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 old GOP strategy: Tell the White working class that it's the immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, Blacks, etc that are responsible for their woes. Meanwhile, the Wall Street bankers are laughing while they empty the vaults.
Trickle down/supply side economics is a economic principle where the wealthy and large corporations are given tax cuts.
Barrack Obama tried to raise tax rates on billionaire CEO's from today's 15%-20% tax rates to 30% with a law called the "Buffet Rule" (but the republicans stopped the law from passing.)
No he didn't. He signed off on the Bush tax cuts. He pretended to support tax increases. That's all it took. Say the right words and you can freely do the wrong things.
Without the rich investors and banks, those companies would be a fart in the desert if that.
There was a term for this kind of investment - venture capital.
Yeah I guess you are right. Not one business in the history of our country was started and grown by someone who wasn't rich. The entirety of the American economy from its birth to now has just been by and for the rich, nobody has ever just done something for themselves, by themselves, or with humble means. Thanks for setting me straight.
What do you think the rich people do with their wealth?
If they buy properties, they have to pay property tax - trickle down.
If they own properties, they have to pay people to maintain it - trickle down.
If they buy properties, they have to pay people to build the property - trickle down.
Middle class Americans also buy and own properties. And all of the effects you described above also happen when middle class Americans buy and own properties.
How does giving tax cuts to wealthy Americans to buy and own properties help the economy more than giving the middle class tax cuts to buy and own properties?
Billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have billions of dollars in the bank. And billionaires already have the funds to buy any property they desire. But not all middle class Americans have the funds to buy the property they desire to own.
Can you list any property, goods, or services that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet desire that they can not already afford?
And if you can't list any property, goods, or services Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can't already afford, wouldn't giving the middle class tax cuts instead of billionaires stimulate the economy more?
No he didn't. He signed off on the Bush tax cuts. He pretended to support tax increases. That's all it took. Say the right words and you can freely do the wrong things.
Obama tried to pass the "Buffet Rule." And this law would have raised billionaire CEO's tax rates from 15%-20% to 30%.
"The (Buffet) rule was submitted for deliberation as US Senate Bill S. 2059, Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012. On April 16, 2012, the bill received 51 affirmative votes, but was stopped by a Republican filibuster."
Sometimes policies are made to support trickle down economics. What that means is they want people to spend and invest more money. So the desire is to put money in the hands of people who can do the most with it, and hopefully multiply it.
If you put money in the hands of the poor, that spending will be very narrow - food, bills, essentials. Whereas the rich will look to spend their resources in a more diverse fashion, and are likely to benefit more people downstream. In other words, the theory is that the economy will benefit more from people who spend the money more diversely.
Again - this is not affirming or denying the trickle down principle... but they seek to enhance the principle that already exists.
The rich are more likely to spend in a "diverse fashion."
I'm pretty sure you're just making things up now. Show me this "theory" you're talking about.
On a one to one basis, a consumer from the top spends more than a consumer from the bottom. How many people from the bottom does it take to equal what a person at the top spends?
So you linked to a report that has this.
Here's what you need to understand about trickle down economics. It is taking place in both cases. And both add to the economy. In both cases, money is flowing downstream. Now in the case of the bonuses, the slope of the trickle is not very noticeable, but people with more money are giving bonuses to people with less money.
I do agree that more people having money will make the trickle down more efficient.
Yes, the multiplier effect exists for the 1%. There's two problems.
1. As you admit, marginal propensity to consume is much higher for those with a lower income. Therefore, tax breaks for the middle and lower class have much more utility.
2. Tax breaks for the rich create huge deficits and drain public resources for things such as education and infrastructure. That's why, places in the rural south with the lowest taxes and regulation have the worst socioeconomic advancement.
This is a consumer based economy and if middle class consumers don't have income to spend: this entire thing will collapse.
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.
