It’s due to a number of factors. Basically, it’s all about the bottom line. For example, it makes no sense to move the financial service industry to the Mid-West. On the other hand, it makes no sense to do manufacturing in NYC.
Yes, it’s hilarious.
Exactly. In a heavily redistributionist economy, the only job that low income people can apply for is welfare.
How can we know? Even in Kenshin’s example where he gets to pick all the details you still have the jobs created from building the pool, building an art building, hiring employees to take care of those things, etc.
Raising the tax rates tends to hurt the “near rich,” more than the “true rich.” The true rich are good at tax avoidance. Raise the rate, and the up and coming guy pays more tax. Tax the really rich and you get nowhere near the extra amount you expect.
That’s what I think too. Plus this stuff doesn’t get adjusted for inflation fast enough. A lot of people in their 30’s could be millionaires when they retire, but it won’t really mean what it used to mean.
They stop hiring “lawn boys.” What they do instead is hire estate mangers for each of their estates, who in turn hire groundskeepers, maids, butlers, event organizers, etc. In their personal life, they hire accountants, attorneys, etc. Then comes the crew for the yacht, the traveling nanny, security guards, etc.
So are you going to say that 1 billionaire “trickles down” an equal amount of money as 1000 millionaires? Like I said, it’s nowhere near proportional. People at the bottom spend all of their money just to survive.
People at the top are the source of the money for the people at the bottom to survive.
Clinton did not balance anything under he got a Republican House in 1994. Balancing the budget was part of the Contract with America. And to say that Reagan was not successful flies in the face of stats that show when the tax rates came down, revenue into the treasury went up. And I might also suggest that you reread the rules of the forum. Insulting other posters is a no-no.Trickle down economics did nopt work for Regan, Bush I or Bush II. Look at the numbers. These administrations were the absolute most unsuccessful administrations ever in the history of the USA at balancing the budget. Regan was the worst nobody close until Bush #1 took the record. Bush #2 shattered the record with his tax cuts for the wealthy that kept no American jobs in the USA and created the largest deficit the country has EVER known do you get thet EVER. We are still feeling the pain from the mockery his administration made of our economy. While everyone blames Obama, Bush created TARP and it was his administration’s Federal Trade Comission and such organizations that allowed Wall Street to absolutly empty out the Federal Government’s and the American perople’s pockets with illegal and immoral banking practices with complete impunity. There is no place in there where the democrats had a hand in ANY of that. It was ALL the republicans and trickle down economics that trickled everybody’s money right into the hands of the banks and the barrons that are in bed with certain people (I’m not even going to get into the NWO stuff).
I’m sorry but it was the Republicans that were behind the economic policy that sent us into a recession that is really a depression. Remember? Oh no can’t remember that. Trickle down economics works so well that with 8 years of it, our entire economy almost collapsed! Does anybody remember this happening. Am I just imagining this? How do you overlook that? When you save rich people money they do not create American jobs, THEY KEEP THE MONEY. It makes them interest in a bank account or somewhere else in their portfolio. They DO NOT “invest in America” It doesn’t matter if it’s a Japanese company, a Russian, Saudi, as long as it’s making $$$ they put $$ in it! You think they take the money they make and set it aside to specifically invest in American companies? If you believe that I got a bridge I want to sell you too.
Am I lying? I certanly don’t believe I am. I don’t get how you guys can just sweep the near collpse of our economy with Bush under the rug and point the finger at democrats for not knowing how to balance a budget when Clinton DID IT. He balanced it! Refute that while telling nothing but the truth and I’ll shut up.
Very true. But what so many want to do in the cause of helping people is actually making some of them permanently more dependent on government for their sustenance. I am all for helping those who truly can’t help themselves, but the well is fast running dry and we have to come up with bettter ways to accomplish what we want to do. We are all struggling to some extent with the way the economy is now. Groceries are up, gas is up, much of what we buy has increased in cost. Many who would normally help the poor by donations are having to cut back to take care of their own families. The whole tax code needs to be worked on and IMO the Fair Tax would be a good place to start. It would help those at the bottom of the ladder while bringing in more revenue. But talk about revamping or changing any of the social programs to make them work better for less money and the Dems start squealing like stuffed pigs. But they come up with no solutions of their own and our president is out to lunch on all of this.
I cannot think of a single large employer that does not have rich people behind it.
People at the bottom provide cheap labor that those at the top need to increase their bottom line. One cannot survive without the other.