Trickle down economics

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fine, I’ll agree with that premise.

Still think people should be allowed to keep as much of their own money as possible.
 
I’d argue it is.

But, there’s a balance that needs to be struck. I understand that, I think most people do. The question is where that balance is.
 
I may be misconstruing his words, but ben seems to be arguing in favor of alleviating “the rich” of excess funds, regardless of rightful possession, in the name of the greater good.
 
There’s a difference between taxation on property and taxation on yearly income (or, better, yearly profit). All profits made, by anybody, use community resources: roads, bridges and tunnels, the schools that trained their workers, the health care system that keeps more working-class people capable of putting in a solid day’s work, etc. There’s a huge infrastructure which is required to be in place in order for them to make their profit. It seems to me that those who make the most profit are using those resources more than others; a large corporation benefits very greatly by the education which has been provided by the state to its workers. It has more trucks delivering supplies and goods, causing wear-and-tear on the transportation system. It benefits from health care, because a larger pool of healthy workers means more job competition and ensures that the company has more potential employees to choose from.

I’m not for mugging people. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect those who make more to spend more so that new up-and-comers or even just their own children and grandchildren will have a good infrastructure in which to attempt to prosper.
 
Last edited:
But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect those who make more to spend more
But those people do already spend more…

Even if everyone paid the same percentage, the wealthy would pay more.

If a guy was taxed 10% on $100 he’d pay $10 in.

If another guy was taxed 10% on 10 million dollars… you get the gist.

Now of course there’s an argument for a progressive income tax (I disagree with it) but no matter what way you cut it, people with more money are paying more taxes.
 
That’s fair enough. I’m generally for a flat tax. However, also keep in mind that the rich aren’t actually declaring all their profit; there are a lot of deductions for charity and for other things which means taxable income is much less than the money they really make each year.
 
Understood. That’s an entirely different argument though. And I don’t think we want to take away any incentive for charitable giving.
 
I
So, income inequality is unimportant as a metric and may be ignored completely when evaluating one system or another? Remember, there are many systemic factors besides handouts that can affect income inequality, such as appropriate educational opportunities, etc. Are ;you sure you want to dismiss them all as unimportant?
I think income levels are important but how would they be determined? I doubt you suggest all jobs, no matter the type, should pay the same salary or wage. Really we are talking about educational opportunities, aren’t we?
 
Interesting, but I don’t really get how that is going to prevent the problem of wealth becoming more and more top heavy
Possibly the greatest reducer of wealth accumulation is death. Sam Walton’s heirs are still very wealthy, but not as wealthy as Sam was, for example. And in the next generation, they’ll still be wealthy, but less so. And so on. Now and then, some heir will lose all or most of his part.

Another reducer is full employment. The percentage of GDP going to capital vs labor is almost always the same. But labor’s share is maximized at full employment.
 
I
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
So, income inequality is unimportant as a metric and may be ignored completely when evaluating one system or another? Remember, there are many systemic factors besides handouts that can affect income inequality, such as appropriate educational opportunities, etc. Are ;you sure you want to dismiss them all as unimportant?
I think income levels are important but how would they be determined? I doubt you suggest all jobs, no matter the type, should pay the same salary or wage. Really we are talking about educational opportunities, aren’t we?
I do not suggest that all jobs pay the same. I don’t even think income inequality is a bad thing - if it is reasonable. Some inequality gives people incentive to work harder or get a better job. That is good. But how much income inequality do we really need to provide that incentive? I think a lot less than what we have now would still be fine. People would still have plenty of incentive to excel.

Educational opportunities might reduce income inequality, but only if those educational opportunities are real and lead to jobs that really exist and pay more money than people can make without that education.
 
Possibly the greatest reducer of wealth accumulation is death. Sam Walton’s heirs are still very wealthy, but not as wealthy as Sam was, for example.
I would have to see the data to be sure that is true. As best I figure when Sam Walton died his heirs had a net worth about about $5 billion each or about $25 billion total. According to some estimates the family has a net worth of $149 billion today.
 
Income inequality is a non issue as long as the people at the bottom have basic needs met, which in this country is mostly true.

“Thou shalt not covet” comes to minds
 
40.png
Brendan:
So how does buying a yacht make the wealthier?
The point wasn’t the yacht. The point was the extra million they got to keep.

I couldn’t care less about the yacht.
Probably not,
Most yachts seem to come out of the Netherlands.
It should be about them, because quite a lot of people make their livelihoods from them. Here in Michigan, we have Tiara Yachts, and their sail division S2.

Back in 1994, Clinton introduced a harsher ‘luxury tax’ on yachts and expensive cars. It just about killed off S2, and did a lot of damage to Cadillac as well.

So if the millionaire has and extra million, I have no objection with that at all. If it is not being spent ( which generates jobs), it’s being invested, which does the same thing.
 
Income inequality is a non issue as long as the people at the bottom have basic needs met…
And who is it who decides if their basic needs are being met? The rich? Government? Or the people at the bottom? I suggest you ask them if their basic needs are being met before deciding on their behalf.
 
It’s pretty easy. The vast majority of the poor in this country always know where they’re sleeping, and where their next meal is coming from.

True poverty in this country is exceedingly rare.

Food. Water. Shelter. Those are basic needs.
 
It’s pretty easy. The vast majority of the poor in this country always know where they’re sleeping, and where their next meal is coming from.

True poverty in this country is exceedingly rare.

Food. Water. Shelter. Those are basic needs.
So you do take it upon yourself to decide that they have enough, eh?
 
No, those are the basics for human survival. Past that things are luxuries. I’m all for helping people meet their basic needs, but they still need incentives to get up and go to work and not cultivate a culture of dependency on aid.
 
No, those are the basics for human survival. Past that things are luxuries. I’m all for helping people meet their basic needs, but they still need incentives to get up and go to work and not cultivate a culture of dependency on aid.
Well, how about we decide that high taxes on the super rich are a non-issue as long as it leaves them with a reasonably comfortable life style (and they do).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top