M
mommyof4
Guest
I agree. It’s never tinkled down to me, neither.
- Status
M
Mirdath
Guest
I look at it more that it all trickles down from me – to the politicians, almost the only people left downhill of the check-to-check lifestyleI agree. It’s never tinkled down to me, neither.
J
janw
Guest
I
No, I understand that people disagree on these subjects. My source is mainly life experience, working with and having friends who were very wealthy. Relatives who made it big and just sit on the money, not even enjoying it themselves let alone helping those in need ( and I do not mean myself) You can find statistics to back up just about anything if you look hard enough. My memory of the trickle-down economics is the Reagan years, going to school at night, working days with two small children at a time child support was not enforced. I was told we would not get an increase in our wages due to a freeze on wages, while the CEOs got around that with large bonuses. This was in the early 80s. I still think the trickle-down deal was as stupid as Just Say No to drugs was to the drug problem. Sorry if I called your idea stupid as I did not realize you said anything about the trickle-down theory
M
Maui71
Guest
Trickle down does work.
So I think that in order to vote you must have paid taxes because then you have a stake in the government. If you only receive tax dollars you do not have a stake you have a dependency.
- Most people employed in the US are employed by small business and not large corporations.
- Small business get’s a tax break and hires an employee (Trickle down). Small business gets tax break buys new equipment, computers, furniture whatever (trickle down). Take same small business and increase taxes and employee gets laid off. Small business has less money does not buy new equipment, furniture, computer whatever (trickle down).
- The situation is worse for large company being that they pay the most federal tax. So tax break there can mean several new employees or equipment, or R&D. The reverse holds tax increase and several employees cut and no capital or limited capital spending.
- The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes. CBO
So I think that in order to vote you must have paid taxes because then you have a stake in the government. If you only receive tax dollars you do not have a stake you have a dependency.
J
janw
Guest
For a true small business, this is a good idea. But small business seems to mean something very different to our politicians. Best example recently, the oil industry. They have received tax breaks, subsidies and more. With record profits, did they give back to their country with low gas prices to help the economy, the working class in this country or did they show record profits benifiting only their stock holders and CEOs, owners, etc.? Yes, the poor, working poor and middle class should vote but should try to find out as much as possible about how politicians vote not what they say while running for election or in the commercials. Alot of this can be found on the internet and you don’t need a college degree or to be a homeowner to use the internet or read newspapers, again, it just hard when all your time is spent trying to survive in this economy. I think we should all remember Matthew 25:31-46 when voting as this day will come, and while our lives are important to us, we are to also try to do what is best for those who may not have as good a life as we have.
M
Maui71
Guest
I understand how you feel but no one complained when the US Oil companies were posting record losses or merging to survive. Remember in the 80’s several US Corp Icon’s fell.For a true small business, this is a good idea. But small business seems to mean something very different to our politicians. Best example recently, the oil industry. They have received tax breaks, subsidies and more. With record profits, did they give back to their country with low gas prices to help the economy, the working class in this country or did they show record profits benifiting only their stock holders and CEOs, owners, etc.? Yes, the poor, working poor and middle class should vote but should try to find out as much as possible about how politicians vote not what they say while running for election or in the commercials. Alot of this can be found on the internet and you don’t need a college degree or to be a homeowner to use the internet or read newspapers, again, it just hard when all your time is spent trying to survive in this economy. I think we should all remember Matthew 25:31-46 when voting as this day will come, and while our lives are important to us, we are to also try to do what is best for those who may not have as good a life as we have.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Maybe only the poor should be allowed to vote. People with money have enough influence as it is.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Actually, it’s the love of money that is the root of all evil. Common mistake.
J
janw
Guest
You are so right. my mistake, I knew that it just came out wrong. Thank God for all the wealthy folks and all others who can give to EWTN and all the charities that do so much to help the poor and help send out the gospel to the world. We need money for all that so it in itself is not evil.Actually, it’s the love of money that is the root of all evil. Common mistake.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
I’m sorry, it all depends on how you define “evidence” or rational argument.
Historically, our largest investments in a social safety net and in economic mobility have had positive net returns. Rural electrification, land grants for westward expansion, the GI bill after WW-II… Even the argument over a massive program like social security seems silly when you examine practical results vs. argue ideology.
So far, all evidence suggests that Social Security and Medicare has drastically reduced poverty rates among the elderly. Social Security is also, by any reasonable measure, our most solvent government system. We have to project it to infinity (literally) and use truly anemic growth predictions to even show a modest imbalance.
Medicare is another story, but that is systemic to US healthcare, not the program itself. It historically outperforms the private sector in care costs and delivery, and poverty rates would skyrocket if we all started having to pay for grandma’s meds and care out of income.
Compare that to policies of growth stimulation by rewarding the rich. Inarguably, we are persuing this at an unprecedented level in the US today. Of the President’s roughly $270B in tax cuts, $90B went to the 99th percentile, $90B went to the 90th-98th percentile, and the remaining $90B went to the vast number of American’s whose income us under the 90th percentile.
Corporate profits have hit all time highs, but median family income declined. We also have nearly doubled our national debt in just 7 years. Now, consumer spending, which has kept the economy afloat through this period, is facing the realities of rampant unregulated sub prime lending. Inflation is serious enough to limit what the Fed can do in terms of stimulous and oils is poised at $100 a barrel, so we are quite likely on the brink of a long, deep, recession.
So, it should be no surprise that the gap between rich and poor is at a historical high, and median income in the UK has surpassed us for the first time since the 19th century.
“Some would argue” that living wage laws and progressive taxation will somehow hurt us, but most historical evidence suggests otherwise (we’ve raised the minimum wage before, and the tax rates we slashed on the rich where in place during one of the longest and strongest economic booms in modern US history). So I put it up there with folks who “would argue” that aliens are pre-occupied with coming to earth for anal probing - as in, I’m not going to take it very seriously without some real evidence.
G
goofyjim
Guest
My final answer to this ridiculous question is, if they are legal citizens and haven’t committed a crime, yes, the poor should be allowed to vote. You can’t justify any other position of allowing only the wealthy or educated to vote.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
We can find anecdotal evidence to argue against any proposition. As a Catholic, you should know that. As soon as we say God is the key to happiness, an athiest comes along and tells us how happy he is with a Godless life. As soon as we say that premarital sex damages one’s chance at a lifelong committment, we find a couple who has been married for fifty years, despite having shacked up. We must look at the broader picture, and the broader picture (despite your distrust of numbers) shows that most people who are “poor” do not remain that way all of their lives. Likewise, many in the top five percent are not there all of their lives. I think that, by referring to your condition in the 80’s, two decades ago, you are anecdotal proof of that.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Let’s not forget how our retirement plans and such benefit when those evil coorporate entities profit.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Actually, the oil industry is a great example. Even if we were to make those greedy CEOs work for free, it would drop the price of gas about five or six cents. However, as you mentioned there are those stock-holders.
I’m one of them. My retirement as a public school teacher is invested (beyond my control) in the oil industry. As is the retirement of my parish priest. Sure, we could put caps on the earnings of all of these giant corporations, but will you be there to explain that to the men and women of modest means who are counting on that company to succeed to help build a livable nest egg?
A
awfulthings9
Guest
And all the wealthy who expanded their businesses and put people to work. My uncle owns a window company. He is loaded. His business did very well over the last couple of years and he built a house on a private lake. How nice, right?
Oh yeah, in the meantime he expanded the business and increased his workforce by 50%.
Did greed motivate him? Sure. Did it put dozens to work who otherwise had no job? Absolutely.
We see the rich getting all sorts of recognition for giving to charities and the like, but hardly ever are they recognized for employing the masses and for making the types of decisions that help folks like me have a good return on our retirement investments. I’ll never be rich, but if the big companies, led by brilliant (and greedy) CEO’s keep doing well, I’ll have a comfortable retirement.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
I’m disappointed. With a screen name like “goofy” Jim, I thought these posts would be funnier. Just messing with you - no offense intended.
But again, why shouldn’t criminals have a chance to vote?
A
awfulthings9
Guest
My answers aren’t going to be very fulfilling here. Way too much to respond in depth to, but …
cont…
I’ll just admit my ignorance here. Perhaps someone else will chime in, but for the time being, I’ll assume you’re right here. However, one could also point out disasterous results. Much contemporary analysis of FDR’s programs lean in that direction. I think there is a difference between the type of incentives you describe and “safety nets”, such as minimum wage and universal health care coverage.
Fair enough. But how can we view the practical results of social security against what could have been had we not signed on? I guess one way is to examine some of the municipal governments who opted out of Social Security through a loophole that existed early in its history. One such place is Galveston County, Texas. For anyone who wants to do as suggested and examine the “practical results”, here is a link to analyze how pitifully social security fairs to the alternative.
It probably did reduce poverty rates. Things with harmful long-term effects often have short term boosts. It helps keep the politicians in office just long enough that nobody notices the almost insurmountable problems caused. Our most solvent government system? Perhaps. As the residents of Galveston would add, though, that ain’t saying much.
Put as simply as that, sure poverty rates would skyrocket. The answer is a bit more complex. If one wanted to explore the realistic alternatives to Medicare, however, this argument would fall flat. I summarized some of them in an earlier post.
This isn’t mentioning that the top 5% pay 50% of the taxes (30% paid by the top 1%). So, according to your numbers, which are looking at total dollar rather than percentages, it works out just about right, with those who pay 50% of the taxes receiving around $135B and those who pay the other 50% recieving about $135B.
Sure, when you look at median “family” income. But the internal revenue service shows the bottom five percent increasing income as much as 91% (depending on the year). Family income does not take into consideration several variables, such as mobility (most people do not remain in the same tax bracket all their lives) and changes in the number of people per household (which affects the number of wage earners in a family).
cont…
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Some of us, perhaps yourself, can remember when the lenders were getting constant criticism for not doing enough to loan to the poor and minorities. The pressure to “help the poor” was so intense from politicians that I could easily argue that these “realities” were caused by a compassionate attempt to help the poor. Nobody brings this up when criticizing the sub prime lenders.
Agreed.
Whoa, lots of variables here. Much bigger problems with our median income compared to the UK than what you’ve mentioned.
Coffee supposedly stunts one’s growth. If I begin feeding it to my one-year-old son, I could use this same argument fifteen years later, when he has trippled in size (from one-and-a-half feet to five-and-a-half feet), saying, “See, look at that record growth!” However, the argument isn’t whether or not there was growth, but how much more growth would there have been otherwise. This is the case with minimum wage. Sure there was growth - the times had many things going for them, but while its speculation to suppose where we would be otherwise, some of that speculation gives a pretty dismal report card for minimum wage (click here).
As far as “slashing” the tax rates on the rich, maybe you meant to say something else. Or maybe I’m just not getting it, but this seems to argue *my *point, which is that by cutting the tax rates for the rich would help the economy.
I’m not up on all my logical fallacies, but I think this one is called ad hominem?
M
marci
Guest
I didn’t read all of the posts, but I have heard it said that a democracy will end when the people figure out they can vote themselves a living.
The power to vote is an awsome thing. I often think about how in the hands of ignorance (I mean uninformed) it can be a devastating force. But, we have survived this long. I often think the same thing of juries. Twelve people with no real knowledge of law or the constitution can decide the fate of persons, organizations, businesses, etc. This whole idea seems laughable, and many did indeed laugh, yet somehow it works.
I remember reading that during the height of Greek (or Roman, sometimes I get them confused) government certain offices were decided upon by lottery. That’s right today were picking numbers out of a hat for the office of bath house commissioner and Joe your it.
This seems crazy, but that’s how they did things and it worked for hundreds of years. It shows that the common citizen is capable of contributing in great ways to their country.
The problem today is no one “asks what you can do for your country” anymore. It’s all about what the government is going to give “me”. So if this is why a person votes, or if this is what motivates their choice we are in for it. And when this way of thinking invades the minds of the majority of people who vote, we will find ourselves in a very different country.
The power to vote is an awsome thing. I often think about how in the hands of ignorance (I mean uninformed) it can be a devastating force. But, we have survived this long. I often think the same thing of juries. Twelve people with no real knowledge of law or the constitution can decide the fate of persons, organizations, businesses, etc. This whole idea seems laughable, and many did indeed laugh, yet somehow it works.
I remember reading that during the height of Greek (or Roman, sometimes I get them confused) government certain offices were decided upon by lottery. That’s right today were picking numbers out of a hat for the office of bath house commissioner and Joe your it.
This seems crazy, but that’s how they did things and it worked for hundreds of years. It shows that the common citizen is capable of contributing in great ways to their country.
The problem today is no one “asks what you can do for your country” anymore. It’s all about what the government is going to give “me”. So if this is why a person votes, or if this is what motivates their choice we are in for it. And when this way of thinking invades the minds of the majority of people who vote, we will find ourselves in a very different country.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
I think you’ve overplayed your hand. Using “ad hominem” in a post where you profess utter ignorance about recent US history and fiscal policy would seem to be something of a ‘tell’.
- Status