Reply With Quote
Really? Because the legislation they've passed suggests otherwise.
This is a very true statement - and one you can say about any field that requires normative analysis in addition to positive analysis. The mistake I think most people want to make it to discredit the positive analysis done in a field because of disagreements that occur in the normative analysis.
Really? Because the legislation they've passed suggests otherwise.
Probably because trickle down economics is BULL . The Rich AND Corporations have had big tax breaks and lower taxes for several years...so where are all those jobs they are supposed to produce...after all...they're the job makers right???
So, your paycheck just magically appears? If your personal revenue doesn't "trickle" down from the rich, you're either self-employed or stealing.
Who employs the 90% that have jobs?
If you ask the rich and corporations where the jobs are, they'll tell you, that $535 million the government gave to Solyndra to blow before going belly up could have been kept in the private sector to fund real jobs.
Let's say your a wealthy individual...not rich...wealthy...you have a load of money...you're not a rap star who buys bull houses and cars...you own companies and corporations...when times are tough...what do you do...
I'll tell you what I would do...I'd cut costs as much as possible in a ty economy...take my plants overseas where you can have your product made for pennies on the dollar...do I invest creating jobs... no...I keep all my money stashed away earning interest and buying stocks from my buddies pick who I know that works in Wallstreet...sheeeeeeeeeeeeet...times are too damn risky to be spending my money...let some other mother er make jobs...
At what cost? Basically the check you're collecting today is the check you're going to have to write tomorrow to pay off the debt ac ulated by giving up those tax breaks so they can keep ac ulating wealth and shifting jobs to Asia.
Don't forget that you're a taxpayer, but the truly rich are not.
The problem is that 'Keynesian theory' is only brought up and used when the hit the fan already. There's a part of 'Keynesian theory' for the good times too, but when the good times swing around this country switches to monetarism (tweaking the interest rates to control the money flow), which is a different theory altogether.
Actually, the reason you end up with Keynesian theory is because monetarism, which has been the economic tool of choice in the past few decades, effectively failed (in a nuts , when interest rates are driven so low on a recession that you can't tweak them anymore).
Milton Friedman, who is commonly associated with monetarism due to the work he did on it, used to be originally a Keynes fanboy who eventually turned around and criticized it. You could probably take that as "debunked Keynesian theory" I guess.
So, your paycheck goes 100% to taxes?
Anyone, able to pass costs on to another, will do so. If you somehow manage to satisfy yourself by closing the loopholes and tax abatements enjoyed by the corporations what do you think will happen?
The cost of their products will go up, the salary of their employees will go down in order to pay for it.
Companies don't pay taxes -- even when they pay taxes.
No. But the debt accrued by the government is going to have to get paid, by taxpayers no less. You know that much, right?
Which is fine. Because there's a limit on how high their prices can go (especially when salaries are low), until they price themselves out of the market. Eventually, they're going to have to price what the market will bear.
I much prefer their profits take a hit rather than the taxpayer subsidizing those profits long term.
Companies need to sell what they make. But on this point I'll add one more thing: For the truly rich companies, no tax rate low enough is good enough. Companies like GE or Google play no or much lower than the nominal corporate tax rate, and get away with it. Meaning, there's no tax rate low enough to make them pay the taxes, since they're not paying them anyways. So the first order should be to close the loopholes they use, and then we can talk about cutting tax rates for those guys.
You don't think the stimulus was completely opposite to trickle down?
Truth is, both this guy and the previous guy tried both. Neither really did . We can probably argue why, but that was the end result.
Seems to me like the tax credits in the stimulus would be consistent with trickle down, so no I don't think the stimulus was completely opposite.
Even beyond the stimulus, how many different times has Obama & Co passed some kind of package that use tax cuts to businesses under the hopes that will trickle down to others in the form of hiring?
Oh I agree. My point was just to point out that it's a false statement to claim that democrats "called bull on trickle down from day 1".Truth is, both this guy and the previous guy tried both. Neither really did . We can probably argue why, but that was the end result.
Unless the goverment was doling stimulus money out to individuals, it was trickle down.
Instead, they were cutting block checks for millions and billions to companies in the hopes it would filter down to those the companies would employ, increase employment and jump start the economy.
Sounds a lot like trickle down to me. Unfortunately, the government doesn't know how to invest. They should leave it to the professionals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions