Economists admit that tax cuts for the rich fail to trickle down

[Altfish]

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

Not that this is any great surprise to anyone - except economists, apparently. I wonder why it took them 50 years to figure this out.

Indeed, but just wait for the GOP when they get in again to suggest it.

 

[Audie]

Indeed, but just wait for the GOP when they get in again to suggest it.

What is supposed to wrong with it?

 

[Altfish]

What is supposed to wrong with it?

It mainly goes into share holders pockets/pension funds/owners slush fund. Very little trickles down

 

[Audie]

It mainly goes into share holders pockets/pension funds/owners slush fund. Very little trickles down

Why do you call a pension fund a slush fund?

 

[Altfish]

Why do you call a pension fund a slush fund?

I didn't. It was meant to be a separate item

 

[Audie]

I didn't. It was meant to be a separate item

Ok, didn't mean that one.

What items are you stating
are used for illicit purposes.

 

[Nakosis]

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says



Not that this is any great surprise to anyone - except economists, apparently. I wonder why it took them 50 years to figure this out.

I suppose the question then is, does increasing taxes on the rich help the poor?

I wonder if any studies have been done on that?

 

[Audie]

I suppose the question then is, does increasing taxes on the rich help the poor?

I wonder if any studies have been done on that?

I've seen numbers for how long you could run the country on it if all their money were confiscated.

I forget but its like how long the lawn mower would run on starter fluid.

As for increasing taxes kind of depends
who / what is taxed. If I recall mitt Romney
lives off dividends and fat salary.

I could see trimming him a bit.

Naturally I don't like to be taxed, but as
nearly all of the money I "make" is plowed
back into development-jobs, housing,
rentals, I dont see how the government
taking that money to do whatever, is going
to benefit the poor.

 

[Altfish]

Ok, didn't mean that one.

What items are you stating
are used for illicit purposes.

I've re-written my post using cammas.


"It mainly goes into share holders pockets, pension funds, owners slush fund. Very little trickles down"

 

[Audie]

I've re-written my post using cammas.


"It mainly goes into share holders pockets, pension funds, owners slush fund. Very little trickles down"

Money that goes into anything but a sack under the bed has economic impact affecting everyone

I don't approve of slush funds, tho I still don't get your reference.

But if the money is spent it goes to someone then someone else etc. Fat cat buys big cigars, cigar store pays the window washer

Most anything beats letting the government get the money.

 

[Audie]

50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says



Not that this is any great surprise to anyone - except economists, apparently. I wonder why it took them 50 years to figure this out.

Misleading to call it "admit", for lo, to admit
is to reluctantly confess.

 

[Altfish]

Money that goes into anything but a sack under the bed has economic impact affecting everyone

I don't approve of slush funds, tho I still don't get your reference.

But if the money is spent it goes to someone then someone else etc. Fat cat buys big cigars, cigar store pays the window washer

Most anything beats letting the government get the money.

I don't agree.
The wealthy (Not all I agree) spend money they don't need on investments and pensions, second homes in other countries, etc.
The needy when given extra money spend it at local shops on food and other essentials. The local area benefits from this, the shopkeeper spends the money local too and the money goes round and round.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Money that goes into anything but a sack under the bed has economic impact affecting everyone

I don't approve of slush funds, tho I still don't get your reference.

But if the money is spent it goes to someone then someone else etc. Fat cat buys big cigars, cigar store pays the window washer

Most anything beats letting the government get the money.

Unfortunately the government is not the best at spending money. I largely blame the House of Representatives and their rather short terms. They are always in running for reelection mode so very often rather than spending money wisely they spend it in ways that will ensure their reelection. There does exist a possibility of government spending it wisely but far too often that is not the case.

 

[Audie]

Unfortunately the government is not the best at spending money. I largely blame the House of Representatives and their rather short terms. They are always in running for reelection mode so very often rather than spending money wisely they spend it in ways that will ensure their reelection. There does exist a possibility of government spending it wisely but far too often that is not the case.

Not a one of them has any interest in being a good fiduciary.

 

[Audie]

I don't agree.
The wealthy (Not all I agree) spend money they don't need on investments and pensions, second homes in other countries, etc.
The needy when given extra money spend it at local shops on food and other essentials. The local area benefits from this, the shopkeeper spends the money local too and the money goes round and round.

Overseas tax havens are reprehensible.

But investments? ( incl pension funds which
a rich person doesn't need?)

Invest in what? Real estate development,
industry etc?
Thats jobs.

The govt gets your/ their money, THEN
you see it being sprayed overseas!

Need i give examples!

All the naughty rich in the USA couldn't fund that till
valentines day and then they're ducked dry looking in dumpsters.

Trickle down seemed to have no effect one way or the
other according to the cited article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not a one of them has any interest in being a good fiduciary.

I know. I used to support the Republicans because at one point they were better, but that was quite a few years ago. During the Clinton Presidency (and I could not stand the man) the opposition of the Republican Congress and the Democratic Presidency actually worked for a while. And even though I did not like him I do have to give Clinton credit for this. He could work with the opposition and together they passed bills that helped the debt, for a short while. I have not seen wise spending since that time.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Here's a perspective

"Trickle Down Economics Does Not Exist -- The Benefits of Capitalism Do" Trickle Down Economics Does Not Exist -- The Benefits of Capitalism Do

Do you think Capitalism works for everyone or just the handful at the top? And if you do, how does it work for everyone?

 

[Audie]

Do you think Capitalism works for everyone or just the handful at the top? And if you do, how does it work for everyone?

Of course it works for everyone.
( discounting your drug addicts, and some others who won't particpate)

Some do better than others. Thsts life.
But more have more money and opportunity,
to put it mildly, than pre capitalism.

I look at Hong Kong, since its my home.
Please pull up a photo or two.

Capitalism did that. It was a couple of
dirty impoverished fishing villages, look at it now!

Nothing but nothing else could have done that.

Nothing in life is without flaw and need for improvement, but think that complaints about capitalism as such are very unfortunate.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I suppose the question then is, does increasing taxes on the rich help the poor?

I wonder if any studies have been done on that?

The rich will just pass down the costs. Thats why the wealthy never pay their taxes. We do it for them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Anybody see this? Tax the consumption rather than the income, so you get to keep your wealth in the country and also don't have so many tax loopholes etc. How you'd going about doing it is less clear to me.