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.
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."
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.
The poor will likely spend on food, bills, essentials.
The rich will spend on boats, computers, high end clothing, jewelry, furniture, 2nd homes, multiple vehicles, high cost entertainment and live shows, etc... as well as food, bills, and essentials.
Not talking about race... if that's what you are getting at...
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.
don't you know we're just supposed to give everything to the ultra rich and be happy with whatever crumbs fall off the table....It really is amazing how they've induced those most effected by these policies to be among the most ardent supporters for them.....
It takes place every day. When I get paid for work... that's trickle down.
Here's the deal. Our economic system is comparable to the water cycle... precipitation and evaporation.
Precipitation is trickle down economics.
Evaporation is consumption.
Both are needed for a functioning ecosytem, and economic system.
Christ. This board...
Trickle-down economics isn't the observed phenomenon of money moving from rich to poor. Nobody argues that doesn't take place. When Trump pays his butler, for instance. (Of course, in the aggregate, more money runs in the opposite direction. Hence "rich" and "poor". Duh.)
Trickle-down economy is a political theory that claims it's most beneficial to growth of the entire economy if the wealthy are given tax breaks or other financial benefits, because they'll put that money to use to come up with brilliant new products and services and hire tons of poor schmucks. That is, obviously, not how it works in a market economy - where one is expected to provide valuable goods and services first and accumulate wealth second. But it's a very popular theory among the wealthy and those who feel they'll be wealthy any day now.
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.
Nothing much here for me to dispute with regards to trickle down.
Don't entirely agree on your assessment of the south, but that's not for here.
Trickle-down economics isn't the observed phenomenon of money moving from rich to poor. Nobody argues that doesn't take place. When Trump pays his butler, for instance. (Of course, in the aggregate, more money runs in the opposite direction. Hence "rich" and "poor". Duh.)
Trickle-down economy is a political theory that claims it's most beneficial to growth of the entire economy if the wealthy are given tax breaks or other financial benefits, because they'll put that money to use to come up with brilliant new products and services and hire tons of poor schmucks. That is, obviously, not how it works in a market economy - where one is expected to provide valuable goods and services first and accumulate wealth second. But it's a very popular theory among the wealthy and those who feel they'll be wealthy any day now.
Well put. The various uninformed opinion masquerading as fact around here is downright scary when you realize what it lead to in this election.....
I think the bold is a very important under discussed point. Somehow the ultra wealthy and the GOP have convinced many working class and poor people that their wealth is just around the corner somehow and the "others" be it immigrants, gays, muslims ,etc are to blame why they don't have it. It's why someone making 30K a year with no house cares about the estate tax or why someone with 15 dollars in a checking account cares about capital gains tax. Better yet, those on disability or govt programs demonizing socialism...
No he didn't. He said pretty words and you fell for them. He signed off on Bush's tax cuts.
Obama tried to extend the Bush tax cuts for middle class Americans. But the republicans stopped him because Obama did not want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans.
Trickle-down economics isn't the observed phenomenon of money moving from rich to poor. Nobody argues that doesn't take place. When Trump pays his butler, for instance. (Of course, in the aggregate, more money runs in the opposite direction. Hence "rich" and "poor". Duh.)
Trickle-down economy is a political theory that claims it's most beneficial to growth of the entire economy if the wealthy are given tax breaks or other financial benefits, because they'll put that money to use to come up with brilliant new products and services and hire tons of poor schmucks. That is, obviously, not how it works in a market economy - where one is expected to provide valuable goods and services first and accumulate wealth second. But it's a very popular theory among the wealthy and those who feel they'll be wealthy any day now.
Thank you for putting this out.
For me - trickle down involves the first bold statement above.
The second bold statement is a strategy to try and enhance what happens in the first bold statement, instead of people sitting on the money and doing nothing. This can be hit or miss depending on what people do with the money received from the policy.
Obama tried to extend the Bush tax cuts for middle class Americans. But the republicans stopped him because Obama did not want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans.
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.
