Replace Trickle Down with Middle Class up

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,175
9,161
136
I don't understand this logic. You are saying the rich will stop taking profit at 5M and instead re-invest the money into the company to make more profit that they won't be able to take. So they will just continually make more and more money that they can't actually personally take in profit year after year? What exactly is the motivation in that?
Uh, no. If you want an example of what I advocated, and what I propose below, just take a look at the US, in general, from the 30s to the 70s.

The reason the economic system is broken is not just from lowering taxes, but free trade deals that removed tariffs that protected American workers, and deregulation that has made financing 40% of the f-ing economy. That economic triumvirate allows for the richest people to have lots and lots of excess capital that they want returns on. So, they give it to criminals on Wall St. who inflate bubbles and break laws by the minute. This allows the criminals to earn themselves Fees, Commissions and Bonuses, while initially giving the rich awesome returns on investment. All the while, free trade allows the rich to increase their own profits by shutting down and selling for scrap the manufacturing base, and exporting it to the third world, where lack of labor laws, environmental laws, and human rights in general, provides less "costs of doing business".

Of course, the people who have the money, and the people who get to fondle the money love the current system, because even when they do blow up the economy in general, they're still sitting on loads of money, and they've even created a nice Firesale so that they can trade in dollars for actual wealth - land, equipment, and licenses. The corollary to there being a lot of "losers" when the stock market and world economy takes a shit is that there are a few key massive winners. If you have more money than you need, economic depressions and stock market crashes are amazing.

I think it's tragic, and hilarious, that we allow the people who profit the most from economic downturns to run the economy, but that's just me.

First things first. Taxes are too low. Taxes should be raised, with breaks for businesses that don't outsource labor. Even the playing field, in essence. The government is the people, and we have every f-ing right to decide that we don't want businesses to write our laws to favor business, and that to do business in the US market of 330 million people with a lot of money, that business has to follow a few f-ing rules, or go sell shit in Somalia, good luck have fun y'all.

Second, free trade deals that effectively outsource labor because the country that is going to be doing the manufacturing doesn't have the same laws as the US should be tweaked so that those countries have a timeline to introduce similar laws, or the tariffs come back. Make it so that Chinese business pays their workers even close to what US workers make while not allowing other third world countries to vacuum up those jobs, and watch the jobs come back here as it becomes as cheap to make shit here again. Plus, the JobCreators™ would find it useful to strap-on an American flag to their wares and pretend like they give a shit that it's Made in America.

Third, rein in Wall St. As long as Wall St. criminals can violate laws, earn $5 Billion from the violation, and only pay back $500 Million, they will. It's called the cost of doing business. It's akin to a bank robber taking $50,000 from robbing a bank, and when caught only having to return $5,000, with no jail time.

It isn't as simple as just raising taxes to 500%, as morons will argue that I am proposing. And it isn't as easy as just removing money from politics, which is a state of politics that is as realistic as any Libertarian utopia myth. It will take a whole lot to get the economy to work for everyone equally, and there are plenty of models that we could look to for help, but as long as one of the two political parties screams until it turns blue that any changes it doesn't favor is communism, then it doesn't matter. Which means the status quo will continue, which the rich don't mind at all, in the slightest, thank you very much.

Want to talk about "political correctness" shutting down debate? Just take a look at the economic discussions that are allowed to be spoken aloud in the United States.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
I think this segment from the documentary hits the nail on the head (1hr 5min mark):
When you give rich business people tax breaks all in the name of job creation, all that really happens is that the fat cats get fatter.

and that's what happened in the past 30yrs.

the tax rate on the rich never went below 70% till Reagan. He dropped it to 38%.
and that's when the economic problems started w/the middle class.

less tax revenue meant states had to cut funding for public higher education (college), which lead to higher tuition.
higher tuition = less people going to college

less educated people = lower wages
lower wages = less tax revenue

vicious cycle...
Makes you wonder why 110 and 111th congress/senate with a Dem pres never got off their dead asses and did anything about it.
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,738
126
Makes you wonder why 110 and 111th congress/senate with a Dem pres never got off their dead asses and did anything about it.

even w/Reich's harping, there was no political will. :(

(I'm assuming 110/111 is in Clinton's 1st term when Reich was Secretary of Labor?)
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Makes you wonder why 110 and 111th congress/senate with a Dem pres never got off their dead asses and did anything about it.

Not really that hard to figure out. Blue dog Democrats and the focus was on the ACA. Also, When Obama took office the country was in middle of the financial crisis. Obama got his stimulus spending in return for extending the bush tax cuts.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
even w/Reich's harping, there was no political will. :(

(I'm assuming 110/111 is in Clinton's 1st term when Reich was Secretary of Labor?)
Thanks for reminding me, the 103rd could have done something about it too, but insert excuse number 1953678923496121846396513 here on why they couldn't.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
So could the 104th, 105th, 106th, 107th, etc.

What's your point?
Those had the excuse of being deadlocked by the Repuklican party. The ones I listed were complete Democrook controled House, Senate and President.

My point is the Dems have no interest in fixing that issue either, they need it to be a talking point for future elections, if they wanted it fixed they had plenty of chances to do it and they don't.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
How is it less of a talking point once they do it? Did Bush talk less about his tax cut after he enacted it or did he keep bragging about it and keep it as a campaign issue.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,522
17,030
136
Those had the excuse of being deadlocked by the Repuklican party. The ones I listed were complete Democrook controled House, Senate and President.

My point is the Dems have no interest in fixing that issue either, they need it to be a talking point for future elections, if they wanted it fixed they had plenty of chances to do it and they don't.

Your tired talking point is as bad as your memory.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1929869/
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
How is it less of a talking point once they do it? Did Bush talk less about his tax cut after he enacted it or did he keep bragging about it and keep it as a campaign issue.
Cause they have no intentions of doing it.. that is my point.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
It's where I eventually ended up. We focus now on removing as much debt as possible and investing in our future. This means no more new cars every 3-4 years and we even decided to remodel our house instead of building a new house. We no longer use credit at all and pay cash or continue saving. Our credit cards are used, but only to leverage things like online purchasing (debt doesn't get as much protection as our credit cards) and then immediately paid off.

It's really funny because the more money you have, the less you want to spend it. When I first started out I would be worried when I only had $20 until payday. Now I worry when my checking balance drops below $5k. I used to only want the best, but now I want 'the best value'. If I had lived my life this way when I was getting started I'd have a lot more today.
People are convinced the only way the economy can go on is if you run out and spend every dime you have and stack up debt to the gills. Then they wonder why all they did was support an underpaid Walmart job, a bowl of rice for a family in china and then made the 1% even more rich since they kept 90% of the profit margin.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,522
17,030
136
lol, Huffpo.. the liberal equal of The Blaze.

So now excuse number 65489453186764531453486456454 is that without a super majority there is no way to make anything pass? So why even bring it up right?

Again you are in a "friendship" where only one of you likes the other.

Interesting...just a few posts before and you said previous congresses has the excuse of a deadlocked congress and yet you don't afford that excuse to the 110/11th. Hmm...I wonder why?

You must be projecting...