Trickle down economics

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
With the same breath you admit the SCOTUS and its opinions of Constitutionality means nothing to you, then ask who says you are the only authority whose opinions matter about the Constitution…

Apparently you don’t recognize the blatant irony there.
 
It would help if you kept your ratio consistent and not switch from x10 to x100.

A x10 increase is equally hard but possible with 1k. Buy junker cars and give them some TLC, then resell. Only requires basic skills and a good eye.
 
So the idea is give the super rich even more profit that they don’t even need and hope they have pity on those less fortunate and give us the scraps from their table. Yup that makes perfect sense and God forbid any poor people get anything for free. If its free and a profit can’t be made its un American.
 
With all of the beautiful teachings of the Church (Rerum Novarum and the re-iteration by Saint JPII, with Centesimus Annus) it’s amazing we have these conversations regarding the core of your topic which IS Social Justice. The teachings alone abolish partisanship, the undertone of these conversations. Pope Francis has said trickle down economics is best described as the overflow of the glass from the top. Unfortunately instead of it flowing over to those of us at the bottom, the glass at the top magically gets bigger. It does not work. “Preferential” treatment for the poor is a mandate of the church for good reason. The condition of the poor is the deciding factor of an upward economy and is the measurement we utilize in determining that societies success. Our Holy Father has asked, how is it the stock market can take a turn and it is all the news but a man freezes to death on the streets of our nation, and not a mention.
The current administration inherited an aging bull market with employment rates that had decreased from 10 to 4.8%. Where we take it from here (rewards for corporations that took products over sea’s, produced by slave labor to boot by lowering a tax rate they NEVER paid anyways) is left for further amazement. At least by those that understand Catholic Social Justice.
 
DENNYINMI said:
With all of the beautiful teachings of the Church (Rerum Novarum and the re-iteration by Saint JPII, with Centesimus Annus) it’s amazing we have these conversations regarding the core of your topic which IS Social Justice. The teachings alone abolish partisanship, the undertone of these conversations. Pope Francis has said trickle down economics is best described as the overflow of the glass from the top. Unfortunately instead of it flowing over to those of us at the bottom, the glass at the top magically gets bigger. It does not work. “Preferential” treatment for the poor is a mandate of the church for good reason. The condition of the poor is the deciding factor of an upward economy and is the measurement we utilize in determining that societies success. Our Holy Father has asked, how is it the stock market can take a turn and it is all the news but a man freezes to death on the streets of our nation, and not a mention.

The current administration inherited an aging bull market with employment rates that had decreased from 10 to 4.8%. Where we take it from here (rewards for corporations that took products over sea’s, produced by slave labor to boot by lowering a tax rate they NEVER paid anyways) is left for further amazement. At least by those that understand Catholic Social Justice.
Click to expand...
Do you think that the problem is that people have the freedom to spend too much of their income the way they freely choose? It sounds like it. When you say the market does not work, isn’t the point you are making that not only do the rich businesses and people do not tend to be charitable enough but the general population is not very charitable either. Instead, the general population continually transfers its wealth to the top through consumerism. The general population then wants the top to transfer the wealth to charity, but they also do not. So we need a government to collect more taxes to enforce charitable spending. It is questionable that the government will actually do so.

In a free market, you can transfer your money to charity instead of consumer spending, at will. Once the government is greatly empowered to collect more taxes, it takes an act of Congress to change spending. If Congress desires to spend the money on war, for example, it will take a consensus of a majority of the country to successfully pressure congressional representatives to change spending.

It isn’t just the spending habits of the rich that is a problem for poor people. If the country wants larger taxes then would they support higher taxes across the spectrum? Should we support a 50% tax on everyone, for example? If we do that, we would curtail consumer spending everywhere, eliminate the amount of money flowing to the top, thus reducing the wealth of the top percentiles, and make more money available for charity and other social programs.
 
We must also recognize that the more money that this country transfers to those few hundred congressional representatives, the more we entrust them to spend our money on those charitable causes that they deem worthy. So, if you had wished that your charitable contributions go to the Church, you must realize that our government may have other priorities and spend your money in a way that meets their priorities.

In my opinion, a free market is the better solution. You can give your excess money to the Church if you wish. The downside or upside is that other citizens, rich or poor, can do the same. What I hear though from too many who desire social justice through government means is that they desire low taxes on themselves, so they can spend freely in the market, but desire greater restrictions and taxes on those people or businesses who are most successful in the market place. This creates a double standard in my view. The middle and lower classes are able to spend their money in a free market, capitalist system, while the most successful labor under the tax burden you might expect in a communist society.

Perhaps these people should consider that a more communist society where all citizens transfer a majority of their wealth to the government. This way we can virtually eliminate the wealthy class altogether while trusting Congress to pick the right charities and causes to support. I don’t agree with it, but it would be more fair to all citizens since we would have an equal but smaller share of the choices of where we spend our money.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day, free markets have done more to lift the most amount of people out of poverty than any other system in the world. Point blank. Income inequality is a non issue. It matters not if one person makes 1000x more than the next, as long as they both have the ability to meet their basic needs.

Obviously it is not a perfect system. Perfect systems cannot exist in an imperfect world, that is where we as Christian’s are called to help those at the bottom, but there will always be a bottom, there will always be poverty, and there will always be a need to help our neighbor.
 
The rich benefit more from taxes. Who benefits more from the road system: me going to my little normal-man’s job, or some tycoon whose products are getting shipped all over the country? Who benefits more (and gets more attention): the guy who has nothing, or the guy living in Hollywood Hills?

Let me ask you this-- does God ask more or less of the rich?
 
benjamin1973 said:
The rich benefit more from taxes. Who benefits more from the road system: me going to my little normal-man’s job, or some tycoon whose products are getting shipped all over the country? Who benefits more (and gets more attention): the guy who has nothing, or the guy living in Hollywood Hills?

Let me ask you this-- does God ask more or less of the rich?
Click to expand...
Let me say this and I believe this. The disagreement about how to structure the economics of society is about kindness. It might be difficult to believe for any participant, but whether one wants socialism, a free market, or even communism, the normal everyday person is trying to figure out how to do things that result in the most kindly society.

To answer your question, it makes sense that those with more can and should be inclined to do more to help society. The question is whether they should be free to do so? Then other question is should anyone be free to do so? The rich only exist in this country because the citizens transfer their wealth to them in their consumer freedom. Should the regular citizen be free to spend his money on products, while neglecting the poor?
 
The point of trickle-down economics is that the poor will direct by the rich having more money-- the rich will make even more factories, provide even more jobs, and thereby strengthen the nation and lessen the burden for the poor.

But this is not what happens. The wealthy accumulate the wealth-- they remove it from the economic system, watch it grow in the bank, and then do stuff like send jobs overseas to factories which pay very little or have poor conditions. In short, the theory, much like communism, just hasn’t held up to actual results.

It’s been shown that money given to the poor directly (and very quickly) bolster small businesses in a community. After all, who’s going to go to a mom-and-pop restaurant: Donald Trump, or some poor guy that finally got enough money to go and enjoy a meal out?

I’m not against the idea of trickle-down economics. If it worked, then I’d say not only stop taxing money, but give them government funds to create even more private sector jobs. But it doesn’t work.
 
At some point taxes become onerous, so that the high(er) taxes penalize the economy as a whole and the poor start to suffer.

No body benefits if the economy shuts down.

Marginally productive employee positions go unfilled.

Employers stop upgrading their equipment and make do with what they already have and are using unsatisfactorily.

If government bureaucratic rules penalize companies above a certain size, then the owners of the companies will make sure that they stay below those sizes so that they do not get penalized.

If a company gets really unlucky, they will find themselves being governed by two or more competing government bureaucracies.
 
JamesATyler said:
In my opinion, a free market is the better solution.
Click to expand...
Before we can discuss which solution is better we must agree on what the problem is we are trying to solve. I don’t think we have done that yet. In other words, what metric should we use to decide if a particular solution is “working?”

I am tempted to use “income inequality” as a metric. Although it cannot be just income inequality because that metric would favor solutions that brought everyone down to the level of the poorest among us. Some may be tempted to use GDP as a metric. But it cannot be just that because that metric would favor solutions that violated the human dignity of those that are not able to be productive. I would propose some blend of these two metrics, so that solutions would favor a higher mean standard of living while placing some reasonable limit on income inequality.

Since the mean standard of living is at an all time high and income inequality is also worse than at any time in US history, it appears that income inequality is being ignored as a metric.

Since you propose the free market as a solution, how well do you think it would do according to the metric of income inequality?
 
In this country we are doing our best to honor and protect the minorities. I assert that the smallest minority by size of population is the individual citizen. The rights of the individual citizen should be protected as much as possible too. We should retain as much of the fruits of our labor as possible. I recognize the need to protect the citizen who has fallen on hard times. It can happen to anyone. I support a social safety net. Other questions regarding health care and education are not totally answered for me. After those questions, whether rich or poor, I believe all citizens should have the freedom to spend their income as they see fit. That has been the traditional American view and I agree with it. It is a fundamental right. I believe we empower society by empowering the individual citizen. As they say, with power comes responsibility but the citizens should be able to decide what they will put their economic strength behind.
 
" The wealthy accumulate the wealth-- they remove it from the economic system, watch it grow in the bank"

I’m literally laughing at you right now. What does the bank do with that money after the rich put it there? Loan it out to people to buy houses, cars, start more businesses’

This idea of just hoarding wealth is ridiculous.
 
Also, the phrase “trickle down” does not exist in economic circles. There is no such thing as a trickle down theory. It’s a buzz word made up by people who want a more state controlled economy.

The term was literally coined by a comedian during the Great Depression
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top