• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The problem with "Trickle Down Economics"

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I've always been somebody who has held firmly onto the belief of lower tax's for the rich, and competitive Corporation tax.

Why?

Because the truth is, when you start levying massive taxes on the people in our economy that, as a relatively small demographic, provide the vast majority of jobs in the country, then we make them poorer, and that has a direct consequence, a more detrimental consequence on the middle and lower classes then if they themselves where to pay higher taxes.

It holds back the class that essentially lead the industries and create the industries in our country that is responsible for massive amounts of foreign trade, global competitiveness, employment and treasury income. Tax them more, they spend less. They spend less, our industries grow less. Our industries grow less, we have unemployment, and we loose our competitiveness. If that happens, we soon find ourselves staring down the blazing hole of a recession. And for what? An artificial sense of "social justice"?

Sure, taxing the rich a lot of money will reduce the deficit in the short term, but the long term effects on the potential of our industries to maximize on innovation and profit diminish. If that happens, they go abroad, and we may aswell just give handouts to everybody until we are left with nothing more than cobwebs in our safe banks.

But does trickle down economics really work?

The rich are constantly exploiting tax loop holes, sending the vast majority of their wealth beyond the reach of the government, consuming national resources and failing to pay their due share. Thus, do the under-taxed rich become a drain on national budgets and resources, as opposed to helping boost the economy?

Above all however, how can we be sure that Cutting the top tax rate will lead to income and wage growth?

There is no way we can stop people from sitting on their money, and if we cut taxes in the hopes of achieving something that ultimately does not materialize we end up poorer then what we where when we began. Hence, nor does it follow that we can always increase employment levels.

So are we better off distributing poverty? Like a "Trickle up poverty" theory of economics?

Or can we simply solve our problems by cutting taxes for the rich and increasing the minimum wage for employee's working at the richest corporations?
 
Last edited:
imdho trickle down economics is just a slogan,the real practice in talk is supply side economics.what many fail to realize is if you dont tax the rich,they amass wealth,if you tax the rich,they hold onto it.the only time the rich will spend is if the opportunity arrises tomake more money.

however supply side economics is an extremely sound principle.it shows its true benefit however under supply side problems,like keynesian economics shines during demand side.most supply side problems occur when an economy is trying to transition.this is why it worked so wellfor reagan in the 80's,was because we were switching from a manufacturing economy to a technology/service economy.the money existed for changes but little to no reward to spend money on those changes.supply side economics addresses this problem by lowering taxes to create incentive and reducing unnessecary regulation.this allows a market to create itself anew,however even in supply side economics austerity should be practiced when possible,this of course has never happened.


keynesian economics adresses demandside issues,like i said in supply side the rich want to spend the money but are hindered by it all being taxed away and heavy restrictions,in demand side the economy would not be facing a transition,rather demand would be suffering due to economic insecurity or other outside factors.keynesian economics adresses this problem through many ways,one is tax cuts,another increased spending to try and kick start an economy.there is also military keynesianism,which is a theory that the military can pump more money into an economy faster than anything else.keynes once said that perhaps the only way to pump enough money into an economy was through war,it was not part of his economic theory but was proven true during ww2.

the faults with the two systems stem from the fact they were never properly used.keynesian economics calls for extreme spending during bad times,and heavy measures of austerity under good times,as eliminating a deficit and most the debt would allow flexibility under another recession,however since keynesian policies were used,austerity has never been practiced.

in supply side,only unnecessary regulations should be cut and necessary ones re-adjusted for market conditions,taxes would be lowered to an optimal level,and under good conditions raised within the optimal level(currently we are on the low side of the optimal level,so lowering it would make no difference)also ss economics calls for heavy amounts of austerity,it does not oppose a safety net,but considers business growth a higher priority,and austerity a must,especially under good economic times.reagan and bush senior being the only presidents to really try supply side economics failed on the austerity part,they produced higher revenues from tax cuts but increased spending well beyond the growth of revenue.


other interesting facts,george w bushs economic policies were keynesian,not trickle down,he gave tax cuts for all class's,but 85% of the cost and benefit went to middle and lower classes,tax cuts for the rich are not against keynesian economics,keynes just considered it more politically driven than economically.bush also introduced stimulous packages(also a part of keynesian economics)he also increased regulations on many things,and was by no means a deregulator.

clinton never followed either path,though some of his economic policies like the dot com boom,the community re investment act and siding with republicans on glass steagall have come back to haunt us.also to note even though clinton was neutral for the most part,there has only been 2 presidents to practice supply side economics,reagan and bush senior,and bush senior to a much lesser extent.all republicans pre reagan and after clinton have practiced keynesian economics,though they probably will deny it.
 
Trickle down economics doesn't work without social values.

You gotta create a society that rich people want to invest in. Otherwise, they won't invest in it.

Create a bunch of cultural relativist losers, and rich people just go, "Yea.........."
 
Here is why in "trickle down" the trickle doesn't happen...

Every time that an "average joe" like myself makes a purchase, we pay a "rich tax", in addition to any government taxes. If I purchase a new TV, the store makes a profit, and the owners of the store, whether it is shareholders or "mom and pop", get that profit. Now while there is nothing wrong with that, and thats the way that a capitalistic free market is supposed to work, but most shareholders and business owners tend to be more wealthy than the median wage earner. So in a way, the profit that is added to the cost of the purchase is effectively a private tax that goes to the wealthy. Then when the tv manufacturer sells to the store, the same effect happens, and when the trucking company is paid, the same effect happens. This rich tax is on virtually every product that we purchase.

There are only a few natural mechanisms for redistributing that rich tax. One is the income that the rich pay their workers, another is the consumption that the rich engage in (which part their expenditures they get back because they get the rich tax portion), and the third is death (which typically only results in transfering the pooled wealth to another individual(s) rather than distributing it among the populas). The other mechanism, the "unnatural" one, would be a progressive income tax, death tax, and/or wealth tax.

Since every time we make a purchase, a larger portion of our money flows up, than which flows back to us (the profit portion), money tends to trickle up and pool. Without the "unnatural" redistribution mechanisms, more money will always trickle up than what trickles down, so our economy is a "trickle up" economy, not a trickle down economy. You can't apply economic concepts for one type of economy, to a totally different system and expect results.

Reducing taxes on the wealth only serve to reduce any trickle down, it doesn't increase trickle down. Likewise, conservatives keep complaining about the 49% that don't pay any income tax. I would assume that they would prefer it if we taxed the poor and working poor more, and the rich less. Again, redistributing the meager incomes of the poor and working poor to the rich is trickle up, not trickle down.

If we really wanted to increase the trickle down effect, we would tax the rich more and the poor/working poor and middle class less. While conservatives believe that would reduce what trickles down, thats a falicy because we have a net trickle up economy. Increasing taxes on the rich, and decreasing taxes on the non-rich would result in a forced trickle down, with the trickle actually coming from the taxation. So why would we want to "harm" the job creators (rich)? Because if we had a forced trickle down (more progressive taxation), the middle class would be more well rewarded for their labor, thus they would have an incentive to produce more, and an incentive to purchase more, and the rich would be just as rich because they would recieve more of the profits (tax) that they place on every item sold (because they would sell more).
 
Trickle down economics doesn't work without social values.

You gotta create a society that rich people want to invest in. Otherwise, they won't invest in it.

Create a bunch of cultural relativist losers, and rich people just go, "Yea.........."

Rich people only invest where they see a nice size potential profit. They don't make that decision based upon cultural values. The society that rich people want to invest in is the one where they can make a lot of money. Ever wonder why rich people don't open stores in Africa? Because people in Africa have limited money to spend in the stores. Rich people always go where the money is.
 
Rich people only invest where they see a nice size potential profit. They don't make that decision based upon cultural values. The society that rich people want to invest in is the one where they can make a lot of money. Ever wonder why rich people don't open stores in Africa? Because people in Africa have limited money to spend in the stores. Rich people always go where the money is.

What do you think profit is beyond culture?

If you have nothing memorable to convert money towards, it's valueless.
 
But surely by taxing the rich more, they will merely pass on those costs to the consumers? So in a way it will be the middle class who end up paying the tax.
 
Rich people only invest where they see a nice size potential profit. They don't make that decision based upon cultural values. The society that rich people want to invest in is the one where they can make a lot of money. Ever wonder why rich people don't open stores in Africa? Because people in Africa have limited money to spend in the stores. Rich people always go where the money is.

You are contradicting yourself.

If in the U.S. the majority "cultural value" is to heavily tax the wealthy.
Then if the wealthy only invest where they see a nice size potential profit
And taxes are factored into that profit.

Conclusion, given other reasonable investment alternatives (be it loopholes or other countries), they will switch those investments as a resul of "Cultural values".

Since every time we make a purchase, a larger portion of our money flows up, than which flows back to us (the profit portion), money tends to trickle up and pool. Without the "unnatural" redistribution mechanisms, more money will always trickle up than what trickles down, so our economy is a "trickle up" economy, not a trickle down economy. You can't apply economic concepts for one type of economy, to a totally different system and expect results.

And thus if the culture of the economy they are in has a stable, relatively free market, it's almost always better to invest in that market rather than sit on that pool of money. And when there is business investment, in an otherwise fertile business climate, there is economic growth. And when there is economic growth, there are more jobs, higher incomes, more competition, more opportunity. There is likely some ideal balance between the two. Any parent I would think gets this without trying. We provide a safety net for our children, but we don't keep spending on them to the point they are spoiled, or have not incentive to work and grow on their own. Well, most of us recognize we shouldn't.

To the OP:

Tax policy should not primarily be about "how to grow or slow the economy". Taxation is primarily about funding government.
 
Last edited:
Trickle Down Economics works great for Russian mobsters, the People's Liberation Army, OPEC, Mexican billionaires, and India.
 
Mach said:
If in the U.S. the majority "cultural value" is to heavily tax the wealthy.
Then if the wealthy only invest where they see a nice size potential profit
And taxes are factored into that profit.

Conclusion, given other reasonable investment alternatives (be it loopholes or other countries), they will switch those investments as a result of "Cultural values".
Everything I've read says that we've got ****loads of money for investment that people are just sitting on. All the really good investments have more than enough people looking to put their money into them. We can afford to lose a bit of that surplus via increasing their taxes. Especially if we take those collected tax dollars and then invest them in infrastructure improvements that the private sector would otherwise leave fallow.

Mach said:
And thus if the culture of the economy they are in has a stable, relatively free market, it's almost always better to invest in that market rather than sit on that pool of money. And when there is business investment, in an otherwise fertile business climate, there is economic growth. And when there is economic growth, there are more jobs, higher incomes, more competition, more opportunity. There is likely some ideal balance between the two. Any parent I would think gets this without trying. We provide a safety net for our children, but we don't keep spending on them to the point they are spoiled, or have not incentive to work and grow on their own. Well, most of us recognize we shouldn't.

The problem is that things don't appear to otherwise be a fertile business climate due to diminished consumer demand. Diminished demand which is only exaggerated by choosing to take our tax dollars from the people with the highest propensity to spend it, as opposed to those with the least propensity to spend it.
 
The idea of "Trickle down economics" is idiotic because it has at its core that people and markets are rational. People are not rational and markets are certainly not rational these days. People and markets are too easily manipulated (/wave LIBOR) and that has never been really taken into account while making these economic theories.

The person with a billion dollars can only consume so much so he/she has to either put the money under that mattress or in a bank/investment company or invest directly in a company. Now then this money in theory would be used to invest and create jobs and "spread the wealth down". Well as we all know, that aint happening even remotely now days. Banks are not lending, companies are not spending (and have trillions in savings) and investment companies are cheating and lying their asses off to get a profit..all in the while screwing over the "average" man/woman, while making the rich investor much richer. So any "trickle" that there in theory could be from the guy with a billion dollars, is basically stopped at the next level and never reaches the people that need it the most.

Now one can say that we live in exceptional times, and they would be right. But if we look at the empirical evidence of the last 30 years, ever since Reagan and Thatcher brought "Trickle down economics" to the table, then we can see that the whole policy has utterly failed. The rich have gotten richer and the middle class and poor have not seen anywhere near the same income growth.. in fact quite the opposite. On top of that, thanks to policies from these "Trickle down economics" people, the masses are in big debt since that was the only way during the last decade to have any sort of income growth... more personal debt.

The idea of "Trickle down" economics is that the 1 billion invested by a rich person, should become more while it trickles down and help people in all society. The reality is the the 1 billion actually shrinks considerably so in the end what is left is next to nothing.
 
Here is why in "trickle down" the trickle doesn't happen...

Every time that an "average joe" like myself makes a purchase, we pay a "rich tax", in addition to any government taxes. If I purchase a new TV, the store makes a profit, and the owners of the store, whether it is shareholders or "mom and pop", get that profit. Now while there is nothing wrong with that, and thats the way that a capitalistic free market is supposed to work, but most shareholders and business owners tend to be more wealthy than the median wage earner. So in a way, the profit that is added to the cost of the purchase is effectively a private tax that goes to the wealthy. Then when the tv manufacturer sells to the store, the same effect happens, and when the trucking company is paid, the same effect happens. This rich tax is on virtually every product that we purchase.

There are only a few natural mechanisms for redistributing that rich tax. One is the income that the rich pay their workers, another is the consumption that the rich engage in (which part their expenditures they get back because they get the rich tax portion), and the third is death (which typically only results in transfering the pooled wealth to another individual(s) rather than distributing it among the populas). The other mechanism, the "unnatural" one, would be a progressive income tax, death tax, and/or wealth tax.

Since every time we make a purchase, a larger portion of our money flows up, than which flows back to us (the profit portion), money tends to trickle up and pool. Without the "unnatural" redistribution mechanisms, more money will always trickle up than what trickles down, so our economy is a "trickle up" economy, not a trickle down economy. You can't apply economic concepts for one type of economy, to a totally different system and expect results.

Reducing taxes on the wealth only serve to reduce any trickle down, it doesn't increase trickle down. Likewise, conservatives keep complaining about the 49% that don't pay any income tax. I would assume that they would prefer it if we taxed the poor and working poor more, and the rich less. Again, redistributing the meager incomes of the poor and working poor to the rich is trickle up, not trickle down.

If we really wanted to increase the trickle down effect, we would tax the rich more and the poor/working poor and middle class less. While conservatives believe that would reduce what trickles down, thats a falicy because we have a net trickle up economy. Increasing taxes on the rich, and decreasing taxes on the non-rich would result in a forced trickle down, with the trickle actually coming from the taxation. So why would we want to "harm" the job creators (rich)? Because if we had a forced trickle down (more progressive taxation), the middle class would be more well rewarded for their labor, thus they would have an incentive to produce more, and an incentive to purchase more, and the rich would be just as rich because they would recieve more of the profits (tax) that they place on every item sold (because they would sell more).



You're missing the point entirely. You are trying to cut up a pie that is shrinking so that those who are in need will get a piece of it before it's gone.

The goal is to have a pie that is increasing. Right now, today, compared to the same date four years ago, there are about 3.5 fewer Americans with jobs. That is YOUR shrinking pie.

The question should not be who is entitled to receive the shrinking pieces, but why is the pie shrinking.

The reason is that the folks who have the cash to invest are terrified to do so. Do you think that it's a coincidence that the most risk friendly nation of Capitalists in the history of civilization, US, all stopped investing at the same time and are now sitting on 3 Trillion dollars of capital rather than investing it? What is the overriding thing that is terrorizing them? Not a trick question. Just something for you to ponder.
 
But surely by taxing the rich more, they will merely pass on those costs to the consumers? So in a way it will be the middle class who end up paying the tax.



It is a truism that businesses don't pay taxes, they collect them.
 
You are contradicting yourself.


To the OP:[/B]
Tax policy should not primarily be about "how to grow or slow the economy". Taxation is primarily about funding government.


Therein lies the rub. If you put too high a tax on anything, you stop it. If you tax something at 100%, that something will cease to generate any revenue at all. Who will work for nothing? Mother teresa didn't generate allot of tax revenue.

If, as the "parent" government, you are trying to encourage activity that is taxable, you must do so gently or you will crush the perceived opportunity.

Sue enough job creators, shut down enough non-union employers, ignore enough court decisions to achieve your political goals and the business community will start to fear your control more than they love their own profits.

How much tax revenue is being generated by the oil rigs that were pulled out of the Gulf of Mexico?
 
Last edited:
Everything I've read says that we've got ****loads of money for investment that people are just sitting on. All the really good investments have more than enough people looking to put their money into them. We can afford to lose a bit of that surplus via increasing their taxes. Especially if we take those collected tax dollars and then invest them in infrastructure improvements that the private sector would otherwise leave fallow.



The problem is that things don't appear to otherwise be a fertile business climate due to diminished consumer demand. Diminished demand which is only exaggerated by choosing to take our tax dollars from the people with the highest propensity to spend it, as opposed to those with the least propensity to spend it.





Do you wonder why the people with cash to invest are not investing it? Why has the most risk friendly population in the history of civilization stopped taking risks?

I think it's because the game has been rigged and the risks are suddenly greater than the potential rewards. Our Federal Government delights in saying things like they want to kill the first people they see to make and example to that they are putting their boot on the throat of business people.

The ears these words fall on are not deaf.
 
The idea of "Trickle down economics" is idiotic because it has at its core that people and markets are rational. People are not rational and markets are certainly not rational these days. People and markets are too easily manipulated (/wave LIBOR) and that has never been really taken into account while making these economic theories.

The person with a billion dollars can only consume so much so he/she has to either put the money under that mattress or in a bank/investment company or invest directly in a company. Now then this money in theory would be used to invest and create jobs and "spread the wealth down". Well as we all know, that aint happening even remotely now days. Banks are not lending, companies are not spending (and have trillions in savings) and investment companies are cheating and lying their asses off to get a profit..all in the while screwing over the "average" man/woman, while making the rich investor much richer. So any "trickle" that there in theory could be from the guy with a billion dollars, is basically stopped at the next level and never reaches the people that need it the most.

Now one can say that we live in exceptional times, and they would be right. But if we look at the empirical evidence of the last 30 years, ever since Reagan and Thatcher brought "Trickle down economics" to the table, then we can see that the whole policy has utterly failed. The rich have gotten richer and the middle class and poor have not seen anywhere near the same income growth.. in fact quite the opposite. On top of that, thanks to policies from these "Trickle down economics" people, the masses are in big debt since that was the only way during the last decade to have any sort of income growth... more personal debt.

The idea of "Trickle down" economics is that the 1 billion invested by a rich person, should become more while it trickles down and help people in all society. The reality is the the 1 billion actually shrinks considerably so in the end what is left is next to nothing.




I, and I suspect you, don't understand what you are saying.

Reagan's idea was to make the web of laws and the climate for business friendly to those who want to invest and to allow a reasonable opportunity to those with investment capital to get a decent return if they risked it.

Today's administration refers to working in private business as "working behind enemy lines" and their approach to business is to strip away the profits, change to read reward, and increase the legal penalty, change to read risk.

The risk/reward equation in today's business has effectively ended entrepreneurial investment.

In Reagan's vision, the size of the pie was growing. His actions promoted that vision. In Obama's vision, the pie is shrinking. His actions are promoting that vision.

Self fulfilling prophecies it seems.
 
Do you wonder why the people with cash to invest are not investing it? Why has the most risk friendly population in the history of civilization stopped taking risks?
Nope; reasonably sure its because their coffers are filling up faster than the opportune investments present themselves. We should raise taxes to discourage the amassing of such non-productive wealth in the first place and to increase the opportunity cost of just sitting on it.

I think it's because the game has been rigged and the risks are suddenly greater than the potential rewards. Our Federal Government delights in saying things like they want to kill the first people they see to make and example to that they are putting their boot on the throat of business people.

The ears these words fall on are not deaf.
I think its because all the low hanging fruits have long since been plucked and Trickle Down policies have been eating the seed stock.
 
I, and I suspect you, don't understand what you are saying.

Reagan's idea was to make the web of laws and the climate for business friendly to those who want to invest and to allow a reasonable opportunity to those with investment capital to get a decent return if they risked it.

Yes, and he did that by lowering taxes for the rich... you know, "those with investment capital" and deregulate the markets (thats good and bad). That has since continued under both Dem and GOP leadership to the extreme and this extreme in the end caused the economic meltdown that we are now in.

Today's administration refers to working in private business as "working behind enemy lines" and their approach to business is to strip away the profits, change to read reward, and increase the legal penalty, change to read risk.

That has nothing to do with the subject. What today's administration does or does not do, is in large part due to the abuses of business .. bankers and financial institutions, and the need to fix that problem. Like it or not, taxes on capital and corporations have never been lower.

The risk/reward equation in today's business has effectively ended entrepreneurial investment.

Horse****. The abuse by bankers and financial investment firms has put in the system a huge risk premium that still is not fixed. Banks are NOT LENDING. This in turn means people cut back because they constantly listen to the doom and gloom and see friends fired, so there is no consumption (which is a huge part of the economy), which means business dont need as many people because no one is buying. Not that business could get loans or credit to fund an expansion any ways. It is an evil circle, that all started with lax enforcement of regulation, lax regulation as a whole and lazzie-faire attitude towards the private sector, which resulted in an orgy of greed for a decade, built on debt.

In Reagan's vision, the size of the pie was growing. His actions promoted that vision. In Obama's vision, the pie is shrinking. His actions are promoting that vision.

Self fulfilling prophecies it seems.

More horse****. Reagan had a far larger pie to play with and no economic depression thanks to his predecessor. Tax rates when Reagan took over were much much much higher than they were when Obama took over, hence any effect would be much greater. On top of that Reagan created the deficit spending idea and much of the debt that Obama has to contend with today.

Like it or not, Obama was handed a rotten egg in a barrel full of half rotten apples, plus had to contend with 30 years of Reaganomics and his failed vision of trickle down economics. Romeny wants to continue the trickle down economics bull**** and the failed policies that have now shown not to work. Now saying that, I am not totally convinced that Obama's policies are the right ones, but I do know the few ideas Romeny has floated are the same crap we have heard from the GOP since Reagan and the same crap that has lead the whole planet into this hole it is in today.
 
You're missing the point entirely. You are trying to cut up a pie that is shrinking so that those who are in need will get a piece of it before it's gone.

The goal is to have a pie that is increasing. Right now, today, compared to the same date four years ago, there are about 3.5 fewer Americans with jobs. That is YOUR shrinking pie.

The question should not be who is entitled to receive the shrinking pieces, but why is the pie shrinking.

The reason is that the folks who have the cash to invest are terrified to do so. Do you think that it's a coincidence that the most risk friendly nation of Capitalists in the history of civilization, US, all stopped investing at the same time and are now sitting on 3 Trillion dollars of capital rather than investing it? What is the overriding thing that is terrorizing them? Not a trick question. Just something for you to ponder.

The thing that is "scaring" them is that they won't get a return on their investment. The reason that they are very correct about that is because too much wealth has pooled at the top. The Middle Class cannot consume what the wealthy would invest in to produce.

That is the reason the pie is shrinking, and no other.
 
So how is it the middle class are earning more in the US/UK and living better lifestyles then they ever where in the previous decades?
 
So how is it the middle class are earning more in the US/UK and living better lifestyles then they ever where in the previous decades?

They are earning more because they have 2 people per household working for many more hrs/yr
High wage is not equivalent with buying power anyways
 
Nope; reasonably sure its because their coffers are filling up faster than the opportune investments present themselves. We should raise taxes to discourage the amassing of such non-productive wealth in the first place and to increase the opportunity cost of just sitting on it.


I think its because all the low hanging fruits have long since been plucked and Trickle Down policies have been eating the seed stock.




You seem to be a victim of the obama approach. Reagan said, in explaining the difference between an optimist and a pessimist, that two children are placed in a room filled completely with horse manure. One is inconsolably depressed and the other is gleefully digging through the manure saying that with all that manure, there must be a pony in there somewhere.

Obama's approach creates and maintains your outlook.

Reagan's approach creates and maintains mine.

I prefer to be happy and hopeful so I like reagan's approach and world view. You prefer yours. There nothing wrong with that. If you prefer fear and dependancy to hope and self reliance, your world view is a good one to hold.
 
You're missing the point entirely. You are trying to cut up a pie that is shrinking so that those who are in need will get a piece of it before it's gone.

The goal is to have a pie that is increasing. Right now, today, compared to the same date four years ago, there are about 3.5 fewer Americans with jobs. That is YOUR shrinking pie.

The question should not be who is entitled to receive the shrinking pieces, but why is the pie shrinking.

The reason is that the folks who have the cash to invest are terrified to do so. Do you think that it's a coincidence that the most risk friendly nation of Capitalists in the history of civilization, US, all stopped investing at the same time and are now sitting on 3 Trillion dollars of capital rather than investing it? What is the overriding thing that is terrorizing them? Not a trick question. Just something for you to ponder.

Over the past 30 years, our pie has grown, yet the top two or three percent aquired all of the growth. If this continues, it only matters to the financially elite if the pie grows, to the rest of us, it feels as if the pie has been shrinking for decades. What good is it to the median income earner if he doesn't benefit from increased productivity?
 
But surely by taxing the rich more, they will merely pass on those costs to the consumers? So in a way it will be the middle class who end up paying the tax.

So if we increased the capital gains tax, which is mostly paid by the rich, exactly what mechanism would be used to pass on costs to consumers?
 
Yes, and he did that by lowering taxes for the rich... you know, "those with investment capital" and deregulate the markets (thats good and bad). That has since continued under both Dem and GOP leadership to the extreme and this extreme in the end caused the economic meltdown that we are now in.



That has nothing to do with the subject. What today's administration does or does not do, is in large part due to the abuses of business .. bankers and financial institutions, and the need to fix that problem. Like it or not, taxes on capital and corporations have never been lower.



Horse****. The abuse by bankers and financial investment firms has put in the system a huge risk premium that still is not fixed. Banks are NOT LENDING. This in turn means people cut back because they constantly listen to the doom and gloom and see friends fired, so there is no consumption (which is a huge part of the economy), which means business dont need as many people because no one is buying. Not that business could get loans or credit to fund an expansion any ways. It is an evil circle, that all started with lax enforcement of regulation, lax regulation as a whole and lazzie-faire attitude towards the private sector, which resulted in an orgy of greed for a decade, built on debt.



More horse****. Reagan had a far larger pie to play with and no economic depression thanks to his predecessor. Tax rates when Reagan took over were much much much higher than they were when Obama took over, hence any effect would be much greater. On top of that Reagan created the deficit spending idea and much of the debt that Obama has to contend with today.

Like it or not, Obama was handed a rotten egg in a barrel full of half rotten apples, plus had to contend with 30 years of Reaganomics and his failed vision of trickle down economics. Romeny wants to continue the trickle down economics bull**** and the failed policies that have now shown not to work. Now saying that, I am not totally convinced that Obama's policies are the right ones, but I do know the few ideas Romeny has floated are the same crap we have heard from the GOP since Reagan and the same crap that has lead the whole planet into this hole it is in today.



I suppose half a truth is better than none. Let me shine a little on your misunderstandings.

The economic melt down was due in large measure to the real estate bubble bursting. This was the result of lending practices mandated by the federal government to lend money to people who were unable to pay the loans back. This was referred to as "Sub Prime" lending. The borrowers, not the loans, were sub-prime.

Because the loans were doomed to to be defaulted, the banks "bundled" them and sold them in bundles. It was like a really big game of Hot Potato. These were the rotten eggs and apples that you refer to. When the various loans that comprised the various bundles started to default, the bundles became suspect and the actuaries determined that the value of the assets purchased was overstated and the value of the firms holding bundles evaporated.

It was not Reaganomics or trickle down or any other politically motivated misdirect. It was the ill advised efforts of both political parties to create a secure voter base by buying votes. Until about a month before the melt down, both Dodd in the Senate and Frank in the Congress were saying that everything was great. Bush asked for this practice to be stopped about 40 times through both of his terms, but did not do so with any passion or drive. The practice started under Clinton.

If you think that things were worse when Obama took office than when reagan took office, you probably were not an adult at that time. Reagan took office, comparatively, next year after the economy was down and out and the people had given up hope.

We need another Reagan. I know obama is not one. I don't think Mitt is one. Mitt is like reagan without a sense of humor.
 
Back
Top Bottom