yeah! like you say its not so simple. so how about tax the rich, then give tax exempts to those that are creating jobs ect. that would in turn encourage a growing economy.

__________________
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Wow, yeah, yell it from the rooftops. Maybe the more you say it, the truer it will become.

Try Googling "trickle down economics" or looking it up on Wiki or something.

For that matter, try Googling EVERYTHING in your argument...

There is so much you obviously think you know and the rest of us ignorant peasants are just so stupid, aren't we...

__________________
"And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." - Thomas Hobbes

In the Real World of Work and Wages, Trickle-Down Theories Don’t Hold Up

"Trickle-down theorists are quick to object that higher taxes would cause top earners to work less and take fewer risks, thereby stifling economic growth. In their familiar rhetorical flourish, they insist that a more progressive tax system would kill the geese that lay the golden eggs. On close examination, however, this claim is supported neither by economic theory nor by empirical evidence.

The surface plausibility of trickle-down theory owes much to the fact that it appears to follow from the time-honored belief that people respond to incentives. Because higher taxes on top earners reduce the reward for effort, it seems reasonable that they would induce people to work less, as trickle-down theorists claim. As every economics textbook makes clear, however, a decline in after-tax wages also exerts a second, opposing effect. By making people feel poorer, it provides them with an incentive to recoup their income loss by working harder than before. Economic theory says nothing about which of these offsetting effects may dominate.

If economic theory is unkind to trickle-down proponents, the lessons of experience are downright brutal. If lower real wages induce people to work shorter hours, then the opposite should be true when real wages increase. According to trickle-down theory, then, the cumulative effect of the last century’s sharp rise in real wages should have been a significant increase in hours worked. In fact, however, the workweek is much shorter now than in 1900.

Trickle-down theory also predicts shorter workweeks in countries with lower real after-tax pay rates. Yet here, too, the numbers tell a different story. For example, even though chief executives in Japan earn less than one-fifth what their American counterparts do and face substantially higher marginal tax rates, Japanese executives do not log shorter hours.

Trickle-down theory also predicts a positive correlation between inequality and economic growth, the idea being that income disparities strengthen motivation to get ahead. Yet when researchers track the data within individual countries over time, they find a negative correlation. In the decades immediately after World War II, for example, income inequality was low by historical standards, yet growth rates in most industrial countries were extremely high. In contrast, growth rates have been only about half as large in the years since 1973, a period in which inequality has been steadily rising."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/business/12scene.html

There is no purpose in googling it or looking up someone else's view of what "trickle down economics" is when the concept is this simple. Trickle down economics is an economic belief that people will benefit more when the rich are given more from society because of the belief that they will use the extra wealth they are given to produce more of it along with jobs.

"Trickle up economics" is the opposite, the economic belief that people in general will benefit more when wealth is taken from the rich and given down to the poor so that they will produce more from consumption of goods and the creation of demand.

Trickle down is a corporatist belief, trickle up is a Keynesian/socialist belief. What we have now is Keynesian economics mixed with certain corporatist elements. The Bush tax cuts represented not trickle down, but a reduction in trickle up. The two are not the same. We still have trickle up regardless of the Bush tax cuts, and we still have NEVER had trickle down economics running our economy.

__________________

The entire period of American history prior to 1913 (except the repealed/deemed unconstitutional acts of 1861-7 and 1894-5) was without progressive taxation.

__________________
I coulda trip out easy, but I've a-changed my ways. - Donovan

"Trickle-down economics are shamefully ineffective and immoral. Since the conception of this ideology thirty years ago, the wages of CEOs have skyrocketed while the wages of average workers have stagnated. Corporate fraud is rampant, and capitalism is fraught with examples of privatizing profits and socializing risks. The current economic problems are a direct result of these economic viewpoints and practices. Has everyone forgotten the savings-and-loans scandals? These crises are not unavoidable components of a healthy economy; they are tragic consequences of irrational and dishonest fiscal policies."
http://www.kstatecollegian.com/trick..._united_states

Cutting and pasting articles that make the exact points that just got shot down gets you nowhere.

__________________

But not when opperated in a republican controlled manner.