Originally posted by Liberator
Yeah, does anyone even know the logic behind that train of thought?Taxing the rich less = more jobs?
Less taxing means more money in people's hands. That means both spending and more resistance to personal economic troubles. More spending gets the economy going so it can start to recover. Taxing the rich less sends out even more money.
I don't think there are any economic models besides Marxism that advise raising taxes when the economy is doing badly.
Originally posted by Liberator
Yeah, does anyone even know the logic behind that train of thought?Taxing the rich less = more jobs?
you or I don't have the money to start new businesses or employ other people. Even if we had 100% of our pay (0 tax), there is no way we are going to be the mechanism by which more jobs are created in the economy. Someone with the money to pay these people has to create the jobs.
Therefore, if we give more money to people in that position, they can reinvest it into the markey by creating more jobs.
it does work, if we assume that the rich act to maximize the economy with their wealth (which is where the idea of Regan-omics falls apart), and even in theories where we cut the taxes on the poor or middle class, we still expect the rich to take the profits they make from more middle and lower class spending to create jobs (only in this case, as a response to greater demand, rather than "just because", under trickle-down theories).
Originally posted by Liberator
Yeah, does anyone even know the logic behind that train of thought?Taxing the rich less = more jobs?
What those two cats said above, but in laymen terms, Reaganomics (current trickle-down effect) works like this:
If we allow the rich and wealthy to keep more of their money, the rich in the kindness of their hearts will throw scraps down to the mid and lower classes in the form of starting new businesses where the lower scum can be employed which creates more production, which creates more demand and the economy as a whole is boosed and/or those rich will work harder at their jobs (cos they're being taxed less) and create more taxable income in the end which helps the economy too.
It's work in theory, but it's reliant on the wealthy doing what they're supposed to do (ie create jobs or work harder/more) and not just take the money and running.
to extend, it is in this theory that we see opposition to minimum wage laws. Because the rich are profit motivated, and will create jobs to make profit, they will continue to invest in places where they can, essentially, pay their workers nothing.
rather than reforming the laws that allow corporations to take advantage of weak foreign governments and exploit workers, we decide that we need to make our own workforce as affordabe as these foreign nations, because then, the rich will invest money here.
ignoring, of course, that it is middle and lower class spending that drives the economy
Originally posted by Robtard
All in all, Trickle-Down fizzles because it doesn't factor in one ever present element where money-matters are concerned, greed. IMO.
This is why trickle down economics feels more like the rich are pissing on everyone below them. Reaganomics, much like the idea of the self-regulating and free-market economy, look great on paper. Sadly, they are just as reliable as communism after the idiocy and greed of the people inside the system begin to operate.
Originally posted by RobtardIf we allow the rich and wealthy to keep more of their money, the rich in the kindness of their hearts will throw scraps down to the mid and lower classes in the form of starting new businesses where the lower scum can be employed which creates more production, which creates more demand and the economy as a whole is boosed and/or those rich will work harder at their jobs (cos they're being taxed less) and create more taxable income in the end which helps the economy too.
Hahaha, so I'm assuming America is sort of like this today? I do know the rich get tax breaks. Have they ever tried doing the opposite?
Tax the rich more and the poor less?
Originally posted by Liberator
Hahaha, so I'm assuming America is sort of like this today? I do know the rich get tax breaks. Have they ever tried doing the opposite?Tax the rich more and the poor less?
That would be 'Progressive Income Tax', ie when you reach a certain bracket of income, any excess is taxed at a higher and higher rate.
The very rich don't like this one. "The more I make, the more I'm going to get ****ed up the ass." This is also very against what the 'Founding Fathers' wanted for the US. But times change.
But, when you look at some of our biggest economic booms, the tax rates enforced by those administrations were much higher than those proposed by this administration. Reagan's first term was 50%, Nixon was 70% and Eisenhower's was 91%. So even though times do change, history does seem to bare out some merrit for taxing the rich. Even all of this talk of the President being a socialist is around readjusting the tax rates to Clinton-era levels. I don't think anyone argues that the rich pay the majority of the taxes in this country.
Originally posted by Liberator
Wouldn't that make more sense then the system in place now though?Creates a bit more equality class wise and wouldn't that create less poverty?
Yes and no, as you're essentially punishing people for being successful (though success does come from the pain of others many a time).
Progressive Income Tax is what the system is like now overall, so the US Treasury claims. Top 1% of earners in the US pay around 30% of the total income tax. I believe the middle-class pays the most taxes as a whole. It's something around 31% - 66% - 3% in total income taxes paid per group. Upper, Middle, Lower.
I could be wrong, I'd have to look it up as it's been sometime. Taxes in the US are mind-boggling, and there's much conflicting information. It's progressive, but there's also massive tax-cuts for the rich. F if I know.
Your second sentence sounds Marxist, watch it!
Originally posted by skekUng
Do you think that's a result of the politics or the politics reflecting the American mindset? Or is there any difference?
I think its a result of the Cold War, lingering perceptions about communism/socialism and poor logic. We once had an enemy that preached about equality thus anyone who tries to produce equality is an enemy.
Originally posted by Liberator Well it wouldn't really be punishing anyone for being successful just like saying you make a good amount of money you have some to spare so why not help out the community instead of sitting on all that money and doing nothing with it but hoarding it or buying trivial useless goods.
You're messin' with the American way when you mess with our trivial useless goods. Trivial useless goods and irresponsible use of our wealth is part and parcel of living the American dream.
Even people who preach against trivial useless goods own more than their fair share of them. So, it really is an actual part of the American Dream; likely the only one that the vast majority of Americans will ever get to experience.