You're losing me on Capitalism = trickle down theory. Im no economic professor but Im pretty sure that's not true.

Do you believe people who make millions of dollars should be taxed at 100%? If they were, do you think that would be a net positive for people who are poor?

_________________

Of course not, but that's not the trickle down theory.

So you think that, say, an 80% tax rate on millionaires instead of 100% would also be beneficial to the poor, correct?

_________________

Don't toy with him just reel him in and land the fish. He already bolded Dennis' point about lower corp rates benefit. He just has a case of the "Regular Reader Reagan Fear Syndrome".

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Sounds like a titty bar in Silicon Valley.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

That's oddly worded, not sure what you're asking.

I dont believe completeley unfettered free market capitalism is the best thing for the whole of citizens.

Can you please point me to a collection of economist's essays on this? You can divide them in such a way that I might see clearly that most conclude what you seem to have.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Exhibit A: State of Kansas

_________________

Stop dodging. Which would be a better tax rate on millionaires - for the poor and for society as a whole - 100% or 80%?

_________________

Did you ever find out if women were getting impregnated via vaccines?

Tall Midget has done it pretty extensively before. Basically, the last 30 years have only really been a benefit to the rich, with some benefit to the upper middle class.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Ok, Rick.

The answer to that (80%) does not mean what you think it does.

It means, I dont believe in communism.

You've strayed so far off of what trickle down actually means I don't even know what we are talking about.

I will put together a list for you.

Oh My God!

You have him on the run now Leash!

_________________
Elections have consequences.

First, don’t ever call me that.

Second, it DOES mean that you believe in “trickle down economics.” It’s just a matter of degree.

RPB hates poor people!

_________________

The pittmike-RPB feud is a funny one.

_________________

At least you picked up on that.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

_________________

No. I am not interested in your, TM's or RPB's opinion. He said "most economic experts conclude". I want to see the articles where he derived that from. He does that stuff all the time. A lot of most, many, clearly and without a doubt in his statements without the goods.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

It's hysterical seeing a scientist struggle so mightily against an average schlub.

_________________

I can't really remember when this started or why.

_________________

It wasn't his opinion. He posted a lot of articles about this.

How about this, for every three articles from "economic experts" that concludes that trickle down economics doesn't work, you post two that says it does.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

No it absolutely does not.

Because I also believe it's better for society if the lower middle class is taxed at 20% instead of 50% for their own good, not the people beneath them.


This is an odd take (capitalism = belief in trickle down theory)

And it's hilarious that pm has jumped on it with you. Enjoy the ride.

Yes, I often cite the majority of expert opinion on subjects.

I'm not your personal Wikipedia, mike. If you want to argue the other side or ask me for sources, then do it but it's completely unreasonable to expect any poster to source the backing information to every statement of opinion in every post.

Ok well I can begin to read two things. That must be most. To be more clear most people that fear the term trickle down stems from some notion that Reagan was somewhere between a criminal and the devil himself. Back then it really did mean cut the taxes on the rich and it would benefit the poor. It can be analyzed to death but even including the recession at the end of the decade that HW Bush dealt with 1990 everyone in the country was better off than 1980.

Today when people say things will trickle down it is not the same as then. The global marketplace is completely different just for one thing. And as others have correctly explained it is not just cutting the top personal tax rate but involves many things like corporate tax rates. The bottom line goal is that those things will contribute to a great economy again. So in some sens trickling down.

So those that are stuck on it stop fearing Reagan and his long dead presidency and open your minds to looking at things slightly different. Even is sometimes a little term like trickle down is used.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

If it were Monday rather than Friday I just might. That said the onus is on the guy saying clearly most conclude.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Why so salty today.


You’re wrong and in denial about it, but I’m done. It doesn’t matter anyway.

_________________

That was always the case.


What planet is this?

Maybe that had to do with the huge increase in government spending. Reagan increased government spending by 2.5 percent a year. That almost tripled the federal debt. It grew from $997 billion in 1981 to $2.85 trillion in 1989. Most of the new spending went to defense.

_________________