Trickle down economics, seriously?!
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
If my memory serves me right, he suggested that instead of a secular government, Pakistani people need a government based on Islam, but in the post I replied to, he mentioned that he doesn't like politics and religion to mix. It can't be both ways
I wonder if he’ll change the name if DC or PR get statehood?
It works short term because if you give massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, they tend to spend more money on hiring and other ventures. Within five years or so the whole thing implodes and those jobs disappear while the former employers have already made many millions. Rinse repeat.
It's very flawed.
I'm wondering if the crowd change the lyrics to M.A.G.A when they're singing? If they haven't thought of that then they really are morons.
It does work to a point.
If the system is honest and small, and not subject to external forces, it can work.
A business owner; Barber Shop, Greengrocer etc, is far more likely to pay his staff better if he is taxed a fair amount for premises, profits, etc.
The owner wears the risk and should be rewarded for creating a business. If you squeeze him, he squeezes downwards.
However... the world went global. The economic principle falls over very quickly. Everyone gets squeezed.
I do understand and appreciate why many small American towns are filled with people that support the idea. They probably still operate to very fair ideals. They support a party that kind of worked for them.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re all marching right due to not educating themselves every year.
But as a principle, “Money trickles down” isn’t a fallacy.
It would only work in a closed economy. But with globalisation and the easy flow of money, self-interest kicks in and with that, failure of the concept.
James Dyson is one good example. Supports Brexit and yet shifts to Singapore for tax reasons.
In this particular case, it's not completely wrong: costs do tend to "trickle down". It's profits that basically never do.
The issue here is the rich will still look to trickle their wealth upwards even at the best of times. Heck, Kansas experimented with extreme Laffer style tax cuts not too long ago and it resulted in the state going completely broke with the wealth being hoarded by the richest Kansans. It doesn't matter how much you try and incentivise the elites, their inclination will be always to hoard and contain whatever wealth they accumulate, as has pretty much been consistently proven over decades.
It’s not. The gap is about 120k right now with Dems expecting mail from Monday pushing it to 130-135k. Dems are hoping they score at least 39% of white votes and a 10+ edge with NPAs and the electorate ends up no bigger than R+2 (which translates roughly to 250k more R votes than D votes on the day).
I don't think this is the decisive factor on this particular issue.
Not super bright red, but red nonetheless.
No they won't actually build a plant in the US, at best they'll create some bogus "marketing department consisting of out sourced forces" to tick the "bring back jobs to the US" quota for a tax cut. Put a building with several medium level management staff and voila. And for that several tens of extra good paying job the Government is subsidizing billions in tax cut. They'd just rather build a state owned phone co and subsidize it by only hiring US residents.
Now the bulk of their production, Even if they're expanding and hiring, they'll be hiring in China, and if not China it'll be Mexico, Cambodia, Indonesia, anywhere but the US. Nothing personal, wherever its cheaper that's where they'll go. They're not stupid, they're not gonna invest in the US knowingly 1 hour of labor is 5x anywhere else. They don't get rich by being stupid.
I've always been curious as to why there's a mild partisan divide between the two Carolinas. Is that down mostly to demographics?
In that case than the fault lies in the "targets of the tax cut"
if you give a cut to unproductive, and an inappropriate target then you will get a negative effect. In order to be effective this tax cut has to be surgically targeted and granted, with a team of auditors deciding in an authoritarian manner who'll benefit from the tax cut. A one for all all for one rule is the cause of the evaporation of the benefits. But off course that's communism, not capitalism
35% of respondents were over the age of 65 and 56% of them were women. I'd take this poll with a massive pound of salt.
Most modellers are expecting 160m+ turn out, or 67% of the pool of eligible voters, which would make it the highest turnout since the election of 1900.
Embarrassingly the same. My moment was when someone asked Nate Silver on his podcast if they would rename 538 if PR and DC became states.
Didn’t scroll this far before replying myself.For the record he said something like “feck no, we’ve already locked in our branding”.
Damn it, I need to read further down before replying.They said they wouldn’t!
The principle needed to evolve aggressively.
You can reward the top of the pyramid for being a success but you’ve got to tether that to the financial betterment of the entire system.
Businesses and owners could theoretically be given lighter tax burdens if they can demonstrate their entire operation and supply chains are enjoying/experiencing the benefits.
These could and probably should, be fluid. In years that you afford your ecosystem significant improvements, you get more relief.
In years you have clearly moved that ecosystem backwards, you pay the price.
Yes it’s complicated, but we started this shit on pen and paper. It’s not beyond us considering the tools available to us.
I sat next to a guy at a private auction viewing once. The point of view of the super rich is I think as follows:
they support tax increase, but also feel they do more good to society when contributing through their own vehicles than the federal government taking them. Yes he might have a $200m art collection, which is obscene by our standards, but he countered this with how much he donates each year to the homeless far eclipses that. The government aid is often attached to conditions x y z which just perpetuate situations. The other issue is, it’s impossible for him to lose money. However much he gives, he gets wealthier each year. This is a systemic problem that can’t be solved by tax.
they support tax increase, but also feel they do more good to society when contributing through their own vehicles than the federal government taking them. Yes he might have a $200m art collection, which is obscene by our standards, but he countered this with how much he donates each year to the homeless far eclipses that. The government aid is often attached to conditions x y z which just perpetuate situations. The other issue is, it’s impossible for him to lose money. However much he gives, he gets wealthier each year. This is a systemic problem that can’t be solved by tax.
Bigger population, more of a college culture, and research triangle etc. Most states with large population centers are gradually drifting blue, so the presence of Charlotte will continue to move NC further in that direction.
Nice one.
The problem with this is exemplified by the Gates Foundation. Don’t get me wrong, they are amazing when it comes to infectious disease funding, but that is the inherent problem. The NIH will fund basic non sexy research because there is no altruistic honcho directing where the money flows (well congress does ear mark some of it). Many of the breakthroughs that are driven by the work of philanthropic groups like the GF are based completely on the basic science that must come before it.
Yeah because "the rich" all give more that 200M each year to the homeless. It's obviously not an exemple you can generalize.
Not in a Taliban or ayatollah format. I want a Pakistani government to have Islamic principles - not religious tyranny.
Unfortunately people automatically assume islamic govt =r eligious tyranny.
Embarrassingly the same. My moment was when someone asked Nate Silver on his podcast if they would rename 538 if PR and DC became states.
Im not that wounded. It’s rare to ever see the number anywhere.
I’m in England. I think many folks would know that 270 is the magic number, but almost nobody would know the EC values for any single state, far less the total available.
Equally, nobody naturally sees ‘538’ as being 270 vs 268.
You sat next to an exploitive piece of shit to be fair.
You’re also talking nonsense. There is no system that stops giving more than you make. That person could give you all of their money tomorrow. He won’t make it back this year.
If companies were taxed adequately, they’d cut their cloth. They should be forced to invest in the markets they profit from. It’s not difficult.
I only knew 538 name reasons after listening to their excellent podcast in 2016 election buildup
Also : I guarantee that most decent people here donated a higher % of their personal wealth to ‘causes’ in the last year than Bezos. Be that to a guy at a subway station, a family member, charity, or a product of their own time.
$200m would be nothing to him.
People don’t understand numbers.
You definitely need some sort of balance. You couldn't say "Oh CA's homeless don't need government/taxes now because Buffett will cover it," but being able to come in fast and hard as an individual to address holes in the safety net is quite valuable. Obviously the ideal solution is to eliminate homelessness entirely, which should be the goal, but in the absence of that it's valuable.
To eliminate it entirely I believe you'd need some sort of systemic change beyond changing the tax system. Commit to giving every person in the USA a home of a minimum of 60sqm ffs, it's not like you lack space. Employ those people to build those homes. Fund drug support services. And sure, pay for it by taxing the super rich 85% over a certain income. I'm sure most would be ok with it. But tax them that 85% and keep the status quo? I'd say feck off to that.
I have a very limited grasp of economics but arent you supposed to decrease taxes during downturns to increase spending?
I support a progressive tax plan and taxing the rich, but most business big and small are struggling right now levying more taxes doesn't sound like the best idea tbh. Biden should ideally wait for the economy to recover before implementing his tax plan.
I support a progressive tax plan and taxing the rich, but most business big and small are struggling right now levying more taxes doesn't sound like the best idea tbh. Biden should ideally wait for the economy to recover before implementing his tax plan.
All that adds up to though is 'rich guy more likely to give his staff more money if he has plenty' which sadly doesn't actually reflect the reality of the business world. Also you are putting your fingers on the scale in your example, by talking about 'a fair amount'. Who exactly gets to decide what a fair amount is, the business owner?
With a minimum wage in place, there is very little room to squeeze downwards, and what room there is should already have been squeezed simply by good business practices. This is where a large part of the myth comes from. Businesses do not have the freedom to simply cut staff at will, staff are an essential part of the operation in the first place. If you can cut staff without damaging your productivity (and thus your profit margin) then you should have done that already regardless of any tax considerations.
Where do you get the idea that big businesses are struggling?
Yup.
I believe that the individual tax (67%) is only for people who earn more than 400K USD (and it starts only after the first 400K USD are taxed as they do right now).
The ultra-rich should be taxed heavily, and even more important, the loopholes should be closed. Netflix paid less in federal taxes than the yearly Netflix subscription.
- Status