Do trickle-down economic theories work?

[CHRISTINE77]

What in this miserable and corrupt world is fair? Was the industrial revolution fair to the Third-World? Did the top 2% of the richest people obtain their money fairly? Surly not from the perspective of those living extreme poverty. We steal resources from the impoverished countries, such as those in Africa. It’s time justice is served and severe poverty get eliminated, even if it costs the well-to-do some of their riches. In considering what is fair and just, remember that there are 9,500 children who die of starvation every day. **Please, I ask you, is it fair? **

LOVE!

AMEN!!

 

[maryjk]

Yes but the middle class are paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy. The wealthy can afford to give back a lot more.

The share of total income earned by the wealthy has increased steadily over the past 25 years. Since 1980, the share of income earned by the richest 1 percent has more than doubled, from 9 percent to 19 percent. The share of the income going to the poorest income quintile has declined. Income disparities, in absolute dollars, have grown substantially.

Do you really understand how percentages work?

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Do you really understand how percentages work?

Christine is correct in the part you emboldened. So, we can assume she has an understanding of percentages. If you like we can go further and discuss the overall impact of taxes on the workers as opposed to the wealthy.

One of the most common tactics of the defenders of the wealthy is to attempt to separate the various taxes in an effort to manufacture a point. The simple fact which defeats them every time. Is that the workers pay a much higher percentage of their income both on goods, and the accompanying taxes.

ATB

 

[sallybutler]

That would work if you could maintain you own standard of living on $1000.00 per month.
Then again, remember that employment is a contractual agreement. An employer offers to pay an employee a certain amount for his time. An employee agrees to that amount and goes to work. An employer may increase an employee’s pay for whatever reason he wants…but he is not obligated to do so.

the person would still be able to hold down their own job, so that would be $1000 a month in addition to their own salary.

Some are.

i took your comment about employees being greedy as a slur against employees and making it sound like employers would never be greedy, only employees are. Sorry if I interpreted that wrong

Now that would not work in a real, true, Free Market. Soon competition would force a reduction in price. Look who benefits…the consumer.

A) The free market is a myth, especially in as large an economy as ours
B) Of course companies would keep as much of the profits as they can. If they didn’t, corporation s wouldn’t have cash to sit on and they wouldn’t have increased dividend s.
C) The consumer has not benefited as much as the owners

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Do you really understand how percentages work?

Yes I do. If a person has 1 billion dollars in income and has to pay 40% of it in taxes they still have left a heck of a lot more money than a person who makes 50 thousand and has to pay say 20% of it to taxes. Not to mention rich people usually have beaucoup loopholes and stash their cash in foreign banks etc. etc.!

 

[SMGS127]

Yes I do. If a person has 1 billion dollars in income and has to pay 40% of it in taxes they still have left a heck of a lot more money than a person who makes 50 thousand and has to pay say 20% of it to taxes. Not to mention rich people usually have beaucoup loopholes and stash their cash in foreign banks etc. etc.!

Not to mention the fact that taxes on investment income, which is generally earned by the wealthy who have the capital to invest in the first place, is taxed at an absurdly low rate.

 

[sallybutler]

Not to mention the fact that taxes on investment income, which is generally earned by the wealthy who have the capital to invest in the first place, is taxed at an absurdly low rate.

Personally, I think that money not earned by your own effort (aka, the sweat of your brow) should be taxed higher than that by your own efforts.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Personally, I think that money not earned by your own effort (aka, the sweat of your brow) should be taxed higher than that by your own efforts.

Yes that is a very good point. A lot of the wealthy draw salaries of about a million, but most of their income comes from investments and tax shelters. Where is the fairness of that?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

A) The free market is a myth, especially in as large an economy as ours

The Free Market is not a myth. It existed and flourished. It began in the early 1800’s and spread throughout the industrial world. It raised the standard of living of its poorest citizens to heights no collectivist system has ever begun to equal.
By the 1880’s it was not a full, perfect, unregulated, totally laissez-faire Free Market—as it should have been. Various degrees of government interference and control began to appear, even in America. But the extent to which certain countries were free was the exact extent of their economic progress. America, the freest, achieved the most.

Think about how large our economy could be today…if it were FREE.
sallybutler;11979371:

B) Of course companies would keep as much of the profits as they can. If they didn’t, corporation s wouldn’t have cash to sit on and they wouldn’t have increased dividend s.

No. If corporations don’t keep as much profit as they can…they go out of business.

C) The consumer has not benefited as much as the owners

That’s not fair.

You are using a computer thanks to Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. You are enjoying the Internet thanks to Al Gore (I think ?). Why should these people NOT be rewarded for the benefits they provided to you and hundreds of millions of people world wide???

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Just wondering, are you rich?

Zoltan answers all questions…even the personal ones that are nobody’s business.

(Assuming you are talking about monetary wealth…?)

Am I rich?..

Some people would consider me to be rich. But I know many folks who are richer.

To be more specific, I would say that I am poorer than some but richer than others.

You really put me on the spot, Christine…

If I said that I was an old retired guy, just getting by on social security…you would consider me to be hypocritical. If I told you that after selling a $1billion dollar company, investing wisely and retiring early to spend time on my yacht…you would consider me to one of the “evil greedy rich”…you know…the way school teachers describe many of my friends.

The best definition of a rich person (and my personal favorite) is: Anyone who has a dollar more than you do is rich.

So who is the rich one, Christine? Just PM a copy of your personal financial statement to me and I’ll PM mine to you…who knows, you could be the rich one…

 

[sallybutler]

Large money interests won’t allow a free market. They don’t want competition. Laws at every level of government have been put in place to prevent competition. Most of those laws are at the state and local level.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

In considering what is fair and just, remember that there are 9,500 children who die of starvation every day. **Please, I ask you, is it fair? **

LOVE!

Who’s fault is that, Robert?

Why are they starving?

What are you, ROBERT SOCK, doing about it…personally? Tell me and I’ll join you.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Personally, I think that money not earned by your own effort (aka, the sweat of your brow) should be taxed higher than that by your own efforts.

Like welfare?

 

[sallybutler]

Like welfare?

Why not. Social Security is taxed.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Large money interests won’t allow a free market. They don’t want competition. Laws at every level of government have been put in place to prevent competition. Most of those laws are at the state and local level.

That’s very true. And you can thank the Sherman Anti Trust Act. All that really did was protect incompetent business from competition.

As soon as government began to regulate business it created two types of entrepreneurs. The Free Market entrepreneur (honest businessman) and the Political entrepreneur.
The Free Market entrepreneur succeeds by pleasing his customers while the Political entrepreneur succeeds by influencing the government.

Un-regulated competition always benefits the consumer.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Why not. Social Security is taxed.

Right on!

 

[Mickey_Finn]

The Free Market is not a myth. It existed and flourished. It began in the early 1800’s and spread throughout the industrial world. It raised the standard of living of its poorest citizens to heights no collectivist system has ever begun to equal.

http://www.cubebreaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/childlabor-02.png
By the 1880’s it was not a full, perfect, unregulated, totally laissez-faire Free Market—as it should have been.
http://www.cubebreaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/childlabor-04.jpg

Various degrees of government interference and control began to appear, even in America. But the extent to which certain countries were free was the exact extent of their economic progress. America, the freest, achieved the most.

http://www.cubebreaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/childlabor-12.png

Think about how large our economy could be today…if it were FREE.

Yeah Zoltan, those were the days.

ATB

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Zoltan answers all questions…even the personal ones that are nobody’s business.

(Assuming you are talking about monetary wealth…?)

Am I rich?..

Some people would consider me to be rich. But I know many folks who are richer.

To be more specific, I would say that I am poorer than some but richer than others.

You really put me on the spot, Christine…

If I said that I was an old retired guy, just getting by on social security…you would consider me to be hypocritical. If I told you that after selling a $1billion dollar company, investing wisely and retiring early to spend time on my yacht…you would consider me to one of the “evil greedy rich”…you know…the way school teachers describe many of my friends.

The best definition of a rich person (and my personal favorite) is: Anyone who has a dollar more than you do is rich.

So who is the rich one, Christine? Just PM a copy of your personal financial statement to me and I’ll PM mine to you…who knows, you could be the rich one…

Now Zoltan, we all know who the old scratch is now don’t we?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Christine is correct in the part you emboldened. So, we can assume she has an understanding of percentages. If you like we can go further and discuss the overall impact of taxes on the workers as opposed to the wealthy.

One of the most common tactics of the defenders of the wealthy is to attempt to separate the various taxes in an effort to manufacture a point. The simple fact which defeats them every time. Is that the workers pay a much higher percentage of their income both on goods, and the accompanying taxes.

ATB

Excuse me Mickey while I jump in here. Your mention of “defenders of the wealthy” caught my interest.

Not to get to far off the topic of the thread but you might find this an interesting argument…re. “taxes on the workers as opposed to the wealthy”

In a spirit of fairness, I propose that everyone be allowed to vote in accordance with their taxes. In other words: “one vote for every dollar paid in taxes”.

Since history teaches us that all the great Democracies collapsed as soon as people realized that they could vote themselves money from the government…I think my “one vote for every dollar paid in taxes” idea would be a great way to prolong our way of life.

Oh sure, the wealthy would have more votes than the workers, but what’s wrong with that? The wealthy have a greater interest in government and a lot more to lose.

When voting, the wealthy would always have the worker’s best interests in mind. The dependent class, of course, would have no vote (they don’t pay taxes). But that would be a good thing, also. They could not vote for more welfare. Thus making themselves productive and rising above poverty.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Yeah Zoltan, those were the days.

ATB

Yes they were…

Were any of the folks in your photos gathered up in herds and FORCED to do what they are doing??

Whatever the the people in the photos were earning was better than the alternatives: starvation, malnutrition, prostitution, begging and stealing.

People left farms in droves to find work in factories in those days. They were happy to earn a living. Kids working in factories faced worse conditions on the farm.

It was the increased productivity per adult worker brought about by the Free Market that eliminated child labor.