Conservative's 'trickle down theory' is dead wrong according to study

[Mai72]

Trickle down in the form of $9 retail jobs?

The wealthy don't trickle anything down.

 

[CLite]

Declining returns? The IRS has broken its revenue record each of the last 5 fiscal years. And that's adjusted for GDP.

Do you find it interesting that the huge jump from 2012 to 2013 revenue coincided with the phase out of Bush tax breaks on income earners above $400,000 (returning to the previous 39.6% from the Bush 35%) and returning the cap gains tax to 20% from it's Bush low of 15%?

 

[1prophet]

Funny how some of the same mostly democrat so called liberals, who love to point out the obvious deficiencies with trickle down economics have joined those evil conservatives by promoting so called free trade, illegal immigration and love to be in the company of Wall Street while paying lip service to Main Street.

 

[trenchfoot]

Trickle down in the form of $9 retail jobs?

The wealthy don't trickle anything down.

Yes they do trickle down, but it just so happens that the trickle down usually ends up in political campaign chests, 501c's, payoffs, bribes, inducements and other "offers that can't be refused" and definitely NOT in the way of more jobs, better pay/benefits.

I mean, why should the very rich allow the middle class and the poor to get stronger and more prosperous when doing that presents a direct threat to the influence and control they have over the folks we elect to lead us?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Heh, the IMF are neo-liberals in the Reagan mold. There's only so much you can hold out in the face of evidence before the dams burst and you can't lie to people anymore. Even a neo-liberal organization like the IMF had to admit the truth finally.

And before conservatives get confused:

"Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

After reading *liberal* the conservative mind shuts off.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Funny how some of the same mostly democrat so called liberals, who love to point out the obvious deficiencies with trickle down economics have joined those evil conservatives by promoting so called free trade, illegal immigration and love to be in the company of Wall Street while paying lip service to Main Street.

Try again, those liberals gutted the TPP by removing displaced worker training which makes the bill pretty poisonous. The Democrats votes were so important because nearly none of them supported it and their votes were required to pass the bill but only some were needed because Republicans supported it in mass numbers.

 

[Atreus21]

Do you find it interesting that the huge jump from 2012 to 2013 revenue coincided with the phase out of Bush tax breaks on income earners above $400,000 (returning to the previous 39.6% from the Bush 35%) and returning the cap gains tax to 20% from it's Bush low of 15%?

Do I find it interesting that tax revenues jumped when tax breaks were revoked?

No, I can't say I do.

 

[Atreus21]

Yes, because the country keeps growing and our economy keeps growing. It's the middle class that is declining, thanks in great part to the myth of trickle down.

...the economy is controlled for. Adjusted for GDP.

 

[fskimospy]

...the economy is controlled for. Adjusted for GDP.

This is not accurate. Federal revenues have not broken any records as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205

2014 revenues as a % of GDP were approximately 17.5%. This is a fairly average number that's basically exactly in line with government revenues since 1970, and considerably lower than revenues have been in a number of years during that period. (in the late 90's federal revenues hit 20% of GDP)

 

[sandorski]

Society or government?

If it's society, meaning the family and neighbors of such children, they should do what they can to provide those children with suitable male mentors. A mother could remarry (or otherwise provide a father figure), for example. Uncles or friends could step up.

Government should do very little. This is a problem best addressed by families, and when the government steps in to fill those shoes, they will displace the family's role, which will compound the problem.

Government, in a Democratic system, is the Long Arm of Society.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Shockingly, a system in which the people who own the corporations shut down factories domestically so they can open factories overseas using virtual slave labor to produce items more cheaply and pocket the savings to build their own wealth doesn't actually benefit the people who no longer have jobs in those factories. Did we really need a multi-generational international study to confirm that greed is a thing?

 

[dank69]

Society or government?

If it's society, meaning the family and neighbors of such children, they should do what they can to provide those children with suitable male mentors. A mother could remarry (or otherwise provide a father figure), for example. Uncles or friends could step up.

Government should do very little. This is a problem best addressed by families, and when the government steps in to fill those shoes, they will displace the family's role, which will compound the problem.

Those people could step up, but they aren't and haven't. A kid isn't exactly a plus in the singles market if you haven't noticed, even more so in the poor demographic where single parents are more prevalent. You need to come to terms with the fact that society doesn't always act the way you think it should.

 

[Atreus21]

Government, in a Democratic system, is the Long Arm of Society.

In theory. Not in practice.

 

[Atreus21]

Those people could step up, but they aren't and haven't. A kid isn't exactly a plus in the singles market if you haven't noticed, even more so in the poor demographic where single parents are more prevalent. You need to come to terms with the fact that society doesn't always act the way you think it should.

Whereas you need to come to terms with the fact that there are problems that government cannot solve, and will exaggerate if it tries to.

The fact that some families fail is no excuse for the government to assume the role is abdicated to them.

 

[dank69]

Whereas you need to come to terms with the fact that there are problems that government cannot solve, and will exaggerate if it tries to.

The fact that some families fail is no excuse for the government to assume the role is abdicated to them.

It seems to me like you are saying you have problems with government programs that target early education for disadvantaged children, but that can't be right, can it?

 

[sandorski]

In theory. Not in practice.

Sometimes Yes, sometimes No.

 

[Sonikku]

Shockingly, a system in which the people who own the corporations shut down factories domestically so they can open factories overseas using virtual slave labor to produce items more cheaply and pocket the savings to build their own wealth doesn't actually benefit the people who no longer have jobs in those factories. Did we really need a multi-generational international study to confirm that greed is a thing?

But... But... People should be paid what they're worth! It's just that when the factories are moved overseas, well. They're worth a whole lot less. It ain't the job creators fault, it's the employees. If they don't like it they can shackle themselves to three times as much student loan debt as their parents.

 

[glenn1]

Homelessness in the US is more of a mental health problem.
Who would have guessed that we see declining returns from a tax lever we have been pulling for decades? I'm all for some tax cuts for businesses but lets be smart about them. How about a tax cut for increasing the number of employees or one to encourage higher wages or god forbid targeted training to find Americans to take jobs aimed at H1B workers. These general tax incentives may work to some small extent but its foolish to keep doing the same thing without changes.

No arguments about tax cuts reaching diminishing returns, although one could make an argument to change our tax methodology for simplicity and fairness. I was simply making the point that we have likewise long passed the point of diminishing returns from increased social welfare spending. The primary policy prescriptions of both parties don't really work anymore and eventually someone will come up with a new model but evidently not yet. We gotta throw a few trillion more into stupid "stimulus" and elective wars just because some idiot thinks that's the way to goose the economy.

 

[DrDoug]

I ran across an interview with Nick Hanaurer (of Amazon fame) at Gawker that hits on some of the issues that are killing our economy (namely, his fellow billionaires and larges businesses).

One interesting bit that caught my eye:

... And Americans today spend a minimum of $150 billion a year in tax subsidies that go to people not who don’t have jobs, but who have jobs, and are in poverty. There is no earthly reason why Walmart and McDonald’s and Walgreens and these other giant, profitable institutions should have one worker in need of public assistance. It’s ridiculous. And it’s not just getting them out from under the need for public assistance; it’s like, that’s what drives the economy! The person earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 isn’t going out to eat at restaurants. They’re not taking piano lessons. They’re not going to the gym or the yoga studio. They’re not sending mom flowers on Mother’s day. What good is this person in the economy? If you raise it to $15 an hour, they’re doing all of those things. And all of a sudden, not just business thrives, but small business thrives.

When you have as many people as we do who are making the minimum wage, it's easy to figure out what is dragging down our economy. Wages across the board have been held down for decades and workers, and our economy is suffering more as it gets worse. It's great if you are up at the top but if you are anywhere else in this economy you are treading water or sliding backwards.

Put money in the hands of people who will spend it and watch this economy take off. Until then we will lurch from one economic mess to the next, each one worse than the last, because we refuse to address the real problem that is staring us right in the eye.

There is no trickle down. There never was.

 

[theeedude]

The whole US financial system based on Trickle-Down fiscal policy and bubble Wealth-Effect monetary policy is running out of gas. The fact that the Fed has to keep interest rates at near-zero for an indefinite time, and still has to worry about deflation for things average people buy, tells you all you need to know.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The whole US financial system based on Trickle-Down fiscal policy and bubble Wealth-Effect monetary policy is running out of gas. The fact that the Fed has to keep interest rates at near-zero for an indefinite time, and still has to worry about deflation for things average people buy, tells you all you need to know.

Are you telling me that if we pay CEOs 1,000 times as much as their employees, they don't buy 1,000 times as much bread?

 

[DrDoug]

Another interesting tidbit in the Hanauer interview I noted above was something he said about the overtime threshold for businesses:

NH: The president has unilateral ability to raise that threshold through a rule through the Labor Department. And within two weeks, the Labor Department will announce what that rule is, what that new threshold is. And I can tell you that the shit is going to hit the fan


Gawker: What is the new threshold going to be?

NH: I cannot tell you. I’m telling you, the shit’s gonna hit the fan.

If the shit is going to hit the fan around July 1st regarding a rule change for overtime, I wonder which way the shit is going to fly?

 

[MongGrel]

It's never worked.

Nothing new there.

 

[glenn1]

Are you telling me that if we pay CEOs 1,000 times as much as their employees, they don't buy 1,000 times as much bread?

Yes, because if our economy consisted solely of bread and other low-end consumer products then redistribution might work. Of course if you flip the equation and pay CEOs 2000x as much you know their consumption of things like junk food and lotto tickets wouldn't double as would likely be true for the poor. So maybe we should just admit that *what* people spend their money on actually makes a bigger difference than strictly concerning ourselves with what fraction of the pie someone has at that particular fleeting moment. That the poor spend their limited money on crap is a far bigger reason for their problems than what some 1% guy is doing.

 

[MongGrel]

Yes, because if our economy consisted solely of bread and other low-end consumer products then redistribution might work. Of course if you flip the equation and pay CEOs 2000x as much you know their consumption of things like junk food and lotto tickets wouldn't double as would likely be true for the poor. So maybe we should just admit that *what* people spend their money on actually makes a bigger difference than strictly concerning ourselves with what fraction of the pie someone has at that particular fleeting moment. That the poor spend their limited money on crap is a far bigger reason for their problems than what some 1% guy is doing.

What a complete asshat.