Current Events > Do you believe in "trickle-down economics"?

(+) Yeah! (+)

nt

yeah man look at this

http://www.newsweek.com/christmas-att-layoffs-midwest-bonuses-trump-758391

att gets a tax break, and they trickle it down in the form of layoffs.
---

It's a poorly defined term that is used as a catch-all for any sort of tax cut in a lot of cases.
---

_BlueMonk posted...

yeah man look at this

http://www.newsweek.com/christmas-att-layoffs-midwest-bonuses-trump-758391

att gets a tax break, and they trickle it down in the form of layoffs.

Oh something trickled down allright..

It cannot work any other way. Homeless people aren't employing people.
---

r4X0r posted...

It cannot work any other way. Homeless people aren't employing people.

What you do is you give a tax break or incentive to companies that hire and maintain employment growth over the fiscal year.

You don't just let them keep more money in the hope they'll do something good with it
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

It's a poorly defined term that is used as a catch-all for any sort of tax cut in a lot of cases.

it's not poorly defined; it's just broad

it's the idea that allowing the wealthy to accumulate more wealth will somehow benefit the people who are less well off

it's commonly referred to in the context of tax cuts because it's largely the wealthy who benefit the most from them. I've literally never seen it used in an inappropriate context
---

No. There's no guarantee that the people at the top will allow the wealth to flow down to those at the bottom.
---

Absolutely not, and I'm someone firmly in the top tax bracket

Remember when "trickle-down" economics led to 4% growth in the 80's and beyond while demand-side economics had never shown to grow the economy anywhere close to that
---

wackyteen posted...

r4X0r posted...

It cannot work any other way. Homeless people aren't employing people.

What you do is you give a tax break or incentive to companies that hire and maintain employment growth over the fiscal year.

You don't just let them keep more money in the hope they'll do something good with it

That's a chicken and egg situation... how does a company hire and maintain growth employment without the tax cut to free up the money to do so?
---

_BlueMonk posted...

yeah man look at this

http://www.newsweek.com/christmas-att-layoffs-midwest-bonuses-trump-758391

att gets a tax break, and they trickle it down in the form of layoffs.

Clickbait nonsense. The title says thousands, the article said 600.

Sometimes, you have to cut unnecessary fat. Sometimes, you don't.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Remember when "trickle-down" economics led to 4% growth in the 80's and beyond while demand-side economics had never shown to grow the economy anywhere close to that

Imagine having this poor an understanding of economics

r4X0r posted...

That's a chicken and egg situation... how does a company hire and maintain growth employment without the tax cut to free up the money to do so?

If your tax bill is cutting that far into your ability to hire employees... Then you're not businessing right
---

Another title for this poll could be are you an idiot? Yes and No would still apply respectively.
---

No sane person believes in trickle down economics. It was dismissed as quackery even when Reagan was pushing it. Zero economics support it because it's not a thing.
---

Anyone that touts trickle-down economics is either a charlatan or a moron

Mal_Fet posted...

Remember when "trickle-down" economics led to 4% growth in the 80's and beyond while demand-side economics had never shown to grow the economy anywhere close to that

Its almost as if there are more schools of thought than demand side economics and trickle down nonsense. And imagine having your lone, erroneous example be from nearly 40 years ago.

Anyways, to anyone that actually believes in trickle down theory, I've got a bridge to sell you
---

No because I'm not a dupe.
---

I don't think anyone actually believes in this. It's an empty and canned response for left criticism of similar tax policy that doesn't die because the liberals feel obligated to respond to it, because it's so obviously wrong. Ask anyone with money who supports these tax policies and they'll tell you exactly where the extra money is going (themselves and their stockholders). And they don't even have to lie, because poor people idolize them and fantasize that when the stars align they too can ascend to the ranks of the financial elites. They'd rather distract themselves re-imagining the kitchen in their literal fantasy houses than face the fact that for the vast majority of them their aspirations are impossible.
---

Of course not. People g t hired because there is work to be done, not because the owner is suddenly more profitable.
---

Well we've been doing this system of economics for over a generation now so let's take an honest look at it to see how its been working out so far. The data is there if we want to look at it.

Productivity has increased immensely in the last generation so have the increased profits 'trickled down' to us as was promised a generation ago? Or have things been great for the top 15%, amazing for the top 5%, and unbelievable for the top 1% and especially the .1%?

Neoliberal has been in effect for six presidents now as it started under Carter and really took off under Reagan and Clinton. By privatizing everything possible and derugulating anything possible how are we doing compared to two generations ago? Higher standards of living and pay for all of us with less homelessness and financial insecurity?

How's the system working out for everybody, as we all have to live in it whether we have any power in it and can affect anything about it or not.

NYmasajista posted...

Well we've been doing this system of economics for over a generation now so let's take an honest look at it to see how its been working out so far. The data is there if we want to look at it.

Productivity has increased immensely in the last generation so have the increased profits 'trickled down' to us as was promised a generation ago? Or have things been great for the top 15%, amazing for the top 5%, and unbelievable for the top 1% and especially the .1%?

Neoliberal has been in effect for six presidents now as it started under Carter and really took off under Reagan and Clinton. By privatizing everything possible and derugulating anything possible how are we doing compared to two generations ago? Higher standards of living and pay for all of us with less homelessness and financial insecurity?

How's the system working out for everybody, as we all have to live in it whether we have any power in it and can affect anything about it or not.

I disagree with you on what the root cause is. The root cause of the fact that the working class and a good portion of the middle class have not seen rising wages, in my opinion, is the fact that there are now several more billion people in the world that they are competing with when it comes to unskilled labor.

The third world had previously been under the thumb of colonialism, followed by the Cold War. With the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, the third world started to open up to international markets. This had already started to happen earlier in some places too, but I think the 1990s is when it really started to ramp up. So since the 1990s, you've suddenly had billions of people thrust into the international market for unskilled labor. So while you've seen stagnant wages in the US, you've seen skyrocketing wages in Bangladesh and China, for example.

In short, the cause of these stagnant wages is the new equilibrium in the market for unskilled labor as a result of several billion people finally getting access to the international economy.
---

it's only a matter of time before they target entitlements, it has to pay for the tax cuts not free at all.
---

No its stupid. The point of these moves is to use money to stimulate the economy. Well in trickle down economics, they're stating that rich people getting money will cause them to put that money to use in business, which will then have the working class earn more money, which will stimulate the economy. Unfortunately rich people already have enough money, so giving them more will just cause them to hoard it, especially since Republicans never include any kind of incentive for rich people to put their money to good use. But the thing about the middle class and poor people is that they can't even afford to save money, so if you give them money, they'll immediately put it right back into the economy, therefor stimulating it.

Trickle down economics might actually work some day if Republicans weren't just trying to make their friends rich, so they put in some legalese in the legislation that made it mandatory for the business owners and corporations to put all of the money they were making off of these tax breaks into capital and raises and new jobs, etc. But instead Republicans are literally saying that business owners and corporations are such amazingly moral people that they will put that extra money into giving raises and hiring more people out of the goodness of their own hearts, and obviously that's why business owners and corporations spend so much money to get them elected and pressure them to write this legislation.... Lol or something.
---

nicklebro posted...

Unfortunately rich people already have enough money, so giving them more will just cause them to hoard it, especially since Republicans never include any kind of incentive for rich people to put their money to good use.

This isn't how it works at all. Most of that money is invested, hoarding is stupid with inflation at 2% and savings accounts giving less than that in interest.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

nicklebro posted...

Unfortunately rich people already have enough money, so giving them more will just cause them to hoard it, especially since Republicans never include any kind of incentive for rich people to put their money to good use.

This isn't how it works at all. Most of that money is invested, hoarding is stupid with inflation at 2% and savings accounts giving less than that in interest.

Investing (and other things) is what I meant by hoarding. They aren't investing in things that are growing the economy, all of that money goes to the top 1% and stays there, that's my point.
---

nicklebro posted...

They aren't investing in things that are growing the economy

I disagree, I think they are doing that by investing in the stock market, the bond market, etc. I think that actually helps the economy. What investments would help it more?
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

nicklebro posted...

They aren't investing in things that are growing the economy

I disagree, I think they are doing that by investing in the stock market, the bond market, etc. I think that actually helps the economy. What investments would help it more?

Helping the economy and growing the economy are actually different things. Like has been stated, the economy can grow immensely with the only people seeing any benefit being the top 1%. Investing in small businesses would be one way, and really after that its just a case by case basis. The issue is that investments that lead to expansion and therefor more jobs are usually more risky investments, and that risk increases with how high paying the jobs are. Plus the increased risk doesn't actually equate to potentially increased profits either.

Then there's things like "investing" in things like bitcoin, which obviously benefits next to no one and doesn't grow the economy. Yeah bitcoin is kind of a inaccurate example but its just to paint the picture of how investing can be completely useless to nearly everyone except the investee
---