Do trickle-down economic theories work?

[Seraphim73]

Why can’t you stick to what I actually said rather than imagining all kinds of exagerations? Oh, yes, you can’t refute what I said, so you might as well make up a straw man and refute that.

I responded to exactly what you said along with all of its implications. You said people doing well is an indication they are not paying enough in taxes. The reverse of that being that people who are not doing well must paying enough in taxes. So the obvious implication is you think they should be taxed enough to make sure they don’t have it too easy. I don’t know what other conclusion to draw from that statement.

And you have yet to answer my question. What percentage of a wealthy person’s income is it ok to confiscate? Remember, a very large portion of the American population pay zero dollars in income taxes and many of them actually receive a check from the government which makes tax day a huge pay day for them. Also never forget, the government can’t give money away in so called tax credits unless it first takes it away from someone else.

Since we are talking about “paying a fair share”, one person pays 35% of their income to the government, one pays zero dollars to the government and a third person reaches into the pocket of the person paying 35% and actually takes money from them. Who is paying their fair share in this case?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I responded to exactly what you said along with all of its implications. You said people doing well is an indication they are not paying enough in taxes.

You are not paying attention. I said the fact that they are doing well shows they are not overtaxed. That is a long way from saying they should be taxed more.

The reverse of that being that people who are not doing well must paying enough in taxes.

Since you were off base in step one, your further implications just take you further away.

And you have yet to answer my question. What percentage of a wealthy person’s income is it ok to confiscate?

That might be a relevant question (properly rephrased, or course), but it is not relevant to refute anything that I have written, so I feel no need to answer it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If the market cannot correct the extranality on its own then of course there is a case for government intervention. Are you implying that there would be no extranalities in a “true” Capitalist society?

There could be many positive extranalities in a “true” Capitalist society and maybe a few negative ones. Government intervention would never be necessary as long as objective laws were in place.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Of course there will be lay offs in a “true” Capitalist society as supply and demand change. Have you ever heard of structural unemployment? How about the “natural” rate of unemployment?

What do you mean by “pure” and “true”?

Yes I have heard of structural unemployment and the theory of a natural rate of unemployment.

By pure and true Capitalism, I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If that is evidence you want me to look at, then what I see in 114 years of gradually increasing regulation and gradually increasing prosperity (with occasional reversals that eventually return to the overall trend.) Is that really what you wanted to point out?

Not sure of what you have been reading, but have you noticed how many Americans are out of work lately? How about world economic problems??

I am quite aware that you support it and the you think it the the best. The question is whether you can convince anyone else that it is the best.

I try…I try!

I mean equally in the sense of justice as understood by the Church. It is fallacy to believe that everyone can be what they WANT to be in a free market.

Why not?

And how do you determine the “best” for any given man? Does that take into account varying degrees of intelligence, for example?

No one determines what is best for anyone else. A rational individual is capable of determining what is best for himself.

Well, that is certainly not a completely free market. A man with some mental retardation has no chance of choosing to specialize in international finance or brain surgery, no matter how much he might “like” to. Besides, of all the regulations that have been imposed on the free market, I don’t remember one of them that says that anyone can’t try to compete in any field. That is a red herring.

Governments impose regulations, licensing, and permit processes that are a detriment to some people who would LIKE to compete in certain fields. Not a red herring.

Don’t forget to add “and luck”.

Luck is for lottery winners.

 

[Seraphim73]

You are not paying attention. I said the fact that they are doing well shows they are not overtaxed. That is a long way from saying they should be taxed more.

So then the rich do pay their fair share?

That might be a relevant question (properly rephrased, or course), but it is not relevant to refute anything that I have written, so I feel no need to answer it.

Well you don’t have a “need” to respond to anything on this forum. Doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s an appropriate question considering the subject. But of course you may do as you want.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So then the rich do pay their fair share?

Well you don’t have a “need” to respond to anything on this forum. Doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s an appropriate question considering the subject. But of course you may do as you want.

And you have yet to answer my question. What percentage of a wealthy person’s income is it ok to confiscate?

Hey leaf…it is a very good and appropriate question. Why not handle it?:juggle:

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not sure of what you have been reading, but have you noticed how many Americans are out of work lately?

Not nearly as many Americans as were out of work during the Great Depression. Remember how this came up. Your posting #327 suggested that our (sort of) Free Market would lead us to a better world if it were more “unbridled”. I challenged that assertion in #329 by saying that maybe it would be better if it were more “encumbered”. After your re-assertion in #342, I challenged you to back up that assertion with evidence, to which you responded in #344:

The evidence is there in the economic history of our country from 1900 to today.

So I suppose you think that the economic history of our country from 1900 illustrates that the less we “encumber” the free market, the more it leads us to a better world. Well, from what I know of American History, the trend in government regulation over that period of history has been from very little regulation to much greater regulation. And during that same period of history, our standard of living has been getting better, our productivity has been going up, and we seem to be going toward a better world. Pointing out that unemployment is still a problem in 2014 does not change the 114 year trend. So if you think otherwise, please show the economic measure by which our lives have been getting uniformly worse over these past 114 years. You can speculate that things might have been even better with less regulation, but speculation is not evidence.

Why not?

Why can’t anyone be anything they like in a Free Market? Because that is too big a promise for** any** economic system to make. Some people just have limitations. I think you are clever enough to think of a dozen or so without any help from me.

Governments impose regulations, licensing, and permit processes that are a detriment to some people who would LIKE to compete in certain fields. Not a red herring.

Except for the bad old days when regulations were race-specific, today’s regulations apply to everyone equally. If one person is denied the right to be an airline pilot because of his poor eyesight, then everyone else with similarly poor eyesight is also denied that right by the same regulation. Most regulations do not discriminate between people unfairly. There are some exceptions. For example there are regulations in some localities that prevent someone from opening a flower shop unless they have passed a government test in floral arrangement. This test was devised by the area’s existing florists to suppress competition, since not every flower shop should have to offer floral arrangement services. And I never heard of anyone dying because of a poorly arranged bunch of flowers. But I would not want to see most of the federal regulations on airline pilots go away, and I don’t think you would either.

Luck is for lottery winners.

“Luck” in this context refers to any factor that is beyond one’s control. And with that understanding, I still maintain that success in today’s economy has a large measure of luck involved, in addition to a certain level of determination. But determination alone will not guarantee you economic success in a Free Market.

 

[freeRadical]

There could be many positive extranalities in a “true” Capitalist society and maybe a few negative ones. Government intervention would never be necessary as long as objective laws were in place.

You assume the market would be able to correct these extranalities on its own. How would pollution be handled in this “true” Capitalistic society?

 

[freeRadical]

Yes I have heard of structural unemployment and the theory of a natural rate of unemployment.

By pure and true Capitalism, I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

And you believe that there would be no unemployment in such a society?

 

[freeRadical]

Do you have any evidence that school lunch programs or Headstart are hurting the health of our society and economy?

Have you seen the studies on Headstart? Headstart is a giant waste of taxpayer money, it really has no long term benefit and very little short term benefit for those who participate in it.

Can you understand the justification for taxing those who earn only a little a smaller amount of tax?

I don’t understand the justification for taxing income or wealth period. I do not support any taxes on income, wealth, savings, or investments.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Have you seen the studies on Headstart? Headstart is a giant waste of taxpayer money, it really has no long term benefit and very little short term benefit for those who participate in it.
.

The virtues or lack of virtues of Headstart are not the question. The question was whether funding it has hurt our economy. Remember I was citing this in contrast to your posting #355 where you asked if the increased wealth of the rich was hurting our economy or society. It is interesting that when something like Headstart is brought up, you immediately go after its virtues or lack thereof. Yet when defending the rich getting richer, you only asked if it hurts. As if it’s virtues don’t matter so long as not much damage is done. All I am asking is that you treat these two issues by the same standards. If you are going to attack the virtues of Headstart, you better be willing to defend the virtues of having the rich get richer.

 

[freeRadical]

The virtues or lack of virtues of Headstart are not the question. The question was whether funding it has hurt our economy. Remember I was citing this in contrast to your posting #355 where you asked if the increased wealth of the rich was hurting our economy or society. It is interesting that when something like Headstart is brought up, you immediately go after its virtues or lack thereof. Yet when defending the rich getting richer, you only asked if it hurts. As if it’s virtues don’t matter so long as not much damage is done. All I am asking is that you treat these two issues by the same standards. If you are going to attack the virtues of Headstart, you better be willing to defend the virtues of having the rich get richer.

I didn’t attack the virtues of Headstart, I merely stated that it has no benefit. If Headstart has no benefit then of course funding it hurts our economy. Those taxes could be used for something else or people could be paying less taxes. I don’t care about the good intentions of government programs, I care about what the actually reality is. We all know what road is paved with good intentions.

If the rich getting richer does not hurt our economy then does it really matter if it benefits it?

Why don’t you defend the practice of taxing income and wealth to begin with and then defend the practice of progressive taxation of income and wealth?

 

[freeRadical]

Not nearly as many Americans as were out of work during the Great Depression

Are you implying that the Great Depression was caused by an unregulated free market economy?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Not nearly as many Americans as were out of work during the Great Depression. Remember how this came up. Your posting #327 suggested that our (sort of) Free Market would lead us to a better world if it were more “unbridled”. I challenged that assertion in #329 by saying that maybe it would be better if it were more “encumbered”. After your re-assertion in #342, I challenged you to back up that assertion with evidence, to which you responded in #344:

The “Great Depression” was due, in a greater part, to government over regulation. More regulations and socialist government programs prolonged it.

What is with all the previous post numbers…??

While I go back and research #327 to #344, how about you answering the question in #365?

So I suppose you think that the economic history of our country from 1900 illustrates that the less we “encumber” the free market, the more it leads us to a better world. Well, from what I know of American History, the trend in government regulation over that period of history has been from very little regulation to much greater regulation. And during that same period of history, our standard of living has been getting better, our productivity has been going up, and we seem to be going toward a better world. Pointing out that unemployment is still a problem in 2014 does not change the 114 year trend. So if you think otherwise, please show the economic measure by which our lives have been getting uniformly worse over these past 114 years. You can speculate that things might have been even better with less regulation, but speculation is not evidence.

The Industrial Revolution produced the greatest increase in wealth, overall prosperity and standard of living the world has ever known. This occurred with VERY little or NO government intervention. In the early 1900’s governments began to exert more control of industry. the results…as you said, were “… 114 years of gradually increasing regulation and gradually increasing prosperity”

The evidence is quite clear. The world went from a robust increasing prosperity to a gradual or slow growth. All due to government interference.

There is not one regulation that increased production. There is not one regulation that increased prosperity. Governments do not produce prosperity…they depend on it.

Why can’t anyone be anything they like in a Free Market? Because that is too big a promise for** any** economic system to make. Some people just have limitations. I think you are clever enough to think of a dozen or so without any help from me.

As Dirty Harry said: “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

In a Free Market a man with a limitation does not have a government bureaucrat telling him what he can or cannot do because of his limitation.

Except for the bad old days when regulations were race-specific, today’s regulations apply to everyone equally. If one person is denied the right to be an airline pilot because of his poor eyesight, then everyone else with similarly poor eyesight is also denied that right by the same regulation. Most regulations do not discriminate between people unfairly. There are some exceptions. For example there are regulations in some localities that prevent someone from opening a flower shop unless they have passed a government test in floral arrangement. This test was devised by the area’s existing florists to suppress competition, since not every flower shop should have to offer floral arrangement services. And I never heard of anyone dying because of a poorly arranged bunch of flowers. But I would not want to see most of the federal regulations on airline pilots go away, and I don’t think you would either.

Good example about the airline pilot. (See my response above about limitations)
Better example about florists. That is the wide spread, restrictive nature of government regulations. It effects more people than the occasional wannabe airline pilot.

“Luck” in this context refers to any factor that is beyond one’s control. And with that understanding, I still maintain that success in today’s economy has a large measure of luck involved, in addition to a certain level of determination. But determination alone will not guarantee you economic success in a Free Market.

Then a failed bank or business would be attributed to simply BAD luck, rather than mismanagement or competition???

 

[MacQ]

Well, I reckon it does work.
None of the money in my bank account trickled UP.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You assume the market would be able to correct these extranalities on its own. How would pollution be handled in this “true” Capitalistic society?

Simple. An objective law against pollution that applies to individuals, groups and corporations.

No need to burden an entire industry with inane government standards or apply anti pollution regulations to industries that don’t pollute.

If a person, group or corporation pollutes…they are responsible. It would not take long for industries to come up with efficient ways to prevent pollution. In fact, their solutions would be better than what some goofy bureaucrat thinks would work.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

And you believe that there would be no unemployment in such a society?

The only unemployment I see, would be the few days between one job and a better paying one.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The only unemployment I see, would be the few days between one job and a better paying one.

Since this is a hypothetical society that has never been realized, what you “see” is what you “imagine” would be.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Simple. An objective law against pollution that applies to individuals, groups and corporations.

No need to burden an entire industry with inane government standards or apply anti pollution regulations to industries that don’t pollute.

If a person, group or corporation pollutes…they are responsible. It would not take long for industries to come up with efficient ways to prevent pollution. In fact, their solutions would be better than what some goofy bureaucrat thinks would work.

You say “objective law”, I say tomato (or “regulation”). Calling something by a different name does not make it something different.