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.
Investment grows the economy more than practically anything else (an exception would be something like the discovery of a resource). As risk increases, investment decreases in many areas.
Since investments have high risks, it's also a good way for the rich to part with their money. It's also rare for the riches to maintain their wealth for generations. Old rich people go into bankruptcy and new ones come in.
The whole economy is basically a giant "trickle down."
Where do you think the rich keep their money when they get a tax cut or god forbid, make a profit? Under their mattress or in their back yards?
No sane rich person would do that. They put money right back to the economy - investment and spending. Either way it would generate jobs for others.
More useless babble.....The rich do not merely put their money in industrial capital. I have money and I don't even do that. Some of my money is in an asset class that is entirely a legality. It often reduces jobs. Gotta go....
Time and again you all tell us that trickle-down economics doesn't work and that a 39.5% take is too little. You all support the government's use of deadly force to confiscate as much wealth from the citizenry as possible, at least as much as possible without provoking violent resistance from the taxpayers. My question to you is this... since you all profess hatred of trickle-down economics is it a fair assumption that you don't participate?
When you file your income taxes, I assume you don't take any exemptions, because after all, trickle-down economics doesn't work.
When you purchase a sale item from a retailer, I assume you pay full list price and not a cent less, because after all, trickle-down economics doesn't work.
I assume you never use coupons for purchases because trickle-down doesn't work.
When you need to fill your car up with gas I assume you go to the station with the highest price seeing as trickle-down economics doesn't work.
When you go to buy a new car, I assume you pay sticker price and not a cent less, because after all, trickle-down economics doesn't work.
How about when your boss calls you into his office for your annual performance, tells you what a valuable employee you are and offers you a handsome raise? I assume you tell him to take that raise and stick it where the sun don't shine because after all, trickle down economics doesn't work.
None of the examples you have offered have anything too do with trickle down economics.
More useless babble.....The rich do not merely put their money in industrial capital. I have money and I don't even do that. Some of my money is in an asset class that is entirely a legality. It often reduces jobs. Gotta go....
Where do you keep your money? Unless it's under your mattress or buried in your yard, you are investing even when you leave the cash in the bank, and you are trickling down.
I can show example after example after example of small little startups (HP, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, etc etc) that grew and began employing thousands of people, paying millions upon millions in taxes, hiring other companies who employ people and pay taxes and do all sorts of things for the community. Billions trickled down.
I wonder how many of those startups would have survived if IBM had been granted special advantages, treatment or privileges in those hopes that IBM's success would trickle down to other tech companies.
What the Left thinks trickle down should mean failed, because they have a false impression of how trickle down works.
The left thinks the economic benifits from trickle down should just fall into their laps without having to do anything for it.
In that sense, yes it's a failure and aways will be because that's not how trickle down works.
"Trickle Down" is just another way to describe the natural process of a capitalism based economy. But you have to stand up and grab your share of the trickle down.
You have to work for it.... fight for it if necessary.
Because if you don't reach up and grab your share.....someone else will.
Trickle down has basically allowed the wealthy to get much wealthier while the earning power of workers has stayed flat for over 40 years.
Look at the CEO pay to worker pay ratio. It's skyrocketed in that time. Corporate profits and the stock market have boomed. In the meantime, worker pay has stayed flat and borrowing has skyrocketed.
The liberal viewpoint follows the idea that "velocity" of money is the major thing that stimulates an economy. In this case, more people having more money turns that money over more rapidly than it does in a trickle down model.
Probably some sort of centrist based economic model would be the most effective but that's hard to do given the extremes of positions taken regarding this issue.
I wonder how many of those startups would have survived if IBM had been granted special advantages, treatment or privileges in those hopes that IBM's success would trickle down to other tech companies.
You mean when big government picks winners and losers?
Cronielism isn't trickle down, it's big government meddling and operating outside its scope.
You mean when big government picks winners and losers?
Cronielism isn't trickle down, it's big government meddling and operating outside its scope.
Most fans of trickle down oppose it.
Its the same concept ie design or modify systems so that currently successful entities be they people or corporations will likely experience further success in the hopes that their success will trickle down to other entities.
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.