The structure of our service economy intersected with the so-called trickle down theory. You had macro economic changes occurring that would have happened regardless of Reagan's tax cuts. Folks without college degrees were largely making good wages in industries where jobs were disappearing- auto factories, manufacturing, steel mills, coals mines. If the tax cuts happened while and the rest of the structure was the same, then we could assess this so-called trickle down theory. The folks that have lost out post Reagan tax cuts were going to lose out anyways.

Instead, we had the rise of the service and technology sectors. The main beneficiaries of that rise are people with specific skill sets that often require college degrees. And people with skills in these growing areas are making out like bandits because those skill sets are in relative short supply.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

I'm not salty as all, Im sweet as pizza pie.


No, Im not wrong, you just have a weird, unique definition of what trickle down theory is.

Last week was Brick. This week is Bryan. Next week is undecided. Any suggestions?

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Trickle-down economics is a theory that says benefits for the wealthy trickle down to everyone else. These benefits are usually tax cuts on businesses, high-income earners, capital gains and dividends.

Trickle-down economics assumes investors, savers and company owners are the real drivers of growth. It assumes they’ll use any extra cash from tax cuts to expand businesses. Investors will buy more companies or stocks.

Banks will increase business lending. Owners will invest in their operations and hire workers. The theory says these workers will spend their wages, driving demand and economic growth.

_________________

Maybe you can weigh in on Leash's theory that Capitalism is synonymous with a belief in trickle down economics.

We must punitively tax those who provide jobs, create wealth, invest, and build innovative businesses. We shall make our motherland great again comrades!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yDrtNEr_5M

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

3/5 would be most.

_________________
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!

Speaking of pie, that is an element of it. There is only so much wealth to go around. Folks like me want that pie to be as large as possible I believe that lower taxes generally helps in that regard because it makes the country more competitive to invest in. Where the problem and political dispute comes in, is whether that expanded pie gets served up in a fair fashion. And over the past few decades it has not. It is due to lots of structural factors in the modern economy.

The difference in skill sets between a PhD or Masters level education and a high school drop-out is huge from an employer's perspective. And while that was always been the case, what wasn't true is the number of skilled college grads today vs. 1950 (as a percent of all workers), and the need for those skills in our much more complex economy. Those skills are earning a ridiculous premium to retail clerk.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Ah, you're one of those people, eh?

Then maybe go back to tax rates from before the past few decades so that it is served more fairly. I'm not a Communist, I believe in capitalism (people like to have stuff!), but that doesn't mean we don't have a citizenry to look out for. We're the richest nation in the history of the world, I gotta think we can swing it.

_________________

Like I started out when RPB brought this up, trickle down is a just a loaded political term. I explained my "theory" which has no word to describe it. But at its root it is how people who make financial business decisions think. And therein, it is a part of free market capitalism where folks with money chase risky returns.

You guys are all pretty sharp but are talking past one another.

I wholly admit where "my side" is wrong or where it has not produced the intended outcome. Income inequality is a massive issue for this country and its social structure. I have always believed that only education can help level the playing field. If you line up my six siblings (pretty much all the same upbringing), you could plot our incomes in a straight relative to educational attainment, but for one who is making dollars as a good small business owner using a trade skill. He is the only outlier, but it took him 25 years+ to get there.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

You're being intentionally obtuse, Rick. No one said my example is a practical one, but the principle is the same.

Peeps just posted the definition. It says "lowering tax rates." So my question to you is, how do you think the current tax rates that can be "lowered" got there? They were handed down from God on Mount Sinai? Given our current tax system, lowering the percentage on top earners from, say, 39% to 35% might not have any positive economic impact on the poor, but I can promise you that lowering it from, say, 70% to 60% would have an impact. That's my entire point - having a belief in "trickle down economics" is almost entirely dependent on what the current situation is. You might want some "trickle down economics" if you lived in Europe.

_________________

Hey, bite me - for the most part I get an essentially agree with your assessments in this thread.

_________________
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

Here mike...

http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staf ... tive-42986


https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/ ... economics/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auuk2oXK8tE


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 89183.html



It's pretty much agreed by a majority of people on all sides that it doesn't work, mike. Not sure what else to say.

I'm not being obtuse. You're changing what you are saying now.

The bold is correct.


Saying that if dont believe it works, you are a communist is ridiculous.

You should be a professor if you can prove that.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

My recollection is that when you add all levels of government taxation, U.S. government bodies are taking 40% of GDP tax wise. It is still well below Europe (40-55%), but we're not some undertaxed citizenry. Reagan dropped the income tax rate down from 70%. Local taxation is up quite a bit since that time.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Any Laffer curve guys here? You collect no taxes at a 0% tax rate and no taxes at a 100% tax rate......so what's optimal?

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Well now there's a good reason to show up at RTS.....

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Apparently, not lower than what already exists no matter what already exists.

_________________

That's pretty much all there is to say on it. But mike disagrees.

Yes, lower corporate taxes means more money for them to innovate and create jobs...if that is what they choose to do. Some times (or most times) they put that money in their pocket (or the pockets of shareholders)

You think priests shouldn’t marry because they’re too poor and that we should tax rich people at 100%. I’ll just let that sit there for a minute.

_________________

Now you've changed trickle down to "any lowering of taxes"

That's not what it is, either. It's a specific principle with a stated goal of spreading (trickling) more wealth to the bottom.

Lowering taxes is not always for that purpose, obviously.

studies say tax revenues max out around 70%. who knows if that is right, but sounds OK at least in the near term.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

and if you have a 401k, then you are likely one of those shareholders

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

I think you are also misinterpreting it to mean ONLY lower taxes on the wealthy. Most people who subscribe to such beliefs are probably also inclined to lower taxes on everyone.

_________________

yes, which is why corp taxes are unfair. Warren Buffet's part of the company is being taxed the same as mine!

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest

Little extreme.

It's possible to believe Lowering taxes on the top wont necessarily help the bottom and to also believe we dont need to OVERtax the rich.

Just admit you’re a fucking pinko.

_________________

No, that is the theory. Lowering on the top to help the bottom.

Less taxation or lower taxes in general is not trickle down.