PDA

View Full Version : If "trickle down" doesn't work



achiro
09-05-2012, 12:33 PM
Can someone explain the stimulus stuff to me.

ARay11
09-05-2012, 12:38 PM
it's that thing where they go to the mint, hit print on the money machine, and send it on out to the "less fortunate". Who, in turn, then send it on back up to Walmart, Dillards, Casinos, etc.

http://youtu.be/gkJnmWhin90

check out the parable of the pool... sorta makes sense. unless you have some. then it makes none. LOL!!!! :-P

menmon
09-05-2012, 12:54 PM
Aray that is not trickle down....trinkle down is where you don't make a rich guy pay taxes so that he will add on to his factory and make jobs and then his employees go spend it at WalMart, etc. and he builds him a bigger house on his tax savings.

menmon
09-05-2012, 12:56 PM
Oh yea I forgot about the declining sales that had his factory under utilized because the worker was paying his taxes.

Jim Danis
09-05-2012, 01:03 PM
Don't see a thing wrong with your version of trickle down except the so-called rich pay the majority of taxes brought in to the Govt. 50+% of the working population doesn't pay a dime in Federal taxes. Many also receive a so-called Earned Income Tax credit giving them additional refunds of monies they didn't even pay into the system in the first place. Hmmm, I wonder where those monies came from? How about from the rich that actually pay taxes!!

ARay11
09-05-2012, 01:36 PM
Aray that is not trickle down....trinkle down is where you don't make a rich guy pay taxes so that he will add on to his factory and make jobs and then his employees go spend it at WalMart, etc. and he builds him a bigger house on his tax savings.


HE ASKED FOR AN EXPLANATION OF THE STIMULUS.... NOT TRICKLE DOWN. Perhaps our reading skills are a bit impaired this afternoon.

luvmylabs23139
09-05-2012, 02:44 PM
Oh yea I forgot about the declining sales that had his factory under utilized because the worker was paying his taxes.

What????? 50% pay zero federal taxes and a good chunk of them actually get a check from the real taxpayers!!!

Jim Danis
09-05-2012, 03:11 PM
SHHHHH dont tell anyone!! The other 50% will want thier fair share also!

menmon
09-05-2012, 03:54 PM
You keep referring to the low income earners....I'm referring to the middle class....but it appears you want to tax the guy making $8-$10 so Romney can have a bigger tax cut. Why do you want to do this?

menmon
09-05-2012, 03:58 PM
A large part of the stimulus was given to the states so they could pay their bills so policemen and fireman would still be on the job and they spent the money and stimulated the economy....see you act as if the stimulus was suppose to made our economy strong...it was filling big holes by design. With the exception of Texas, the rest of the country would have been sh>t out of luck if it had not been for that wellfare. But the way all of you speak, you would have wanted governments across the country to fail....might check and see how much your state got.

Gunners Up
09-05-2012, 04:13 PM
he builds him a bigger house on his tax savings.

Samb errr menmon

Rich Guy hires a builder, builder hires subcontractors, who buy more building materials from lumbar yard, Lumbaryard must hire more hands due to demand & buy more buildig supplies, mills must hire more people due to demand, mill buys more raw materials due to demand, building supply mfg. must hire more people due to demand and buy more raw materials and on goes the cycle.

Ripple Affect Regards,

RD

PS: Still chuckling at the irony.......

ARay11
09-05-2012, 04:17 PM
Aray that is not trickle down....trickle down is where you don't make a rich guy pay taxes so that he will add on to his factory and make jobs and then his employees go spend it at WalMart, etc. and he builds him a bigger house on his tax savings. (no, he builds a bigger house on the money he made establishing a new corporation. Thereby continuing to stimulate the economy by employing housing contractors, concrete guys, sawmills, etc. And, by the way.... he's having to pay taxes on that new company turning a profit...AND...maybe, just maybe, he had so much fun doing it the first time and gets a kick out of employing folks....MAYBE he will do it again.... Create yet another company, to employ more people, and those folks can pay taxes and then THAT company can pay taxes....
holy chit... it kinda makes sense....

Gunners Up
09-05-2012, 04:24 PM
ARay11,

Great minds think a like! You can tell why Obama didn't carry a county in Oklahoma during the 2008 elections.

RD

ARay11
09-05-2012, 04:26 PM
ARay11,

Great minds think a like! You can tell why Obama didn't carry a county in Oklahoma during the 2008 elections.

RD
We are hoping for a similar result in 2012!!

mudminnow
09-05-2012, 04:44 PM
The stimulus gave made up money to the states for public jobs for a few years. The problem is after the stimulus runs out, there is no way to pay those employees. It is a false sense of security that put states in more debt. The great state of SC fought hard to use the money to pay down our debt, but were forced to use it unsustainably for public employees. So soon we will hear about government funding being cut and employees will lose their jobs because of draconian government cuts when really it is the stimulus money that ran out and there is no way to sustain the gov't without, ding ding ding, another stimulus and so the cycle goes until we are all in debt to the Fed govt and states rights are even smaller than they are today. Can anyone (menmon, other left leaning folks) say that the gov't can make a plan or a solution to this problem? What could they do to help this out? We can't tax our way out of this problem. I feel like most people who vote democrat feel good about voting that way because there is a false sense of "i am helping out the needy", while it would be much more effective to help the needy out yourself instead of most of your tax dollars funding the bueracracy(sp?) that hinders american growth today. You are no better a person because you vote for someone eles's money to be given to charity, that makes you a hippocrite to the nth degree. I feel like it is pretty evident that the more gov't influence, the harder it is to succeed.

roseberry
09-05-2012, 05:05 PM
Aray that is not trickle down....trinkle down is where you don't make a rich guy pay taxes so that he will add on to his factory and make jobs and then his employees go spend it at WalMart, etc. and he builds him a bigger house on his tax savings.

this is in fact, "trickle down" economics. however the "rich guy" doesn't build his own house......I BUILD IT FOR HIM! if he saves $50k in taxes next year and builds/finances a $500k home on his projected tax decrease/income increase, in building that half million dollar home:
- he will pay approx $25K in state and local sales taxes in this immediate tax year
- he will pay permit and inspections fees to his local jurisdictions of approx $2k immediately
- he will pay increased property taxes on the structure and change in use from agricultural to residential of up to $5K immeditately and ongoing(more or less depending on where you live)
- i and my employees/subcontractors will pay approximately $40k in state and federal income taxes on our earnings
- at least one of my subcontractors will have his "earned income tax credit" reduced for his five kids. this reduces federal expenditures by $8.4k
- when we spend our earnings (less the 10% we save) another $27k in state and local sales taxes are paid immediately
- by me and my subcontractors saving 10% and investing in the market via ira and 401k, taxes are deferred into future years when the federal government will need the money even more. plus as money comes into the stock market, prices tend to rise for all.

the way i figure it if the "rich guy" saves $50k in fed income taxes, the federal government will still net collect $41.4k and the state another $7k in income taxes. if the states have more they need less fed assistance. state and local governments will recieve another $59k in sales and property tax increases, and federal and states will defer income taxes on invested money that will grow overtime to future periods of taxation.

on the other hand if the "rich guy" pays the $50k in taxes the states will get $10k in fed funding, entitlements will recieve $40k, we will borrow $500k from china based on projected tax revenues. deficit and debt go up! under this scenario the only person i know who gets anything is the subcontractor who works for me who recieves the $8,400 earned income tax credit and $700 in food stamps per month.

in other words if the "rich guy" gets his money taken away by federal taxation, one thing is certain I DON'T GET A DARN DIME !!! and one guy i know gets assistance.

if he keeps his money and builds a house, all the taxes(maybe more) still get paid, hundreds people work and spend, hundreds of thousands of dollars of materials are sold, I MAKE A SHIZ LOAD OF MONEY AND THAT RICH BASTARD GETS A NEW HOUSE........

what the hell is wrong with that rich bastard gettin' a new house?

ARay11
09-05-2012, 05:08 PM
this is in fact, "trickle down" economics. however the "rich guy" doesn't build his own house......I BUILD IT FOR HIM! if he saves $50k in taxes next year and builds/finances a $500k home on his projected tax decrease/income increase, in building that half million dollar home:
- he will pay approx $25K in state and local sales taxes in this immediate tax year
- he will pay permit and inspections fees to his local jurisdictions of approx $2k immediately
- he will pay increased property taxes on the structure and change in use from agricultural to residential of up to $5K immeditately and ongoing(more or less depending on where you live)
- i and my employees/subcontractors will pay approximately $40k in state and federal income taxes on our earnings
- at least one of my subcontractors will have his "earned income tax credit" reduced for his five kids. this reduces federal expenditures by $8.4k
- when we spend our earnings (less the 10% we save) another $27k in state and local sales taxes are paid immediately
- by me and my subcontractors saving 10% and investing in the market via ira and 401k, taxes are deferred into future years when the federal government will need the money even more. plus as money comes into the stock market, prices tend to rise for all.

the way i figure it if the "rich guy" saves $50k in fed income taxes, the federal government will still net collect $41.4k and the state another $7k in income taxes. if the states have more they need less fed assistance. state and local governments will recieve another $59k in sales and property tax increases, and federal and states will defer income taxes on invested money that will grow overtime to future periods of taxation.

on the other hand if the "rich guy" pays the $50k in taxes the states will get $10k in fed funding, entitlements will recieve $40k, we will borrow $500k from china based on projected tax revenues. deficit and debt go up! under this scenario the only person i know who gets anything is the subcontractor who works for me who recieves the $8,400 earned income tax credit and $700 in food stamps per month.

in other words if the "rich guy" gets his money taken away by federal taxation, one thing is certain I DON'T GET A DARN DIME !!! and one guy i know gets assistance.

if he keeps his money and builds a house, all the taxes(maybe more) still get paid, hundreds people work and spend, hundreds of thousands of dollars of materials are sold, I MAKE A SHIZ LOAD OF MONEY AND THAT RICH BASTARD GETS A NEW HOUSE........

what the hell is wrong with that rich bastard gettin' a new house?

roflmao...not a darn thing!!! I hope he needs a lakehouse, summer home, and winter cabin!!

Raymond Little
09-05-2012, 05:16 PM
this is in fact, "trickle down" economics. however the "rich guy" doesn't build his own house......I BUILD IT FOR HIM! if he saves $50k in taxes next year and builds/finances a $500k home on his projected tax decrease/income increase, in building that half million dollar home:
- he will pay approx $25K in state and local sales taxes in this immediate tax year
- he will pay permit and inspections fees to his local jurisdictions of approx $2k immediately
- he will pay increased property taxes on the structure and change in use from agricultural to residential of up to $5K immeditately and ongoing(more or less depending on where you live)
- i and my employees/subcontractors will pay approximately $40k in state and federal income taxes on our earnings
- at least one of my subcontractors will have his "earned income tax credit" reduced for his five kids. this reduces federal expenditures by $8.4k
- when we spend our earnings (less the 10% we save) another $27k in state and local sales taxes are paid immediately
- by me and my subcontractors saving 10% and investing in the market via ira and 401k, taxes are deferred into future years when the federal government will need the money even more. plus as money comes into the stock market, prices tend to rise for all.

the way i figure it if the "rich guy" saves $50k in fed income taxes, the federal government will still net collect $41.4k and the state another $7k in income taxes. if the states have more they need less fed assistance. state and local governments will recieve another $59k in sales and property tax increases, and federal and states will defer income taxes on invested money that will grow overtime to future periods of taxation.

on the other hand if the "rich guy" pays the $50k in taxes the states will get $10k in fed funding, entitlements will recieve $40k, we will borrow $500k from china based on projected tax revenues. deficit and debt go up! under this scenario the only person i know who gets anything is the subcontractor who works for me who recieves the $8,400 earned income tax credit and $700 in food stamps per month.

in other words if the "rich guy" gets his money taken away by federal taxation, one thing is certain I DON'T GET A DARN DIME !!! and one guy i know gets assistance.

if he keeps his money and builds a house, all the taxes(maybe more) still get paid, hundreds people work and spend, hundreds of thousands of dollars of materials are sold, I MAKE A SHIZ LOAD OF MONEY AND THAT RICH BASTARD GETS A NEW HOUSE........

what the hell is wrong with that rich bastard gettin' a new house?

What he said! x2

charly_t
09-05-2012, 05:25 PM
You all forgot one other job created by this new bigger home........at least one house cleaner ( maid ) for either full time or part time help. :-)

Buzz
09-05-2012, 05:33 PM
I can't believe that you guys think that what you're describing is supply side economics.

Down East Labs 217
09-05-2012, 05:39 PM
I can't believe that you guys think that what you're describing is supply side economics.

Buzz Explain it to us. I would love to here your opinion. I may not agree with it but it is always well wrote and appreciated.

Richard

Buzz
09-05-2012, 05:50 PM
Buzz Explain it to us. I would love to here your opinion. I may not agree with it but it is always well wrote and appreciated.

Richard


I have to go shoot flyers now...

Sundown49 aka Otey B
09-05-2012, 08:01 PM
All of you that whine about "trickle down" economics explain to me how "trickle up" works. Show me one job created by a homeless person... one job created by a welfare mother.......OOPS what do you mean that doesn't work. This potus hasn't even had ONE job in his life. How can you create something you don't even know what it is. This bunch will lie when the truth sounds better. I was in business for 12 years and made a good living for me and my workers. Don't remember EVER having anyone give me anything,......I earned it by hard work and having the FREEDOM to make my OWN decisions about who, and where I worked

murral stark
09-05-2012, 08:12 PM
All of you that whine about "trickle down" economics explain to me how "trickle up" works. Show me one job created by a homeless person... one job created by a welfare mother.......OOPS what do you mean that doesn't work. This potus hasn't even had ONE job in his life. How can you create something you don't even know what it is. This bunch will lie when the truth sounds better. I was in business for 12 years and made a good living for me and my workers. Don't remember EVER having anyone give me anything,......I earned it by hard work and having the FREEDOM to make my OWN decisions about who, and where I worked

I think he had a law practice before politics. Might not be a manual labor job, but it is still a job I think. Probably employed office staff and such. Somebody fact check it for me though please. LOL

Marvin S
09-05-2012, 08:29 PM
I think he had a law practice before politics. Might not be a manual labor job, but it is still a job I think. Probably employed office staff and such. Somebody fact check it for me though please. LOL

Community Organizer is the closest he has ever been to work - his lawyer privilege is suspended & I do not think he ever practiced other than to run for the next office :(

murral stark
09-05-2012, 08:34 PM
Community Organizer is the closest he has ever been to work - his lawyer privilege is suspended & I do not think he ever practiced other than to run for the next office :(
According to Wikipedia, he worked at a law firm as an associate.

huntinman
09-05-2012, 09:31 PM
According to Wikipedia, he worked at a law firm as an associate.

That was the firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe

murral stark
09-05-2012, 09:41 PM
That was the firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe

Ouch! That hurts

achiro
09-05-2012, 09:52 PM
Here's the point of me starting this thread. Last night the San Antonio mayor went on about how trickle down doesn't work. I hear that from dims all the time yet they are the first to jump in and say we need more stimulus/bailouts/whatever. To me the only difference is who decides which businesses get the money on top to trickle it down. Either the market dictates which businesses are successful and have that money or the government decides. Solyndra tells me pretty quick that the government isn't any good at it.

Marvin S
09-05-2012, 10:08 PM
Here's the point of me starting this thread. Last night the San Antonio mayor went on about how trickle down doesn't work. I hear that from dims all the time yet they are the first to jump in and say we need more stimulus/bailouts/whatever. To me the only difference is who decides which businesses get the money on top to trickle it down. Either the market dictates which businesses are successful and have that money or the government decides. Solyndra tells me pretty quick that the government isn't any good at it.

If Solyndra were an isolated case then it might be unworthy of note, but Solyndra is one of a long line of failures in the green field, & they continue to push :(. It might be easier to see if there has been a success. When the government picks winners & losers they seem to err on the losers side the majority of the time.

HPL
09-05-2012, 10:35 PM
I have to go shoot flyers now...


Man, I hate to say this, but what a cop out. You seem to think you know better than we do, but won't share the 'secret" with us. Makes me doubt your knowledge.

HPL
09-05-2012, 10:39 PM
I hope he needs a lakehouse, summer home, and winter cabin!!

Perhaps a place on the seashore too, and maybe a hangar and landing strip at each for his private plane. If he's really a good guy he might even build a place for his folks, and can't forget the in-laws either!

mngundog
09-05-2012, 11:39 PM
Trickle down economics.............. The Government awards Hallibuton a $7 billion dollar contract (which they were the only company allowed to bid), Dick Cheney sticks $50 million of our tax payer money in his own pocket then buys his cabin, hires a maid and a butler. Of course Dick Cheney is the hero since he's going to pay his 10% in taxes while the butler and the maid are basically going to live off the Government. This is a great plan. :D

roseberry
09-05-2012, 11:59 PM
I can't believe that you guys think that what you're describing is supply side economics.

buzz,
i am almost certainly the first conservative, part time poster here to give credit to president jimmy carter for his original appointment of paul volker as chairman of the federal reserve. volker seemed at one time to understand the folly of the continuous monkeying around with money supply and governmental spending in order to stimulate the economy. thus he is credited by me with the total elimination of "keynesian economic" policies that had been thought credible for decades. his changes to monetary policy created market uncertainty that temporarily resulted in inflation, recession and the highest recorded interest rates in our history. imho these temporary impacts unjustly hang around carter's legacy. volker was wisely and thankfully reappointed by newly elected president ronald reagan in 1980. once the free market and its business leaders began to experience the certainty that existed when these new economic policies replaced the mistaken keynesian economics of the past, one of the greatest periods of growth and prosperity in our history began.

also in that period, economist and advisor arthur laffer's curve demonstrated the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues. essentially, a tax rate of zero% generates tax revenues of zero dollars. likewise, a tax rate of 100% generates tax revenues of zero dollars.(since no sane american will go out and work and recieve no income since it is all taken by taxes) laffer proposed that there is a tax tate that will maximize tax revenues by motivating people to produce by allowing them to keep what they earn and at the same time be happy with what is taken from them by their government. to exceed this optimal taxation rate on income creates disincentive to produce and will ultimately result in less total tax revenue.(zero at 100%) the tax act of 1986 followed and eliminated the top marginal tax rates that were previously as high as 70%(i think). total tax revenues skyrocketed with these rate decreases and prosperity and growth skyrocketed too!

now for some reason our current administration has revived the debunked keynesian economic policies of the past where govenment stimulus and manipulation of money are thought answers to economic issues.

"supply side economics" is simple and essentially is thought to state that if government gets out of the way(less regulation on producers) and tax rates are set to maximize both production and tax revenues(a policy debate as to what rate maximizes total revenues) then the free market will competitively produce and supply goods to consumers that are of higher quality and cost less than are possible under any other scenario.

it has been a long time since i took an economics class but things that make good ol' common sense like the laffer curve and supply side economics stay with me a while.

i may not accurately recall what happend in our nations economic history or accurately define "supply side econ", but this i know-if that rich bastard is taxed such that he can't build his house or expand his factory, this general contractor and home builder will not, i repeat, will not be able to continue the derby campaign of his two current competitors or next years pup either and that my friends would be a shame!;-)

would i trade those "dog campaigns" for national debt reductions? sure i would. would i trade those campaigns for entitlements to enable a meth addict or to buy a pack of newport menthols.........

menmon
09-06-2012, 12:16 PM
I have not quit my job yet.

roseberry
09-06-2012, 01:49 PM
Trickle down economics.............. The Government awards Hallibuton a $7 billion dollar contract (which they were the only company allowed to bid), Dick Cheney sticks $50 million of our tax payer money in his own pocket then buys his cabin, hires a maid and a butler. Of course Dick Cheney is the hero since he's going to pay his 10% in taxes while the butler and the maid are basically going to live off the Government. This is a great plan. :D

this is exactly the point!!!!!! giving governments, government representatives and governmental agencies the "POWER TO DISBURSE" money they didn't earn creates corruption regardless of party. your example of dick cheney is a good one. why will billions be spent on the presidential campaign this year????? BECAUSE IT'S WORTH IT!!!!

ask yourself, how is it that bill and hillary were worth tens of millions even prior to being elected president? hillary worked at a law firm($150k in the '80's), bills best paying job was governor of arkansas($150k for four years). prior to book deals, $100k speaking engagements, etc. good money but not enough to create true wealth. obama and michele, she was at a law firm($200k in the '90's) he a community organizer(what? $35k) and they are worth millions prior to his senate run? why do they do it. BECAUSE IT'S WORTH IT!!!!

corruption is not new......and not limited to political party. but an awarded government contract to haliburton, solyndra or whoever has nothing to do with trickle down economics......that is keynesian economic principles. even if cheney is a free market believer i can assure you when he was walking off with his wheel barrow full of benjamins he didn't refer to that trick as trickle down!

Gerry Clinchy
09-06-2012, 02:34 PM
About the trickle down thing.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/05/historys-lessons-about-choice-between-obama-and-romney/


In 1980, Americans were bearing double-digit interest rates and inflation, growing trade deficits on oil and with export juggernauts Japan and newly industrializing economies in Asia, and stuck in a malaise of self-doubt quite similar to today.
Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, appointed in August 1979, pushed interest rates even higher to halt runaway inflation, the economy suffered two wrenching recessions, and unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent just 22 months into the Reagan presidency.
-

The Reagan recovery package emphasized putting money and decision making back into the hands of ordinary citizens and private businesses. Immediate tax cuts, followed by tax reform—just three personal income tax rates, a top rate of 28 percent, and fewer special breaks and loopholes.

He removed Carter-era policies that discouraged domestic oil production, and aggressively sought to right-size regulation—not slash and burn, but retaining what was needed to keep business honest and foster competition, and jettisoning the rest.

All, strikingly similar to Governor Romney’s platform.




When President Reagan faced voters in 1984, the economy was growing at 6.3 percent and unemployment was down to 7.3 percent—it ultimately fell to 5 percent, as Old Dutch engineered a 92 month economic expansion.



If my math is correct, that would mean that it took less than 2 years for the economy to show strong recovery using those methods, rather than the ones we've used over the past nearly-4 years.



Listen to Governor Romney closely—he’s offering Ronald Reagan’s "Morning in America" all over again—not a replay of the inept Bush administration, as Barack Obama would have voters believe.



Plus, I think we should make anybody who does things like those $800,000 junkets in govt agencies pay dearly for such abuse of their public trust. That gal who just resigned from Homeland Security. There is a lawsuit (I believe) in progress, if that suit proves valid, she should be severely penalized ... also an abuse of her public trust as a govt employee/supervisor.

menmon
09-06-2012, 03:22 PM
Your facts are wrong....unemployment fell below 6% in 1996....never saw less that 7% during the reagan/Bush H era.

His growth strategy was triple the national debt; turning his back on farmers to turn plow shears into sords

huntinman
09-06-2012, 04:16 PM
Your facts are wrong....unemployment fell below 6% in 1996....never saw less that 7% during the reagan/Bush H era.

His growth strategy was triple the national debt; turning his back on farmers to turn plow shears into sords

What's a sord?

BonMallari
09-06-2012, 06:06 PM
Your facts are wrong....unemployment fell below 6% in 1996....never saw less that 7% during the reagan/Bush H era.

His growth strategy was triple the national debt; turning his back on farmers to turn plow shears into sords


What's a sord?


it was a feeble attempt to quote a lyric (from a well known liberal) Don Henley and his song "End of Innocence"

O' beautiful, for spacious skies
But now those skies are threatening
They're beating plowshares into swords


But it actually comes from the Bible, in more than one reference

Isaiah 2:4 He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes ...

And he shall judge the Gentiles, and rebuke many people: and they shall turn their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into sickles: nation shall not lift up

huntinman
09-06-2012, 06:08 PM
it was a feeble attempt to quote a lyric (from a well known liberal) Don Henley and his song "End of Innocence"

O' beautiful, for spacious skies
But now those skies are threatening
They're beating plowshares into swords


But it actually comes from the Bible, in more than one reference

Isaiah 2:4 He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes ...

And he shall judge the Gentiles, and rebuke many people: and they shall turn their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into sickles: nation shall not lift up

I knew what He or she was attempting to do...unfortunately, He or She didn't