to try and deflect the Dems failed policies. Trickle down economics worked great under Regan - for a while. I remember my hard-line Dem friend saying to me at the time: "Thank god for Regan and his economic policies".
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.
