Trickle down economics does not work

[OneOfTheseDays]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

An excellent study put out by the Congressional Research Service which analyzes tax rates since 1945 in the US. Their conclusions verify what most of us on the left already know, lowering tax rates on the top marginal earners does not stimulate the economy and promote economic growth. All it has consistently done over the last 50 years is increase concentration of wealth at the top end.

It boggles my mind how anyone with a rational thinking brain can continue to support a party that espouses this economic philosophy despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Grats! You're only 25 years late.

 

[Atreus21]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

An excellent study put out by the Congressional Research Service which analyzes tax rates since 1945 in the US. Their conclusions verify what most of us on the left already know, lowering tax rates on the top marginal earners does not stimulate the economy and promote economic growth. All it has consistently done over the last 50 years is increase concentration of wealth at the top end.

Who's in favor of reducing tax rates at the top and only the top? Most tax cuts I've seen proposed are across the board. And incidentally, if cutting taxes has no stimulative effect on the economy and does not promote economic growth, then why should tax increases have any effect either?

It seems to me the argument made here is that tax policy in either direction has little effect on the economy.

It boggles my mind how anyone with a rational thinking brain can continue to support a party that espouses this economic philosophy despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

For me, taxes should be cut irrespective of whether they help the economy. It's our money to begin with, and shouldn't be taken without a very good reason, and furthermore should be returned to our ownership at every opportunity. Having more of the money we rightfully earn isn't simply good on its own merit, but good because we are wiser in how spend our own money than the government is.

 

[IGBT]

we certainly know the full force and effect of trickle down obama poverty in progress now.

 

[nehalem256]

It boggles my mind how anyone with a rational thinking brain can continue to support a party that espouses this economic philosophy despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So instead we should vote for the party that believes that businesses only care about profits, but yet for some reason will continue to pay men 133% of women for the same work?

Note: the first piece of legislation that Obama signed during greatest recession in 80 years was based on this double think.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Who's in favor of reducing tax rates at the top and only the top? Most tax cuts I've seen proposed are across the board. And incidentally, if cutting taxes has no stimulative effect on the economy and does not promote economic growth, then why should tax increases have any effect either?

It seems to me the argument made here is that tax policy in either direction has little effect on the economy.



For me, taxes should be cut irrespective of whether they help the economy. It's our money to begin with, and shouldn't be taken without a very good reason, and furthermore should be returned to our ownership at every opportunity. Having more of the money we rightfully earn isn't simply good on its own merit, but good because we are wiser in how spend our own money than the government is.

There is a fundamental problem with your argument.

Regardless of what you believe the role of government is, you should at least agree that if we are going to be fiscally responsible then we should pay our debts. That money has to come from somewhere, and the bottom line is Americans are unwillingly to give up the benefits and services provided by the government. The only sane and logical direction from here is to temporarily raise taxes, especially on the wealthy earners, to help pay it down.

What the party you support plans on doing is financially irresponsible and reckless. They want to cut taxes even further without any plan whatsoever to pay down the debt. It's sheer lunacy.

 

[buckshot24]

Regardless of what you believe the role of government is, you should at least agree that if we are going to be fiscally responsible then we should pay our debts. That money has to come from somewhere, and the bottom line is Americans are unwillingly to give up the benefits and services provided by the government. The only sane and logical direction from here is to temporarily raise taxes, especially on the wealthy earners, to help pay it down.

When are you libs going to get it through your thick skulls? There aren't enough rich people to tax.

 

[Screech]

Americans want the best medicine, social security, military, and welfare money can buy......for free.

Obviously, this is going to be.....problematic......

 

[Veliko]

For me, taxes should be cut irrespective of whether they help the economy. It's our money to begin with, and shouldn't be taken without a very good reason, and furthermore should be returned to our ownership at every opportunity. Having more of the money we rightfully earn isn't simply good on its own merit, but good because we are wiser in how spend our own money than the government is.

Funniest thing I've heard all day.

 

[EagleKeeper]

When are you libs going to get it through your thick skulls? There aren't enough rich people to tax.

they are not interested in the results.

The libs are interested in shafting it to the person that has it better off; no matter what the reason for it.

Lowering the bill will just hurt the liberal cause.

 

[cybrsage]

When given the choice between a most likely will not work Trickle Down Wealth and a definitely will work Trickle Up Poverty, I will take the former, thank you very much.

 

[Atreus21]

There is a fundamental problem with your argument.

Regardless of what you believe the role of government is, you should at least agree that if we are going to be fiscally responsible then we should pay our debts. That money has to come from somewhere, and the bottom line is Americans are unwillingly to give up the benefits and services provided by the government. The only sane and logical direction from here is to temporarily raise taxes, especially on the wealthy earners, to help pay it down.

...or to temporarily reduce spending to the extent that we can pay down those debts. Furthermore, given this government's track record, we have little reason to expect them to be so responsible with the expected new revenue generated from tax increases. Until the government shows some demonstration that it's trying to make its expenditures conform to its income, I don't see any good argument for giving them yet more of our money.

What the party you support plans on doing is financially irresponsible and reckless. They want to cut taxes even further without any plan whatsoever to pay down the debt. It's sheer lunacy.

Coming from a supporter of the party who hasn't introduced a budget in...how long has it been (?), I'll have to consider the source before I take that accusation seriously. The republicans at least have their own ideas for attacking the problem.

 

[Hulk]

When are you libs going to get it through your thick skulls? There aren't enough rich people to tax.

Exactly. But this isn't about balancing the budget or reducing the deficit to people that want to tax the rich more. It's about punishing the rich so they can feel better.

Let's be realistic the only way to get out of this economic situation it to grow the economy, to put people back to work, to have people making more money and thus increasing revenue to the fed.

Raising the economy slows the economy. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

In 1980 when taxes were lowered dramatically from the Carter years tax revenue to the fed increased by 1988 from 500 billion to nearly double that! And yes the government got larger under Reagan, but as percentage of GDP it GOT SMALLER. Get it?

JFK also lowered taxes to stimulate the economy and increase money to the fed. It works, it always works.

It is foolish, ignorant, and petty to think that taking more of someone else's money should make you feel better. Especially since it is actually counterproductive to what you are trying to accomplish.

As a percentage of what they earn "the rich" pay nearly 50% more than that to the fed. Much more than their fair share.

And let's talk about fair share. If the tax rate for everyone was 15% then that would be fair. Someone making 150k would pay 15k in taxes, someone making 1.5 million would pay 150k in taxes. That would be fair.

But we have an inherently unfair progressive tax system where nearly half the country pay no taxes and the top 10% pay nearly all federal taxes. Somehow that isn't "fair?" We need to tax them more to make it "fair?"

Trickle down economics does indeed work, has always worked and will continue to work whenever it's tried.

Trickle up poverty of raising taxes and increased redistribution will also always put people out of work and slow the economy.

 

[sm625]

A high marginal tax rate encourages capital investment. Consumption and profit taking are discouraged. If taxes are low then profit taking and consumption are instead encouraged. So we get malinvestment and disadvantageous capital flows. Money goes overseas, economy becomes service based, etc. This really is a lynchpin for everything that's happened over the last 30 years. And it was done by design, including the stream of propaganda which supports it.

It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. (Making this a partisan issue is part of the propaganda stream.) Doubling current tax rates would not increase revenues. (Aside from a short term spike that would ideally be rebated out.) It simply would encourage capital investment and divert the flow of money away from wall street. Money would instead flow into wage growth, which strongly correlates with total economic growth. That's how we get out of the mess we're in now. But it is obvious that there are a number of very wealthy people who stand to lose a lot, and they arent going to go down without a fight. They will send their Limbaughs and their Hannities and their Becks out to shout the propaganda line even louder than before: LOW TAXES GOOD. LIBERALS BAD. But their message really has nothing to do with any of that. It's all about enriching themselves, even to the point where they can afford to spend billions on Limbaughs and Schultzs to spread their propaganda.

 

[Atreus21]

Funniest thing I've heard all day.

 

[glenn1]

The trickle up economics of Republicans is still better than the fuckup economics of Democrats. If giving tax breaks to the rich doesn't stimulate growth, then "social spending" like giving welfare to inner city crackheads sure as shit won't either.

 

[Screech]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/

 

[BoomerD]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/

That's what I've been saying...The Republicans fuck up the economy...people elect Democrats to fix it...(sometimes it takes a few years to un-do the damage) then for some silly reason, people elect Republicans again...

Republicans held the presidency at the onset of the last NINE (9) economic downturns, including the two greatest economic collapses in our history.

1. The Great Depression: Herbert Hoover (Republican)
2. Recession of 1953: Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
3. Recession of 1957: Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican)
4. Recession of 1960: Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican) *
5. The Oil Crisis: Richard Nixon (Republican)
6. 1980's Recession: Ronald Reagan (Republican)
7. 1990 Recession: George H.W. Bush (Republican)
8. 2002 Recession: George W. Bush (Republican)
9. The Second Great Depression: George W. Bush (Republican)
* The Recession of 1960 began during the presidential campaign of that same year. The chart originally assigned the recession to President Kennedy, who was not inaugurated until 1961. It is important to note that what ended the recession was the call President Kennedy made for government spending. It helped to reduce unemployment and restore confidence in the economy. The recession came to an end that very year.

http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2012/05/democrats-v-republicans-debt-and.html


Democrats are better for investors:

Democrats are better at job creation:

http://www.bloomberg.com/chart/isqi31tjaZFo/

and in general, the country fares better with Democrats at the helm...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investin...shows-markets-gdp-outperform-under-democrats/

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...t-republicans-on-11-of-12-economic-indicators

 

[D-Man]

we certainly know the full force and effect of trickle down obama poverty in progress now.

Yep

 

[ivwshane]

The trickle up economics of Republicans is still better than the fuckup economics of Democrats. If giving tax breaks to the rich doesn't stimulate growth, then "social spending" like giving welfare to inner city crackheads sure as shit won't either.

The OP has a study that supports one claim, what study do you have that supports yours?

 

[MovingTarget]

If giving tax breaks to the rich doesn't stimulate growth, then "social spending" like giving welfare to inner city crackheads sure as shit won't either.

Despite your mischaracterization of the poor, I do have misgivings with this argument. Nobody really doubts that giving tax breaks to the rich or poor stimulates the economy. The question is how much a tax break to either group would stimulate the economy. The lower on the income scale that you target a tax break, the more effect it should have based on the propensity to spend and circluate money in the economy. Rich people save more and invest more, but those activities do not stimulate aggregate demand as efficiently as those would simply spend every dime they got. I suppose you would say that the economic multiplier effect is higher. You get more bang for your buck stimulus-wise in addition to making an appreciable difference in the quality of a person's life.

 

[Paratus]

When given the choice between a most likely will not work Trickle Down Wealth and a definitely will work Trickle Up Poverty, I will take the former, thank you very much.

You heard it here first folks. Cyber guarantees that trickle down will work and pull us out of the recession which doesn't exist because we've been trickling down the last 30 years!

 

[bfdd]

Quantitative Easing 3(infinity) is trickle down economics.

 

[thraashman]

I will never understand it. You have economic policies that have been proven time and again to not work (Republican), and policies that have been proven time and again do work (Democrat). Yet still there are people who insist on trying the Republican policies again and again. Is it some kind of psychological reward system thing where you think the rich deserve to be rewarded for becoming rich? Seriously, I don't get why anyone would intentionally continue to do something so stupid despite there being absolutely no way you could think it would work. Is it a brain damage thing, do all GOP voters have brain damage? I mean clearly cybrsage does, but do the rest of you?

 

[glenn1]

Despite your mischaracterization of the poor, I do have misgivings with this argument. Nobody really doubts that giving tax breaks to the rich or poor stimulates the economy. The question is how much a tax break to either group would stimulate the economy. The lower on the income scale that you target a tax break, the more effect it should have based on the propensity to spend and circluate money in the economy. Rich people save more and invest more, but those activities do not stimulate aggregate demand as efficiently as those would simply spend every dime they got. I suppose you would say that the economic multiplier effect is higher. You get more bang for your buck stimulus-wise in addition to making an appreciable difference in the quality of a person's life.

That sounds like a great plan if you don't care what it gets spent on, only that it's spent. It's important that the poor be able to maintain their marginal propensity to spend on such vitally important U.S. market sectors such as lotto tickets, 40 ounce malt liquor makers, fast food vendors, and pitbulls for dog fighting.