[Debate] Do you believe in "Trickle Down Economics"?

[Ƒālconer]

Trickle Down Economics is a terms coined in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole. First employed during the great depression and later implemented and made popular in the "Reagan Years" which overlapped with Reagan's economic policies called "Reaganomics" or "Laissez-fair or hands off government. It usually favors big business for the purpose of stimulating a proliferating job growth and industry. Some people claim that such a thing doesn't exist and that it is in place to give tax cuts to the rick like George Bush's Tax Cuts and the Fiscal Cliff. So what do you think is it real or just a myth to make the rich richer? Because apparently it worked during the Reagan years but its not working now.

[Wang]

No, I think it's just a lie perpetuated by the federal reserve board & the illuminati

[Ritsu]

No, I think it's just a lie perpetuated by the federal reserve board & the illuminati

Illuminati...

[soulless uchiha]

It hasn't worked yet, so I doubt it ever will.

[Ƒālconer]

No, I think it's just a lie perpetuated by the federal reserve board & the illuminati

interesting concept

[drknght]

It pretty much a bs to me. Everyone should pay the same amount of taxes, that will not be based on how much you earn. Lets say $200 per person, and that's it (the actual amount may be different, it's just an example). No benefits, no tax breaks. Taxing possibilities and not the effects.

[Ƒālconer]

It pretty much a bs to me. Everyone should pay the same amount of taxes, that will not be based on how much you earn. Lets say $200 per person, and that's it (the actual amount may be different, it's just an example). No benefits, no tax breaks. Taxing possibilities and not the effects.

yeah I agree

[YowYan]

No civilian benefited from this policy, so no. The more govt. tries to alter the economy, the worse it gets, and the taxpayers will have to carry the burden.

And I heard 51% of the regular folks tax money goes to the military industrial complex. Not mentioning the 14 trillion dollars that somehow disappeared, the funding of Israel, sending out troops to every corner of the globe meddling with other country's political affairs...
If all that was diminished, the regular people wouldn't have to pay as much tax money as they do today.

[Shinobi Train]

All I know is that when business is attacked and the wealthy have to pay higher taxes, the common people suffer. I'd say there must be some truth to it.

[Germanicus]

It hasn't worked yet, so I doubt it ever will.

Haha, yeah, that's why the Reagan administration led to the largest surplus the nation's economy ever had. Yep, definitely not working there.

[Inanimated]

All I know is that when business is attacked and the wealthy have to pay higher taxes, the common people suffer. I'd say there must be some truth to it.

That's not trickle down economics. When the wealthy get higher taxes the common people thrive because the government is making more money, which means the housing market skyrockets(this is good), and loan interest goes down(this is good). That's what makes the economy thrive.

Trickle down economics is when the wealthy get tax breaks and somehow the poor can magically afford things. Basically I'm saying the **** doesn't work.

[Shinobi Train]

That's not trickle down economics. When the wealthy get higher taxes the common people thrive because the government is making more money, which means the housing market skyrockets(this is good), and loan interest goes down(this is good). That's what makes the economy thrive.

Trickle down economics is when the wealthy get tax breaks and somehow the poor can magically afford things. Basically I'm saying the **** doesn't work.

:rofl: Okay, I don't debate anymore with people, I just state my opinion is all. I Just have to say that everyone always thinks their side is better, despite evidence to the contrary. Name a successful democrat president...or maybe just a successful democrat that has improved the economy in some small way. Don't worry, I'll wait. ^_^

[Cyanide Addiction]

:rofl: Okay, I don't debate anymore with people, I just state my opinion is all. I Just have to say that everyone always thinks their side is better, despite evidence to the contrary. Name a successful democrat president...or maybe just a successful democrat that has improved the economy in some small way. Don't worry, I'll wait. ^_^

Bill Clinton. No debate needed.
And what Republicans want to do now isn't exactly what Reagan had in mind either... I think it's a safe bet that if Reagan saw the way Republicans are now.. He'd roll over in his grave.. Multiple times.

[Aim64C]

Trickle Down Economics is a terms coined in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole. First employed during the great depression and later implemented and made popular in the "Reagan Years" which overlapped with Reagan's economic policies called "Reaganomics" or "Laissez-fair or hands off government. It usually favors big business for the purpose of stimulating a proliferating job growth and industry. Some people claim that such a thing doesn't exist and that it is in place to give tax cuts to the rick like George Bush's Tax Cuts and the Fiscal Cliff. So what do you think is it real or just a myth to make the rich richer? Because apparently it worked during the Reagan years but its not working now.

There are multiple factors to be considered, and it's difficult to give a simple answer to this.

First, while one can ask the question: "Does trickle-down economics work?" ... it's a sublime implication that economics, itself, doesn't work.

Here's the inverse: "Does government taxation work?"

Business and economics, as a whole, tend to have greater endurance than most governments on the planet. Governments rise and fall and impose varying taxes and fees on businesses that operate in the region (and have been operating since before that government was recognized/formed).

So, yes, economics works. Money flows through the system without the government's involvement.

That said - tax cuts do not always mean an improved economy. The fact of the matter is that a lot of the money wealthy people 'save' in a tax cut ends up in a bank account. This is because they can literally survive off of the interest of their accounts and any of its earnings are taxed separately from their income (capital gains taxes are flat and affect the largest stock players to the stock tinkerers equally). In the debt/credit-heavy society we lived in through the early 2000s, this drove interest rates on accounts and made such investments very profitable. Thus "trickle down" was just not happening in the way the theory described (though the economic benefit from increased credit purchases was felt - though this was all part of the bubble that was developing and would later come back to bite us.... trickle-down didn't cause the bubble - but the bubble absorbed the 'trickle' and altered how it was distributed).

In economies more like today - "trickle down" works a little more effectively. Lending is not being driven nearly to the extremes it was - interest rates on accounts and in the stock market are fairly low and more 'normal' (closer to the mean economic growth). Savings transferred by tax cuts are invested more wisely - accounts don't offer nearly the interest rates they used to, the stock market is providing fewer short-term investment gains, and people are slowly shifting towards a preference for paying in full as opposed to on credit. The flow of "trickle" has been altered. It no longer goes straight into bank accounts or the stock market. It may sit in a bank account for a time - but as part of an intended cash purchase of a commodity.

Which isn't really 'helping' our economy in terms of returning it to its former 'glory' (which was riding a fractional reserve banking bubble... so it was all an illusion of grandeur, anyway). We are rebounding to a more stable and cautious economy. We won't (and hopefully never should) return to the same lending-based bubble-filled economy that we were enjoying.

That said - the "trickle" is there. The less money acquired by the government from our pay-checks, the more that can be spent in the economy (and the more eventually will be spent in the economy).

The government spends money, too - and its role in that should not be overlooked (governments, when properly executed, complement the free market). The problem is that our current government model wastes far too much money. Medicare is estimated to have spent over 100 billion dollars annually to fraudulent claims and other wasteful practices. That's something like 20x NASA's annual budget and 1/3 the cost of annual upkeep on our military (not counting active wars, which drive it up another 400 billion dollars).

I've seen where a lot of welfare ends up. It ends up in homes of people who, at best, sit around and wait for the check in the mail. More commonly, they appear to collect the check then run cash it so they can purchase their next hit of meth.

Which is why I am not supportive of the idea that the government should be entrusted with the responsibility of taking money from people and assigning its use to other people.

Pull the government out of business and get them back to a concept of minimal regulation and we'll see a lot of the mega-corporations fragment into smaller businesses with fewer executives and fewer bonuses. Smaller industries will take off and use innovation to forge new markets and exploit gaps in the current market supply. If "welfare" is given - it should be to businesses to help them afford to comply with environmental codes and alleviate start-up costs in industries where the costs of compliance are exceedingly high (which means that "only the big boys" can play in those industries - and when those same large companies control the lobbyists for government regulations... it's an obviously fascist system opposed to the idea of the free market).

In the end - the economy; the flow of wealth, is the flow of productivity. Taxes are, generally speaking, not an investment in production. Any purchase made by an individual for a good or service, however, is an investment in production. You cannot use the government to improve the wealth of any group through welfare. The only way to use the government to improve productivity is to use the government as a tool for the community it represents to help initiate business ventures that can produce new goods or services (that usually serve to improve the productivity of another group, business, etc).

Which is why my response to: "Does trickle-down economics work?" is the question: "Does government taxation work?"

Because the implication is that if trickle-down economics doesn't work... we are therefor justified and saying that a person should have more money taken away from him/her for "our" benefit. Which is, when you think about it, a form of pack-predation and theft. That person hasn't decided what their wage is (in most cases) - they merely accepted a wage offered to them that just so happened to be mind-bogglingly large. Now you want to come along and tell them that, because you don't have nice things - you deserve more of their income. If they don't - then you'll garnish their wages and/or send armed men to deny them of freedom and possibly property.

So I don't buy into this whole demonization of the wealthier classes, either. Nor do I buy into the idea that the government (or any group of people) owns or has privilege over another person's income. In other words - I don't believe that tax cuts can be said to 'cost' the government - that implies that the government owns your pay-check and is gracing you with the opportunity to freely spend it at their loss.

But, I think I've beat that horse to death. I am not a big fan of powerful governments.

[Inanimated]

:rofl: Okay, I don't debate anymore with people, I just state my opinion is all. I Just have to say that everyone always thinks their side is better, despite evidence to the contrary. Name a successful democrat president...or maybe just a successful democrat that has improved the economy in some small way. Don't worry, I'll wait. ^_^

If by Democrat you mean a president with similar beliefs as the current Democratic party. Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Bill Clinton. I'm missing several but I picked the strongest. By todays standards of a democrat Teddy and Abraham would both be modern Democrats.

I never provided an alternative to Trickle Down Economics, I simply stated it doesn't work at all. Trickle Down Economics literally has never worked, yet so many politicians try to pull numbers and facts out of no where. The only way Trickle Down Economics would work is if the Wealthy class went out and bought things rather than save the tax break. Now lets be honest, which wealthy human being would spend the money they get from a tax break(it would be a huge sum of money). The money will be locked in a bank and never seen for 20 years. That's the truth.

[Ƒālconer]

If by Democrat you mean a president with similar beliefs as the current Democratic party. Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Bill Clinton. I'm missing several but I picked the strongest. By todays standards of a democrat Teddy and Abraham would both be modern Democrats.

I never provided an alternative to Trickle Down Economics, I simply stated it doesn't work at all. Trickle Down Economics literally has never worked, yet so many politicians try to pull numbers and facts out of no where. The only way Trickle Down Economics would work is if the Wealthy class went out and bought things rather than save the tax break. Now lets be honest, which wealthy human being would spend the money they get from a tax break(it would be a huge sum of money). The money will be locked in a bank and never seen for 20 years. That's the truth.

Abraham Lincoln was Republican...

[Unbiased King]

Haha, yeah, that's why the Reagan administration led to the largest surplus the nation's economy ever had. Yep, definitely not working there.

Dat sarcasm.

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of...ted-states.php

[Unbiased King]

Abraham Lincoln was Republican...

But abolishing slavery and his plans afterward were liberal ideas imo.

[Ƒālconer]

But abolishing slavery and his plans afterward were liberal ideas imo.

i know that but people confuse him for a democrat.... even though the democrats where the racist people back then and the ones that passed the black codes and jim crow laws

[Anorien16]

Well my Economic Skills are low, all i know is: u cant Make money unless u juice it out of someone or something . . . . Most American Companies thrive cos of the cheap labor they obtain other countries like China . . . . also as far as I seem to understand Trickle Down Economics will not work ONLY when the Government is smart and judicious with the extra tax they get right? Well that a high expectation.......

[Cyanide Addiction]

Abraham Lincoln was Republican...

The Founder of the Party in fact, and yet Republicans today are the complete opposite of him.

[Anorien16]

The Founder of the Party in fact, and yet Republicans today are the complete opposite of him.

Sadly the same is true for many other groups.......

[Inanimated]

i know that but people confuse him for a democrat.... even though the democrats where the racist people back then and the ones that passed the black codes and jim crow laws

I never confused him. I blatantly said, by modern day standards of a democrat, based on his political views he's a democrat. Along with Teddy Roosevelt. The modern day republicans would have been the pasts democrats, I know my US history sir .

[kakashi owns all]

The Founder of the Party in fact, and yet Republicans today are the complete opposite of him.

fdr had a name switch he was the first democrat to modern standereds read a book and that make republicans different then they were b4 fdr

[Aim64C]

Well my Economic Skills are low,

It shows.

all i know is: u cant Make money unless u juice it out of someone or something

This model fails to account for the increase in money and economic activity. Under this economic model - money can only come from something else... so, by this logic - all of the money and economic activity in the world today existed back in the 1700s?

If not... then where did the money we currently have come from? How did all of these companies come into existence and grow?

. . . . Most American Companies thrive cos of the cheap labor they obtain other countries like China

China is a complex scenario. On one hand - labor in China is far cheaper than Americans are willing to work for. If you make $300 a week, there, you're rich as hell... but it's considered rather introductory income in the U.S. ... BUT - China can (provided they can be kept from putting lead in ****) make quality spoons, plates, etc - things that most people would have to spend much more money on were it manufactured in the states. That's good news for people with the lower income jobs in the U.S. - it means that the money they earn goes farther and the savings can be distributed to other expenses and quality of living enhancements.

Meanwhile... these people in China start to make more money, their economy starts growing - and before too much longer, they find themselves in demand of products we are producing here in the U.S. - areas of production where we excel. They begin to purchase products from our economy which strengthens both economies.

Except... China doesn't do that. They deliberately undermine international patents and actively restrict the imports they allow into their nation. So it's something of a one-way street that doesn't work according to the model of the free market (though that is slowly changing... just whether or not it happens in time to save China's economy is another story).

In the free market model; Wealth and productivity are equivocal, and the two can be created. For example - the Cotton Gin greatly enhanced the output from one worker. Now a farmer could produce several times the amount of cotton and enjoy a larger profit-margin on more competitively priced cotton (sold cheaper). The creator of the cotton gin has created a product that improves productivity - just like the developers of steam engines and other such systems that led to the industrial era.

Time is the real 'money' - the ultimate currency. Anything produced to save another person time or to allow them to do more with the time they are doing a mundane task (such as riding on a bus) creates wealth. Any time someone creates a new product that is desirable (or a new service) - that creates wealth.

Money is merely a universal bartering currency that attempts to represent the amount your product or service aided another person.

The problem is that America is not a free market economy - it is a fascist economy where government and many large businesses have fused into the same effective institution. Some would call this "crony capitalism" - but it's more like "fascism lite." Lobbyists of large corporations lobby for laws that benefit their business - and laws get made that benefit those businesses and, also, award contracts to that business.

Which is why people currently sit there and say: "Look at America... the free market doesn't work!" .... well... true... but America isn't a free market.

. . . . also as far as I seem to understand Trickle Down Economics will not work ONLY when the Government is smart and judicious with the extra tax they get right? Well that a high expectation.......

I'm not sure you quite understood the question... or you put in a couple typos here that make this confusing.