The selling of Trickle Down inequality???

[Blackburn]

What I don't understand is the logic used by Right Wngers to sell Trickle Down to the masses.

*Let us take from you, things gained by economic prosperity, and give that to the rich...because one day you might get the very things we are taking from you.???

*Also, you'll get ahead by being employed, but we must continuously cut benefits of said employment like wages???

[Zantar]

I think the way it is supposed to work is like this:

Consumer buys x
Money from x goes to boss
Boss takes a bit for himself
The boss then splits the leftovers among workers
This results in the bosses wealth trickling down to the workers
Workers buy x

The problem is that in capitalism most bosses don't just take a moderate amount for themselves and instead take as much as they can. This leaves nothing but scraps to be split among people already earning less then the boss.

One argument I can think of for this would be the idea that some bosses might be willing to pay more than another boss for better workers but that still has it's problems. Since factory workers need no real skill most of the jobs are just shipped out to a country were workers will work for less. Also, a lot of people just don't care enough to hire skilled workers as long as a product (or service) gets completed in the end and a profit is made.

[Tommy4ever]

No, the idea of trickledown economics is as follows: the only people who invest, create jobs, wealthy and growth are the rich. Therefore money should be concentrated in the hands of the rich and they will use that money to both invest in new enterprizes and, of course, buy products.

[Blackburn]

No, the idea of trickledown economics is as follows: the only people who invest, create jobs, wealthy and growth are the rich. Therefore money should be concentrated in the hands of the rich and they will use that money to both invest in new enterprizes and, of course, buy products.

I understand the basic idea they peddle. I don't understand why people think it works. Because it clearly doesn't.

[gendoikari]

The problem is that in capitalism most bosses don't just take a moderate amount for themselves and instead take as much as they can.

no this isn't the problem per say but that what they give to the workers is a fixed amount, even their own salaries are somewhat fixed however the corporate profits go to the stock coffers where the boss can take advantage of it because he has the capital to in vest, the workers get no such benefit. Even the number of jobs a company has is dictated by market share.

Capitalism = worship of the all mighty dollar.

[gendoikari]

also a side note, the theory has been around much longer than "trickle down" reaganomics, it was peddled in the early 1900's under the name horse and sparrow.... the analogy here being if you feed the horse enough oats they'll come out in the shit for the sparrow to get.

[Tommy4ever]

I understand the basic idea they peddle. I don't understand why people think it works. Because it clearly doesn't.

I can't answer that myself. I mean, all it takes is common sense to see that this idea is bullshit. Especially when you are trying to use trickle down to help yourself out of economic difficulty, because the fact is that in times of economic instability the rich tend to sit on their money and invest far less - conversly the working class tend to save less and spend proportionally more as their incomes are squeezed.

[Zantar]

no this isn't the problem per say but that what they give to the workers is a fixed amount, even their own salaries are somewhat fixed however the corporate profits go to the stock coffers where the boss can take advantage of it because he has the capital to in vest, the workers get no such benefit. Even the number of jobs a company has is dictated by market share.

Ahh

I actually know little about economics. I was just going off of things I've heard from other people about the topic. :o

[Blackburn]

no this isn't the problem per say but that what they give to the workers is a fixed amount, even their own salaries are somewhat fixed however the corporate profits go to the stock coffers where the boss can take advantage of it because he has the capital to in vest, the workers get no such benefit. Even the number of jobs a company has is dictated by market share.

Capitalism = worship of the all mighty dollar.

Except in my direct experience of small to medium businesses (who are the majority of employers in Australia).

The last bosses I had, used to pay employees a set wage and take all profits from the biz for themselves. They would complain there is not enough money, then the next month all 4 directors leased $100,00+ company vehicles for themselves.

The whole display was some of the worst I've seen.

[gendoikari]

Except in my direct experience of small to medium businesses (who are the majority of employers in Australia).

The last bosses I had, used to pay employees a set wage and take all profits from the biz for themselves. They would complain there is not enough money, then the next month all 4 directors leased $100,00+ company vehicles for themselves.

The whole display was some of the worst I've seen.

GOD DAMN FUCKING CAPITALISTS..... well if they're so blatantly open about being dicks maybe we'll see some revolts.............. maybe.... probably not.

[krazy kaju]

What I don't understand is the logic used by Right Wngers to sell Trickle Down to the masses.

*Let us take from you, things gained by economic prosperity, and give that to the rich...because one day you might get the very things we are taking from you.???

*Also, you'll get ahead by being employed, but we must continuously cut benefits of said employment like wages???

First of all, there is no such thing as "trickle down economics," though there is something called "supply-side economics." "Trickle down economics" is a derogatory term used by those who don't like supply-side economists... It's kind of like how some people call followers of Trotsky "Trotskyites" or "Trots."

Anyway, nobody argues for taking things away from anyone, at least the supply-siders don't. What they argue for is lowering taxes and reducing government spending... The idea being that (1) lower taxes will create incentives for people to earn more by working more, creating businesses, expanding businesses, investing, etc. and (2) reduced government spending will return resources to the private economy, which will allow for greater long-term economic growth.

It's called "supply-side economics" because these policy changes affect the "supply-side" of a supply-and-demand graph...

[Thirsty Crow]

The idea being that (1) lower taxes will create incentives for people to earn more by working more, creating businesses, expanding businesses, investing, etc. and (2) reduced government spending will return resources to the private economy, which will allow for greater long-term economic growth.

It's called "supply-side economics" because these policy changes affect the "supply-side" of a supply-and-demand graph...
I think you misunderstand the difference between work and investment.

[krazy kaju]

I think you misunderstand the difference between work and investment.

You misunderstood what I was saying. The supply-side argument isn't only about "the rich" or "the wealthy" or "the capitalists," or whatever else you want to call them. It has to do with everyone - if you don't tax their income, they'll have a greater incentive to earn more income.

For example, will you work more if you earn $7/hr or $10/hr? According to the economic data, it appears that people will work more if they earn more.

In other words:
lower taxes -> higher after-tax income -> people work more -> economy grows more

[Thirsty Crow]

Aha, I thought that all of the four elements (working, investing, creating businesses...) refer to one specific category of economic activity.

[Klaatu]

Here is my plan for "trickle-down:"

(A) tax the wealthy at up to 95% rate
(B) everyone have strong unions
(C) make it unlawful to outsource jobs overseas
(D) break up huge multinational corporations
(E) enforce anti-trust laws already on the books
(F) step up governmental regulations

Trickle-down guaranteed (perhaps even a torrent!) ;)

[danyboy27]

Here is my plan for "trickle-down:"

(A) tax the wealthy at up to 95% rate
(B) everyone have strong unions
(C) make it unlawful to outsource jobs overseas
(D) break up huge multinational corporations
(E) enforce anti-trust laws already on the books
(F) step up governmental regulations

Trickle-down guaranteed (perhaps even a torrent!) ;)
a simple way of doing it.
(A) takeover the mean of productions
(C) trickle down

[Klaatu]

You misunderstood what I was saying. The supply-side argument isn't only about "the rich" or "the wealthy" or "the capitalists," or whatever else you want to call them. It has to do with everyone - if you don't tax their income, they'll have a greater incentive to earn more income.

For example, will you work more if you earn $7/hr or $10/hr? According to the economic data, it appears that people will work more if they earn more.

In other words:
lower taxes -> higher after-tax income -> people work more -> economy grows more

Sorry but this economic model has failed. We had greater prosperity when we had high taxes on the rich. And that is a proven fact.

Besides, your theory is actually backwards... people actually work HARDER under high taxation rates, because they need to make more money to make ends meet. And being that wealth is the product of human effort, the whole country benefits from all this extra work. And if your excess earnings go to the government, so what? You get better roads, better teachers, better crime-fighting, etc... all in all, I can argue that higher taxes leads to more national prosperity, not less!

[Catma]

Anyway, nobody argues for taking things away from anyone, at least the supply-siders don't. What they argue for is lowering taxes and reducing government spending...

Thus taking away services from people that are using them.

[krazy kaju]

Thus taking away services from people that are using them.

"Not giving" is not the same as "taking away."

[krazy kaju]

Sorry but this economic model has failed. We had greater prosperity when we had high taxes on the rich. And that is a proven fact.

You can't even say that. The economy is larger now than it was when it was heavily controlled and taxed.


Besides, your theory is actually backwards... people actually work HARDER under high taxation rates, because they need to make more money to make ends meet. And being that wealth is the product of human effort, the whole country benefits from all this extra work. And if your excess earnings go to the government, so what? You get better roads, better teachers, better crime-fighting, etc... all in all, I can argue that higher taxes leads to more national prosperity, not less!

Again, wrong. By increasing taxes, you are reducing the incentive to work. By reducing the incentive to work, people will work less. It's that simple. If you raise taxes, people won't suddenly think "hm, I should work more for the same salary!" That's just laughable.

There is such a thing as a "backwards bending supply curve" that deals with odd cases such as this, but econometric studies have shown that this is nowhere near the case except in the very, very long-run.

[Klaatu]

You can't even say that. The economy is larger now than it was when it was heavily controlled and taxed.

Of course the economy is larger, because we have a larger population than in the 1960s. But that says nothing about household income,
which has remained completely flat, or even declined, (adjusted for inflation) since 1981, when "supply-side economics" first took effect.


Again, wrong. By increasing taxes, you are reducing the incentive to work. By reducing the incentive to work, people will work less. It's that simple. If you raise taxes, people won't suddenly think "hm, I should work more for the same salary!" That's just laughable.

There is such a thing as a "backwards bending supply curve" that deals with odd cases such as this, but econometric studies have shown that this is nowhere near the case except in the very, very long-run.

I know you neocons love to hang on to the "Laffer Curve" theory, but in reality, that model has failed. It never really worked to begin with. For example, are YOU working less when they raise your taxes, just to spite the state? If you do so, you will only be hurting yourself, because sorry, you will have less money for yourself. I hope you realize this pertinent fact, for your own sake. (think of yourself, man, not the rich)

[CornetJoyce]

"This is a struggle between the idle holders of idle capital and the struggling masses, who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of this country: and, my friends, the question we are to decide is: Upon which side will the Democratic party fight; upon the side of the idle holders of idle capital or upon the side of the struggling masses? That is the question the party must answer first.... The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic ideas, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them." - William Jennings Bryan