« prev   random   next »

2
4

I told you there is no such a thing as trickle down theory. The rich hoard the money.

By Nobody follow Nobody   2018 Jul 19, 9:40am 4,893 views   43 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/gop-tax-cuts-arent-boosting-wages/ar-AAAgLtL?li=BBnbfcN

When do people realize that giving the tax breaks to the rich will not boost the wage. They will hoard the money
and pay their debt, if there is any. This is what is happening. The rich hoard money. Buying back the stock is not
going to boost economy or adding jobs, it will only increase the company's net worth. It won't even increase the output.

When do people realize giving money to the rich will not boost economy?

If we have money, why not spend that on investing into our children? (Please don't argue about the fact that we are spending
a lot already. I am saying if we have money to give to the rich, spend it on our kids. Use that money to create more seats at
universities and colleges. Most of the seats are filled with foreigners who are willing to pay more. This really sucks, because our
parents and grand parents paid to make these institutions. And their kids are not allowed to study there, because the foreigners are
taking up their seats.) It is simple; it was Steve Jobs and his employees who created the iPhone. And people who believed in it made
the investment. Not because they had the tax break.

« First    « Previous    Comments 4 - 43 of 43    Last »

4   Quigley   ignore (2)   2018 Jul 19, 10:11am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The labor supply must also be limited for wages to go up. When you allow uncontrolled immigration, outsource every job that can be outsourced, and allow corporations to import all the Chindians they want to replace tech workers, you thwart this process and keep wages from rising in response to greater labor needs.
It’s so simple a Democrat should be able to understand it!
5   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2018 Jul 19, 10:17am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says
Trickle down does work. It's just that when you have free trade agreements, it trickles down to Mexico and China, etc.


Excellent Truth!
6   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Jul 19, 11:09am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says
I wonder where the money to pay welfare queens comes from, if not trickle down? My theory:
The rich drink champagne, trickle down on the poor, and magically the piss turns into cash.


Instead of taking the money from the rich as taxes, we borrow it from them, paying them 3% interests.
Big difference.
7   RecentCost   ignore (0)   2018 Jul 19, 11:57am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Taxing the shit out of rich people at a slightly lower rate than before is "giving them money"? No, it's letting them keep more of what they earned.

If progressives could dump the entitled attitudes and got to work they wouldn't need to complain about having their welfare taken away.

Throwing money at children doesn't fix the problem. Fix the families.
8   jazz_music   ignore (12)   2018 Jul 19, 12:10pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

RecentCost says
If progressives could dump the entitled attitudes and got to work they wouldn't need to complain about having their welfare taken away.

We have a government by the people who are entitled to set it up any way they see fit.

The people of every civilized country have a social safety net, so why is that something to bitch about? People evidently want and need this and it represents an improvement over feudalism where government exists as the arm of the elite. Our elite today have more luxury than any elite in history so why the concern for their taxation? --certainly not connected to job creation.

The red states are the recipients of more social benefits so your presumption that progressives are lacking gainful employment is wrong.

Your concern for the supposed plight of the overtaxed rich is completely unfounded. What makes you say these things? They are the leisure class after all.

RecentCost says
Throwing money at children doesn't fix the problem. Fix the families.

WTF are you talking about????
9   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2018 Jul 19, 12:21pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If the Liberals championed real job growth and higher GDP and the return of Manufacturing so our youth could experience an adult life and the experience of raising a two car garage nuclear family. I could see rallying with them about higher taxes. Their higher taxation nonsense stops at being spitefully petty and jealous that someone is earning a decent income. They don't give a fuck about the millions that could earn a better income if the Democrats gave one Goddamn Greasy shit stained fuck.
10   jazz_music   ignore (12)   2018 Jul 19, 12:23pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Tenpoundbass says
I could see rallying with them about higher taxes.

Maybe even higher wages and stability in employment

Oligarchy apologists overlook that the people's government set them up with the power to earn trillions of dollars while paying less than subsistence wages. Amazon, Disney, Walmart examples.

How bad do our horizons as a people have to get before you decide to stand up and change something for the popular benefit?
11   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Jul 19, 12:23pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Strategist says
I wonder where the money to pay welfare queens comes from, if not trickle down? My theory:
The rich drink champagne, trickle down on the poor, and magically the piss turns into cash.


Instead of taking the money from the rich as taxes, we borrow it from them, paying them 3% interests.
Big difference.


The rich never got rich by investing at a long term 3% rate of return, where 2% gets lost by inflation, and the rest (probably more) through taxes.
Most of the borrowings from the fed is through the government itself, other countries, and corporations looking to temporarily park their money.
Eventually, all that borrowing ends up being the responsibility of the rich, because the poor don't have money.
12   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 19, 12:24pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Nobody says
When do people realize giving money to the rich will not boost economy?


When do people realize throwing more money at useless employees doesn't improve productivity and grow the economy.
13   HEYYOU   ignore (34)   2018 Jul 19, 12:48pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

"Nobody" is really going to feel bad when he gets his T.D. check signed by Reagan before he left office.
Everyone knows the check is in the mail.;-)

Republican TBTF Socialism is my favorite.
It was a handout. No one knows what would have happened if the banks had been put into receivership.

'Republican Socialism is for the rich,capitalism is for the poor.'
14   RecentCost   ignore (0)   2018 Jul 19, 1:07pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

jazz_music says
The people of every civilized country have a social safety net


Social safety nets end up becoming hammocks after you take people's pride and motivation to get ahead in life.

"You're a victim, here's some free shit. I'm a hero!"
15   Tenpoundbass   ignore (15)   2018 Jul 19, 1:09pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RecentCost says
jazz_music says
The people of every civilized country have a social safety net


Yes and America has always had a better social net.
What the Liberals champion for is a Social Trap.
16   Goran_K   ignore (4)   2018 Jul 19, 1:26pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Nobody says
When do people realize that giving the tax breaks to the rich will not boost the wage


We've had record low unemployment across all demographics, we actually have more job openings than people looking for work, a rise in the participation rate, and record stock market gains. The country literally has trillions of dollars MORE wealth since the tax cuts went into effect. This all obviously has an inflationary effect on the economy as well, and yes in the SHORT TERM, people will have slightly less buying power as the markets adjust.

It's far better than what we had before.
17   jazz_music   ignore (12)   2018 Jul 19, 2:09pm     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

RecentCost says
Social safety nets end up becoming hammocks after you take people's pride and motivation to get ahead in life.

This is a bizarre statement coming from a typical cheap-labor conservative who wants people over a barrel to keep wages lower and lower going forward in this case by privatizing blame.

So what happens to the wage scale, when we do things on the "cheap labor conservative plan". What happens when we abolish the minimum wage, eliminate all social spending, open our borders to cheap goods from the world, and capital flight to the third world. Which direction will average wages paid to Americans go. Do they go up? Or do they go down?

The answer of course, is down. We are talking about policies whose effect – the intended effect – will be to erode the wages and living standards of ordinary American wage-earners. A deliberate effort to undermine the bargaining position of American labor. An economic environment of ‘haves" and "have nots".

What sort of "personal responsibility" is possible in such an environment? If a wage earner’s only asset is his ability and willingness to do a day’s work for a day’s pay, where does he get the wherewithal to improve his circumstances? He gets that wherewithal from the wages he earns. But in the environment created by conservatives, that wage scale will not support accumulation of any savings. It will not support job training or higher education. It will allow the wage earner to survive – in an economic environment where he lives paycheck to paycheck, hoping he doesn’t lose his job.

But that isn’t what the cheap-labor conservatives mean by "personal responsibility". What they mean is "blame". If you have nothing, and can accumulate nothing "its your own fault". Thus does the conservative wash his hands of the poverty and exploitation inevitable in such an economic environment. It isn’t his fault, it is "impersonal market forces". It is the "natural order" of things – which government has no business correcting, according to him.

All of which utterly overlooks all of the laws, institutions and government created infrastructure that benefits the wealthy. First on the list of these is the corporation itself. Corporations exist because state law creates their possibility. State laws give them a benefit no partnership enjoys – limited liability for investors. They were and are a government created means to encourage investment in large scale industrial enterprises.

They amount to "organized capital", and have grown into institutions so large, many have annual revenues that exceed the Gross Domestic Product of many third world nations. They obviously create an imbalance of economic power between those who hold capital on the one hand, and wage earners on the other. Add to that the rapid movement of capital made possible by technology, and you have an even more uneven playing field. That rapid movement of course, is made possible by computers – developed with government subsidies and assistance – over communications networks built by government subsidy.

The largest beneficiaries of all government built infrastructure, including hydroelectric dams, railroads, air traffic control systems, and even roads and schools, are the corporations who buy power, transport goods by rail and over the roads, and employ workers educated at public expense. They are the primary beneficiaries of the banking system, of Federal Reserve efforts to stabilize the currency, and of the regulation of securities creating confidence in the financial markets.


But Conservatives are oblivious to all this government spending, government infrastructure, and government regulation that directly benefits American corporations. They only see the government spending that helps the wage earner – and hypocritically claim that the wage earner should “stand on his own two feet” – as if they do.

In fact, they stand on the backs of labor. Having formed hugely powerful corporations, they complain when wage earners respond by forming unions to counterbalance the power of these giants. Apparently, it is okay for capital to "stick together", but not labor.
18   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2018 Jul 19, 2:11pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Business = trickle down. Because it’s hiring people. It’s selling product. It moves economy
19   Goran_K   ignore (4)   2018 Jul 19, 2:14pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

jazz_music says
So what happens to the wage scale, when we do things on the "cheap labor conservative plan".


You're sorely mistaken. That's the DEMOCRAT LABOR PLAN. What happens to all the illegal aliens that come into the country?

jazz_music says
But Conservatives are oblivious to all this government spending, government infrastructure, and government regulation that directly benefits American corporations. They only see the government spending that helps the wage earner – and hypocritically claim that the wage earner should “stand on his own two feet” – as if they do.


Uh no. Have you actually listened to prominent libertarians or conservatives? Ben Shapiro, Peter Schiff? They want LESS government all around. It's Democrats who increasingly fall in love with large state institutions. Look at Bernie Sanders, he wants the government to take over education and health care. He nearly won the Democrat party nomination in 2016 (and would have had the DNC not cheated him).
20   clambo   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 19, 2:28pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Of course money "trickles down." The richer people feel, they more they will spend.

The wealthy who spent summer in Martha's Vineyard supported much of the local economy. They also paid property taxes for places they lived in for 3 months per year.

In Palm Beach County the retired spend freely and the local economy depends on them. Much of the local property tax is paid by those who are from the North and have established Florida residency. The NY, NJ, CT taxes that they don't pay are spent in the Florida winters. It's odd to see so many expensive restaurants jammed with people over 65.
21   CBOEtrader   ignore (6)   2018 Jul 19, 2:41pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Nobody says
When do people realize that giving the tax breaks to the rich will not boost the wage


We've had record low unemployment across all demographics


Basic economic theory: less unemployment = wage increase across that demographic. Employment will always need to grow to optimal levels before wages increase.

Nobody says
When do people realize that giving the tax breaks to the rich will not boost the wage.


There is no way for a tax cut to NOT effect the rich more than the poor. You can either say any tax is bad (which is insane) or accept that wealthy people who pay most of the taxes will ALWAYS benefit more individually than poorer people.

Economic improvements ALWAYS have and ALWAYS will effect the rich more than the poor in an absolute sense. It is fundamentally incorrect to argue that economic improvements dont help the poor however. Capitalism has literally saved billions of lives and freed many times more grinding poverty.
22   jazz_music   ignore (12)   2018 Jul 19, 4:00pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

clambo says
The richer people feel, they more they will spend.

That trickle down is from the middle class, the one that shrank from cheap-labor conservative policy.

The middle class is the ones that get the disappearing tax breaks that don't amount to anything substantial even in the present.
23   jazz_music   ignore (12)   2018 Jul 19, 4:02pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

clambo says
In Palm Beach County the retired spend freely and the local economy depends on them.

Those retirees are there because of benefits hard won for them by labor unions. Their ranks are not growing either.
24   jazz_music   ignore (12)   2018 Jul 19, 4:08pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

clambo says
The wealthy who spent summer in Martha's Vineyard supported much of the local economy

That's an island right? An exclusive island that not many can afford to spend much time at. You may as well point at the private jet industry, the fashion and jewelry industry on 5th Avenue as trickle down.

There's not that many shopkeepers gouging these twits to justify a national policy to keep wages lower and workers more insecure.

Your argument is a non-starter. The OP got it right, "there is no such a thing as trickle down theory. The rich hoard the money," and even worse, they set up shell corporations and tax havens to hide it out of the country on exclusive islands offshore.
25   jazz_music   ignore (12)   2018 Jul 19, 4:11pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
Uh no. Have you actually listened to prominent libertarians or conservatives? Ben Shapiro, Peter Schiff?

Yes and they ignore so many things that I can't believe anyone would listen to them.

Liberals, on the other hand want to drive their government to SIGNIFICANT solve problems that MOST people are facing under the tyranny of these overgrown corporations and banks.
27   Patrick   ignore (0)   2018 Jul 19, 5:47pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

clambo says
The richer people feel, they more they will spend.


More importantly, the poorer people actually are, the greater percentage of their money they have to spend.

If you want to boost the economy, just give the poor better paying jobs (by stopping the export of jobs and stopping the import of illegal labor). The poor will spend it, and the entire economy will benefit.

If you give more to the rich, especially in this environment of weak demand (caused by the globalist devastation of wages for the poor), then the rich will simply throw it on their giant pile with all the other money they have, not spending or productively investing it.
28   Ceffer   ignore (3)   2018 Jul 19, 6:01pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Snuffing stogies on the foreheads of beggars isn't trickle down, it's Caligulan Splendor in action.
29   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 19, 6:49pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
More importantly, the poorer people actually are, the greater percentage of their money they have to spend.


That's a great Liberal narrative that's pushed, but doesn't have any basis in reality. Liberals love percentages...

The reality is, expenses and bills are paid with DOLLARS not percentages. Wealthy people spend a hell of a lot more DOLLARS than poorer people. Percentages don't factor in when pertaining to dollars injected into the economy.
30   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Jul 19, 6:52pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
If you give more to the rich, especially in this environment of weak demand


Another popular Liberal narrative.

The rich aren't "given" anything with the new tax bill. They get to KEEP more of what they earned, and send less to the government. But that "less" amount they still send is HUGE compared to what the bottom 2/3'rds of the country send.
31   Booger   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 19, 7:47pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

jazz_music says
Those retirees are there because of benefits hard won for them by labor unions
.

Labor Unions are responsible for 401K's?
32   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (43)   2018 Jul 19, 8:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says
Snuffing stogies on the foreheads of beggars isn't trickle down, it's Caligulan Splendor in action.


THE! AMERICA!n Dream!
33   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Jul 19, 8:17pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Goran_K says
we actually have more job openings than people looking for work


We are doing so good with jobs that it's actually gonna hurt business. They can't find all the employees they need.
Slow down, Trump. Calm down a bit with the prosperity.
Oddly, the welfare queens still can't find jobs. I can only wonder why.
34   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Jul 19, 8:23pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Booger says
jazz_music says
Those retirees are there because of benefits hard won for them by labor unions
.

Labor Unions are responsible for 401K's?


Yup, 401K's are all due to labor unions. And social security, and welfare.
35   Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 19, 8:51pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If the original poster was sending his post from a desktop/laptop computer, his very action of posting was the result of trickle-down: trickling from a $10,000 command-line business machine that all the best known industrial leaders at the time "knew" nobody would ever want one for home, down to a sub-$500 device that he could post from.

If the original poster was sending his post from a smart phone, his very action of posting was the result of trickle-down: trickling from a $5000 brief-case phone that only the C-level executives could afford (and could only make phone calls) down to a handy multi-functional device found in the pockets of even the poorest members of society today.

The point of money is not money per se, but what you can buy with it. Private entrepreneurs are far better at offering up goods for purchase by individuals than governments central planners are able to deliver. Would you rather prefer the same wages but better/more products to buy for the same money over time (because of entrepreneurs competing to make improvements), or would you rather prefer rapidly increasing nominal wages but can't even buy toilet paper with the wages like in Venezuela after a couple decades of socialism?

Tax-cut is not giving money to the rich, but letting millions of competent entrepreneurs use their own resources to compete against each other in offering different choices for consumers, instead of letting a few thousand central planners colluding to confiscate the resources and forcing consumers/citizens into "government"-mandated "free shit." Do you prefer to be a free customer able to choose from which farm/store you'd like to buy your food, or do you prefer to become a plantation slave and get your free food, along with free education, free housing, and free clothing, all at the discretion of the slave owner?

Funny the guy should mention Steve Jobs when pushing his agenda of wasting more confiscated money on worthless liberal arts education (the type that needs government support because the market won't pay for it): does he even know that Steve Jobs was a college dropout?
36   Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 19, 9:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

jazz_music says

Liberals, on the other hand want to drive their government to SIGNIFICANT solve problems that MOST people are facing under the tyranny of these overgrown corporations and banks.


The tyranny of these overgrown corporations and banks can only exist because of government-granted monopolies. Otherwise, what's preventing competition from emerging?

Do you prefer to have a monopoly forced upon you (as in both government bureaucrats and government-granted monopoly benefiting "private" corporation), or do you prefer having more freedom/liberty to choose? Do you think the service-provider will treat you better because they have a monopoly over you or do you think they will treat you better if you have a choice ?
37   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Jul 19, 9:09pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says
If the original poster was sending his post from a desktop computer, his very action of posting was the result of trickle-down: trickling from a $10,000 command-line business machine that all the best known industrial leaders at the time "knew" nobody would ever want one for home, down to a sub-$500 device that he could post from.

If the original poster was sending his post from a smart phone, his very action of posting was the result of trickle-down: trickling from a $5000 brief-case phone that only the C-level executives could afford (and could only make phone calls) down to a handy multi-functional device found in the pockets of even the poorest members of society today.

The point of money is not money per se, but what you can buy with it. Private entrepreneurs are far better at offering up goods for purchase by individuals than governments central planners are able to deliver. Would you rather prefer the same wages but better/more products to buy for the same money ov...


Sadly, communists will never understand all this. They will reprove Einstein's theory of insanity again and again, and still never quit. I actually don't mind, because it's fun to kick commie ass.
38   MAGA_BOMBER   ignore (6)   2018 Jul 19, 9:10pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Booger says
Labor Unions are responsible for 401K's?

Much better than 401k.

Labor unions fought for defined benefit pensions.

401k was invented in 1970s as temp work took hold. There are many ways to lose your 401k investment. You can experience heavy penalties for early withdrawals which many do when they get laid off and don't find another gig or a parent to move in with.

Unlike defined benefit ERISA plans or banking institution savings accounts, there is no government insurance for assets held in 401(k) accounts. Plans of sponsors experiencing financial difficulties sometimes have funding problems.

Employers make out like crazy in comparison to the old ways.
39   MAGA_BOMBER   ignore (6)   2018 Jul 19, 9:12pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Strategist says
Sadly, communists will never understand all this. They will reprove Einstein's theory of insanity again and again, and still never quit. I actually don't mind, because it's fun to kick commie ass.

Which for unfathomable reasons you must do any time someone talks about using democracy to accomplish some good for the masses.

Why do you do that?
40   Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Jul 19, 9:20pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MAGAbrush says
Labor unions fought for defined benefit pensions.


Defined benefit pension plan was a scam tying employees to a sinking ship. Every corporation eventually dies (when its market position is no longer profitable), usually after the executives raid the pension funds. Employers liked pension plans because they didn't have to pay up-front; labor bosses liked pension plans because they could pretend they won something and therefore could take a cut up front without waiting for the life-long vestment period on the commission.
41   Strategist   ignore (2)   2018 Jul 19, 9:23pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MAGAbrush says
Strategist says
Sadly, communists will never understand all this. They will reprove Einstein's theory of insanity again and again, and still never quit. I actually don't mind, because it's fun to kick commie ass.

Which for unfathomable reasons you must do any time someone talks about using democracy to accomplish some good for the masses.

Why do you do that?


If they were doing good for the masses I wouldn't have to do that.
42   MAGA_BOMBER   ignore (6)   2018 Jul 19, 10:16pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

spare us the bs

« First    « Previous    Comments 4 - 43 of 43    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions