50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

It's no surprise. Two pretty obvious factors make supply side economics fail:

1) The economy is a cycle of supply and demand. If the supply side has all the money, but the demand side doesn't, aggregate demand goes down, slowing the economic cycle, and, thus GDP.
2) The common idea of supply side is to make tax policy that assists the "job creators", i.e. the rich. The problem: The rich are not the ones who are driving innovation. When you have won the game, you stop playing. The tax benefits should rather go to the ones who haven't won the game yet, but who want to win the game.

The GOP's futility is to try the same thing over and over and over again (supply side economics), expecting a different result the next time.

 

No the myth as that the government taking more money from the rich helps the middle class or anyone other than the government class.
The biggest problem with the study is the usual leftist problem they can't differentiate between the economy's engine and it's brake.

High taxes, rules and regulations and interest rates drive money off shore and serve to concentrate it in fewer and fewer hands. All of those things the government controls are economic brakes. Letting off one doesn't help a damn if you keep the other two pressed to the floor.

 

If you are rich and won the game: High taxes mean that you have to make your money work for you. Low taxes mean that you can play it safe and keep the money under the mattress.

 

Reducing those doen't work.

 

Yes it does.

 

Nonsense, in fact exactly the opposite is true.

 

Today's lesson in math -- If 50 percent of taxpayers pay no income tax and the politicians give a tax cut who gets the tax cut?

 

Sorry been proven not to.

 

Wrong it's been said to be wrong by people who left out almost every imaginable veritable and strictly to drive a political narrative at that.

 

I do agree that supply is limited by demand. And supply is what manufacturers and importers can bring to us. And bringing that stuff to us creates jobs. And if the lower class has higher wages, and the middle class has lower taxes, you create more demand. So the more demand for things, the better it is for everyone.

I believe we should keep our taxes on domestic industry and business very, very low.

I believe we need to have control over immigration because a glut of workers drives wages down. A dearth of workers drives wages up, particularly for those in low-skill occupations.

And I'm fine with much higher personal income taxes on high incomes. Nobody in the 1% is going to "suffer". We have a federal budget deficit every year, and the budget needs to get balanced. When we balance the budget and create a budget surplus, we can reduce taxes accordingly.

 

Question: If the Chiefs lead the Bills 38:21 late in the 4th quarter, would they take a knee, bench the quarterback, to keep the lead, or throw a hail Mary to possibly extend the lead to 45:21? That's what it means having won the game and not having to take any risk. The same applies to economics of the ultra wealthy. Wealth preservation comes before additional wealth generation.

 

Reagan did irreparable damage to unions we he dissolved the air traffic controllers union and changed the laws pertinent to unions in the early 1980's.then we also had a slew of American companies many of which had not laid off workers in the Great Depression but began DOWNSIZING in the Reagan era. Downsizing was a sneaky way of getting rid of long term employees over age 50 who had accrued lengthy vacations with good salaries and other built up company perks. They were offered buy out packages and basically told you better take this offer because the next one may not be as good. Promised retirement monthly benefits were cut by two thirds from what they had been promised they would receive. This was done at most of Americas biggest and best companies like Prudential Insurance, IBM,Liberty Mutual and many other of our biggest most profitable companies at the time. The new replacement employees were hired on with much lower benefit and vacation packages and salaries. The downsizing trend continued for at least a 15 year period.

 

My dad worked for ford for 35 years before retiring with a good pension and benefits, corps no longer want that.

 

No you are right that was a holdover from when America was a truly great country to live and work in.

 

actually it was the lack of regulations that hurt us durign the bush years

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html

"From his earliest days in office, Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own homes with his conviction that markets do best when left alone. Bush pushed hard to expand home ownership, especially among minority groups, an initiative that dovetailed with both his ambition to expand Republican appeal and the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards."

"Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership" March 26, 2004

https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-ties-policy-to-record-home-ownership

"Late last year, Bush signed the American Dream Down Payment Act (search) to help families that can afford monthly mortgage payments but not the down payment or closing costs associated with buying a house. The legislation authorizes $200 million a year in down payment assistance to at least 40,000 low-income families."

 

Small world, mine did too, 37 years Milpitas California, until they shuttered the plant..

 

A completely lousy comparison that is the complete reverse if reality, high taxes and wealth preservation is the way you go. You do so because other investments don't make enough money to offset the tax losses. So you either invest somewhere where the taxes are lower or you find investments that are tax free like municipal bonds. When taxes are low you you have money you can afford to invest in actions that grow jobs like manufacturing. Note in countries the regulatory over burden is high you don't get as much bang for the buck because labor costs tend to be quite high and tend to manage that without putting much if any additional money in the employees pocket.

 

Except that just because they have it doesn't mean that they do that, and most of the time they don't.

 

But if you suck the money out of the rich where does the money come from to grow the businesses to meet the demand. And if the rich don't have the money to make the necessary investments to grow the manufacturing infrastructure to meet that demand the only thing your going to grow us inflation in less you import to meet the demand which grows jobs somewhere else the US pattern in the late sixties to the present.
Oh and one other thing you'll never balance the budget on the backs of the rich, they don't earn enough money.

Remember the term Billionaire us a life time achievement not for most a yearly salary. The federal government spends more than 10 billion dollars a day. The total yearly Earnings of every billionaire in America would operate the federal government for about a month.

 

I appreciate what you're saying, but just consider these things ...

I actually oppose the idea of taxing domestic business and domestic manufacturing at all. I don't think it makes any sense, especially in a competitive world, and especially since Chinese corporate = Chinese government.

So what I'm talking about - and I tried to emphasize it with italics - is that I am okay with increasing taxes on very high personal incomes, but not on the money that a business earns. Just personal income. It is the business and the demand for whatever it's producing that creates jobs, not the personal income of the owner or CEO.

I realize that raising taxes on multi millionaires and billionaires won't balance the budget all by itself, but think about this .... We know Congress won't balance the budget just because a little guy like you or me write our Congressman or Senator and tell them that we want them to balance the budget. Our opinion doesn't mean squat to them, and we both know it. You'll get a nice little form letter back thanking you for your letter and then telling you what a wonderful job your Congressman or Senator is doing on your behalf.

But!

Who does Congress really listen to? Hmmm? We know the answer to that, don't we?

Now if we want Congress to get serious about balancing the federal budget, who do you think needs to start telling them to do it? You and me? No. How about the multi millionaire donor to their campaign? Yes. That's who Congress will listen to. So if we raise taxes to say 50 or 60% on the amount earned above $1 million, are they going to suffer? No. Is it going to affect supply and demand which = jobs? No.

Is it going to create pressure on Congress from people Congress listens to to balance the budget?

Yes.

 

how come things like budgets, debts, fiscal responsibility are topics only when a Dem suddenly takes over?
we just watched the bottom fall out of an already empty bucket with nothing but 4 MORE YEARS! being heard ...WTF??
how'bout we try all the things rightys fearmonger about ceaselessly? can't be any worse than Hell on Earth winger ways lol

 

I agree with this guy on a lot. But that's because as I said, trickle-down nor trickle-up is an economic thesis. The thesis he reaches on increasing both productivity and purchasing is exactly what we need.

 

That was true until 1993 when everything "flip flopped". You can't relate the Reps and Dems of today with the ones before 1993.
Trump cut more tax benefits from companies and the rich....while Obama lied and gave more tax breaks to companies and the rich, while he taxed the hell out of the working stiff.

 

I'm an Independent, and I've been calling for exactly this for a long time, not all of a sudden. I agreed with most of Trump's policies, but I disagreed with lowering the personal income tax rate on the 1%. There is no inconsistency on my part.

 

So you just post the OPPOSITE of factual reality?

Got it!

Have a nice day!