Trickle down economics

[JanSobieskiIII]

Not wanting the government to do something != to not wanting it done.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Where in your conscience does a wealthy country get by with allowing widows and orphans to call out to God because their rich neighbors will not see to their most basic needs?

I don’t have a problem with the government helping the truly needy. It is the income redistribution from the have nots to the haves that I have an issue with.

 

[PetraG]

And now we have a huge segment of our population who gets representation without taxation

Is that not because we have a huge segment of the population who is underpaid for what they do?

If a king had a kingdom in which he ruled over feudal lords, would he not extract tribute only from the nobility who extracted the wealth from their land by use of poorly-paid labor? In what way is it unfair to extract taxes only from those who are enjoying a high standard of living, leaving those who are barely getting by enough to see to their necessities?

 

[Vonsalza]

It is a misconception to link trickle down to charity or taxes.

Someone forgot to tell Reagan, Bush 1 and, to some degree, Trump when they were selling their tax packages.

That is saying trickle down is about handouts and it’s not.

A reduction in unavoidable expense (like taxes) is economic income, is it not?

Whichever you choose, fine, but only capitalism can create lasting wealth in the overall economy. Socialism can create equality and order in the short run and can be useful in stabilizing disintegrating economies. But it is a stop-gap. It cannot create prosperity long term because it is forcibly taking from the rich to give to the poor and at some point, you run out of other people’s money to spend.

With respect, the Soviet Russian economy out-grew the American economy during much of the 50s.

And given Somalia’s current condition despite being a thoroughly laissez faire country for several decades, I think socialist programs are actually necessary for optimal market growth.

Thanks for your view!

 

[PetraG]

I don’t have a problem with the government helping the truly needy. It is the income redistribution from the have nots to the haves that I have an issue with.

This is a question for discernment from the electorate. There isn’t some objective calculus that says, “This. This is the right level of taxation, this is the standard of living someone ought to have from an honest day’s work, these are the things a civilized society ought to provide to all, regardless of ability to pay, this is the infrastructure that ought to exist to make industry more efficient and competitive with other nations.” These are things we have to decide by good faith judgment informed by a life of prayer and virtue.

Even then, we will have disagreements. We ought to respect that others can see these things differently in good faith. They may see them so differently that we may judge them to be objectively wrong–and as voters, it is our duty to judge these things–but it is in the interest of our system of governance to maintain respect for those who decide in good faith.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Because those who aren’t contributing continue to vote in politicians who heap more entitlements upon them with no desire to ever become productive. The “where’s mine” and “gimme that” mentality is rampant in certain sub-cultures in our society.

I have a cousin, 2 kids out of wedlock, on every single available government assistance program, and no desire to do anything for herself. She expects the government to cater to her. Thankfully we’ve since gotten the kids away from her and into the legal custody of another family member.

But she’s not the only one with that mindset, she doesn’t want to contribute. She wants to lay around and do nothing and still live as well as the people who work for their own living.

 

[PetraG]

Not wanting the government to do something != to not wanting it done.

I don’t think that is quite true. There are many things of great value that we might wisely want to withhold from decision-making that could be tainted by politics. For instance, I do not want the government running seminaries. I don’t mean that the government couldn’t include a seminary in schools recognized as universities and subject to the academic rules required of schools that want to be recognized as universities. I mean I do not want the government controlling who is allowed to study for the priesthood and who isn’t, who is accepted for ordination and who isn’t, and so on.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Agreed. And I don’t want to funnel money meant to help the truly needy through a bloated government bureaucracy and where it won’t be allocated efficiently.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Should the government manufacture automobiles? Or would be end up with the “Trabant”?

Should the government make computers?

Should the government make food? Isn’t food too important to trust to the private sector?

 

[jfz178]

Russia grew due to capitalism. They exploited the workers to sell goods and services on the international market in a capitalist fashion. They just didn’t share the proceeds with the masses as Communism said they should. Their exploitation would never be allowed in true capitalist countries. And eventually, Russia ran out of steam, because such a system is not sustainable. Socialism has to become increasing totalitarian to pull off such a feat. That means suppressing religion and human rights. Take into account Russia’s record on those issues during the same period.

 

[jfz178]

How are workers oppressed? No one forces them to take any job. If their labor has more economic value than they are getting, they can always go elsewhere and get more. If their labor does not have more economic value, then they are getting paid what they are worth by definition. That has nothing to do with respect, or how hard they work, or how deserving they are. It has to do with what someone is willing to pay for what they do. That is all. If their work is really so valuable we could not get along without it, there is a way for them to get more for it. If you force people to pay more than they are willing to for someone’s work, they will stop hiring them entirely. Then they will be in a worse situation, not having work at all.

 

[jfz178]

We are way past a just level of taxation now and the government is not spending what we give them efficiently or morally. The more we give them, the worse that gets and the poor are still with us. The government uses our taxes to buy votes, not help the poor. They don’t give a darn about the poor.

The Bible never said, or never meant, that the government has a right to steal from the productive to give to the non-productive. If you believe what you say, you should give more to charity. No one has the right to tell the rest of us we are not giving, because they don’t know. No one has the right to tell the rest of us that out of conscience, we should allow the government to steal more from us and squander most of it.

 

[benjamin1973]

The point is that the rich are not injecting the extra money back into the economy via purchases in stores, payment for services, and so on. When those at the bottom are given tax breaks or refunds, they are infinitely more likely to inject that money directly into their (poor) communities, creating a real ripple effect that benefits a great number of people.

Look, your idea is that reducing taxes on the rich is a benefit to the economy. Okay-- demonstrate that this is a fact.

 

[benjamin1973]

It doesn’t matter who coined the term. The idea is well understood: that helping the rich will indirectly help the poor. It is this idea which is being debated right now, under whatever name you want to call it.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

So rich people don’t eat, don’t buy cars, don’t go on vacations, don’t have homes built, don’t use electronics, or anything else that gives regular people a job to do?

 

[Vonsalza]

So rich people don’t eat, don’t buy cars, don’t go on vacations, don’t have homes built, don’t use electronics, or anything else that gives regular people a job to do?

Not at home, generally.

The wealthy man is usually in Tahiti or Europe when they really let it go.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

So then my question leads to, are those people not as equally deserving of jobs? Do those people not in turn buy American exports (food, liquor, services, etc.)?

 

[Vonsalza]

So then my question leads to, are those people not as equally deserving of jobs? Do those people not in turn buy American exports (food, liquor, services, etc.)?

There may be some merit to your cause.

But them let them trickle down a European (or Tahitian?) tax break rather than an American one.

 

[benjamin1973]

The rich are already able to do all those things, and the extra tax benefits are unlikely to change their spending habits. The poor do not do many of those things simply because they cannot. Given financial benefits, they are very likely to engage in new behaviors which will inject that money immediately back into their communities.

 

[Vonsalza]

The rich are already able to do all those things, and the extra tax benefits are unlikely to change their spending habits. The poor do not do many of those things simply because they cannot. Given financial benefits, they are very likely to engage in new behaviors which will inject that money immediately back into their communities.

And on the other hand, isn’t giving a break to the rich in the name of employing more people just socialism using a wealthy person as a distributive proxy?