Trickle down economics

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A free market, with the citizen able to retain or spend money according to his own wisdom does not guarantee income equality. It does allow citizens to spend where they see fit or retain capital and build wealth. The moral question as to whether a citizen should store wealth in a bank, give to charity, or create a business should be the citizen’s choice. Even if the whole country engages in some folly, spending all their money on something foolish, at least any citizen with greater wisdom can do something different. If we empower Congress to make too many economic decisions, if they act foolishly then we all go along for that ride. The government is not able to guarentee a decent standard of living. Even if they promised income equality they could still make us all equally poor.
 
Last edited:
Who cuts down the trees for the people to build the yacht out of?


 
Last edited:
Brendan said:
40.png
Spyridon:
They aren’t going to “create jobs” because they get to keep an extra million dollars - they are going to buy themself a nice new yacht.
Click to expand...
Who builds the yacht?
Click to expand...
That misses the point.

The point was that wealthy folks don’t arbitrarily create jobs when you give them more wealth.

They only create jobs when they think those jobs will make them wealthier.

You’ve switched the cart and horse, essentially.
And the yacht is probably built someplace with cheaper labor and oversight than the US 😀
 
Last edited:
True. The average citizen buys himself an expensive smart phone. There are smaller boats and less expensive phones. If we should mandate against the purchase of yachts then, to avoid hypocrisy, we should mandate against the “yachts” of smart phones as well.
 
Should Washington tell the citizens when a boat or a phone is too expensive to buy? To argue socialism with the purchase of unnecessary goods one must realize that almost everyone has something they don’t really need but feel they deserve. Do they really deserve it? God might think one way or the other but it shouldn’t be a Republican or Democrat in Washington who decides what we buy, should it?

True that it is a global economy. America is trying to compete but we are many more times more wealthy than much of the rest of the world and labor costs more here. Should we restrict Americans from doing business in other countries? Most say no, I think.
 
Vonsalza said:
40.png
Brendan:
40.png
Spyridon:
They aren’t going to “create jobs” because they get to keep an extra million dollars - they are going to buy themself a nice new yacht.
Click to expand...
Who builds the yacht?
Click to expand...
That misses the point.

The point was that wealthy folks don’t arbitrarily create jobs when you give them more wealth.

They only create jobs when they think those jobs will make them wealthier.

You’ve switched the cart and horse, essentially.
Click to expand...
So how does buying a yacht make the wealthier?
And the yacht is probably built someplace with cheaper labor and oversight than the US 😀
Click to expand...
Probably not, most US yacht sales are done via US ship builders. Those that are not are European built, so hardly cheaper labor there.
 
JamesATyler said:
Should Washington tell the citizens when a boat or a phone is too expensive to buy?
Click to expand...
Prima facie, no. But I reserve the right to answer differently should the example change or increase in complexity toward something real.
To argue socialism with the purchase of unnecessary goods one must realize that almost everyone has something they don’t really need but feel they deserve. Do they really deserve it? God might think one way or the other but it shouldn’t be a Republican or Democrat in Washington who decides what we buy, should it?
Click to expand...
Since this is a longer version of the same question above, my answer is the same - even though luxury goods and disposable income wasn’t what I was talking about at all.
True that it is a global economy.
Click to expand...
Only somewhat. Trade barriers do and will always exist. They’re probably the only reason you still have a job of you live in N. America or Europe or some other first-world locale.

There’s absolutely someone in southeast Asia who is better than you at your job and willing to do it cheaper. Right now.

Barriers keep them from doing just that.
America is trying to compete but we are many more times more wealthy than much of the rest of the world and labor costs more here.
Click to expand...
We compete poorly. The American as a worker got sold-out in the 90s. The American is now known internationally as a “consumer” instead.
Should we restrict Americans from doing business in other countries? Most say no, I think.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “doing business”? Free trade? Or worse yet, subsidized trade (like we have w/ China)?
 
Vonsalza said:
What do you mean by “doing business”? Free trade? Or worse yet, subsidized trade (like we have w/ China)?
Click to expand...
I was thinking of moving factories abroad to take advantage of cheaper labor costs.
 
Can find a point of agreement on what percentage of someone’s income/net worth the government is owed and how much that person/company is allowed to keep? I think that’s a key starting point.

I think we could all agree the government is not entitled to 100%

So should they get to take 75%, and leave them 25%?

50%?

How much of what someone earns/produces is “theirs” vs what’s owed the government?
 
JamesATyler said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
What do you mean by “doing business”? Free trade? Or worse yet, subsidized trade (like we have w/ China)?
Click to expand...
I was thinking of moving factories abroad to take advantage of cheaper labor costs.
Click to expand...
Ah.

I think they should be treated as foreign entities subject to tariff. But I’m not a rabid globalist, as I’m sure you can tell.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
Can find a point of agreement on what percentage of someone’s income/net worth the government is owed and how much that person/company is allowed to keep? I think that’s a key starting point.
Click to expand...
No, because we probably couldn’t agree on a methodology in the first place.

25% from a guy making $250k will make him mad, but he’ll still have a nice life.

25% from a guy making $25k and he’s not affording his groceries.

That’s the flaw of the blind flat-rate.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
The point wasn’t the yacht. The point was the extra million they got to keep.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this a similar situation to Washington deciding what we should buy? If the government should tax yacht owners more because they can afford it, then doesn’t the same logic hold true for the American who owns an expensive smart phone? I hypothesize that more mouths would be fed by taking 500 dollars more from every owner of an expensive smart phone than a million from every yacht owner. And if we took that 500 there would be fewer people who could afford yachts.
 
Now 25% with a 5k exemption for each person in the household? I can dance to that.
 
JamesATyler said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
The point wasn’t the yacht. The point was the extra million they got to keep.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this a similar situation to Washington deciding what we should buy?
Click to expand...
Not at all.

The core-issue was whether it’s permissible to give a millionaire another million-dollar tax-break under the auspices that they’ll use that tax-break to create jobs.

It’s a trash idea. It’s trash because the millionaire doesn’t hire people because he’s got the extra cash. He hires them because they’ll produce income or reduce loss in an amount that is greater than what they’re paid plus some risk-adjusted return.
 
Last edited:
I think that’s where we need to address the issue. Have a flat tax, but offer write offs/deductions based on income level. Let people that make less than X amount of dollars write off 100% of child care, health care, education, etc. expenses.

The guy that makes between X and Y can write off child care, and education, and up to 50% of health care

The guy that makes over Y amount of dollars can write off child care.

Or whatever, you get the gist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top