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 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?
This is not new. I was saying this way back in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. I recall telling my spouse then that in reality "trickle down" economics means "trickled on" if you get my drift.
The original name was "horses and sparrows" theory. If you feed your horses well, the sparrows get fatter. Just - don't think too much over what the sparrows have to actually eat.
This is not new. I was saying this way back in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan. I recall telling my spouse then that in reality "trickle down" economics means "trickled on" if you get my drift.
Anyone with half a brain knew at the time that it was simply a scheme to get more wealth into the hands of the rich. And we know now that that is exactly what it did. The only trickle was that they paid in taxes after amassing their fortunes. The middle class carried the country on their backs until they can't do it anymore. But they blame the Democrats for their woes and still think Reagan was some sort of hero.
Anyone with half a brain knew at the time that it was simply a scheme to get more wealth into the hands of the rich. And we know now that that is exactly what it did. The only trickle was that they paid in taxes after amassing their fortunes. The middle class carried the country on their backs until they can't do it anymore. But they blame the Democrats for their woes and still think Reagan was some sort of hero.
Yeah, someone with half brain may think that. Not someone with a proper brain though.
Anyone with half a brain knew at the time that it was simply a scheme to get more wealth into the hands of the rich. And we know now that that is exactly what it did. The only trickle was that they paid in taxes after amassing their fortunes. The middle class carried the country on their backs until they can't do it anymore. But they blame the Democrats for their woes and still think Reagan was some sort of hero.
I could not agree more. I argued this to the nines with my spouse. It took a few years, but eventually by the time Al Gore ran for president, my spouse realised I had been correct.
I've always interpreted the "trickle-down" phrase as the idea that tax breaks and corporate welfare for the extremely wealthy always benefit the bottom. Which is simply untrue and simplified. Of course it trickles down when you look at a single job. But over time, the wealth is wicked up and concentrated. Keeping with the water analogy, though there may be many eddy currents going in reverse, the flow of the river remains one direction.
Humans are economic units to exploit. Humans are resources, no different than any other resource like coal, oil, timber, grain, corn, etc.
People need to stop acting like they deserve special treatment just because they are human.
I can remember when that changed. "Personnel Departments" which were focused on the people who worked for the company were renamed "Human Resources" and then just became another line item in the budget. That is when companies stopped thinking about fairness that might keep their workers engaged and productive and intent on making money for the company. I think that is also around the time when employee loyalty dissolved and one could no longer view a job at a given company as a career. Job hopping became the only way to get a raise for many. Companies for some reason didn't care that they always had training expenses for new employees, as long as the HR line item in the budget didn't go too high.
I've always interpreted the "trickle-down" phrase as the idea that tax breaks and corporate welfare for the extremely wealthy always benefit the bottom. Which is simply untrue and simplified. Of course it trickles down when you look at a single job. But over time, the wealth is wicked up and concentrated. Keeping with the water analogy, though there may be many eddy currents going in reverse, the flow of the river remains one direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
WTF is for calling the truth untrue.
What you said here was untrue.
Are you denying that the wealth of a company ends up with the high level management and owners while workers are lucky to get a slight bit more than a cost of living increase during the years they do get salary increases?
I think Haksel is spot on.
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.
