Why do conservatives keep saying trickle down economics work?

Heck you don’t even need to watch the video if you don’t want to, just looking at the wealth gap, shows it doesn’t work the way they claim it does.

The myth MUST be prolonged and periodically resurrected to morally justify the rich getting richer while the wealth is in fact VISIBLY trickling up at the expense of those below. “Soak the poor” is the reality as a hard cold rain falls on the 90%.

Great answer @stanleybmanly but even the slowest among us, just have to look at the wealth gap and say, wait a minute this trickle down thing aint workin.
But the rep/cons keep pushing and say yes it is,now excuse us we have to give the wealthy more tax breaks,you know it is to help the working class and the poor why we give the rich so much tax breaks ,right?

Well you can’t bad mouth the “club” when it not only pays you but guarantees you membership. And the issue is always shabbily disguised as lessening the corporate burden in pursuit of jobs. As if those receiving the windfall would waste it on hiring people. Better to pocket it, buy another yacht or “invest” in slave labor offshore eliminating your “inefficient.” American workers.

Maybe they learned it in school and its hard wired.

It must be a Republican mantra.

I think the video’s explanation of why trickle down economics doesn’t work also probably explains why the average joe thinks it does—the average joe spends the majority of his income. His first-hand experience with money is that it flows steadily in and out of an individual’s pocket, circulating the economy. If that’s his frame of reference, then it probably makes sense to believe the trickle-down concept that more money in anyone’s pocket means more money available in the economy—perhaps especially so if it’s a large chunk of change in the pocket of someone extremely wealthy. After all, except for the amount of money in each wallet, would it really be that different? As the economist in the video points out, however, yes it is that different. The very wealthy handle money quite differently, mostly because they can. They don’t have to spend that money on necessities, and so they hold onto much of it or invest it in ways which increase their own wealth yet again. So the gap grows larger, and things get harder for average joe.

I wonder if a side-by-side comparison of how different it is to be in different monetary situations would help show why this theory falls short. Maybe a day/a month/a year in the wallet of someone very wealthy versus someone middle class versus someone near the poverty line—and then, too, how each of those people’s actions impact the larger economy. Basically, narrative examples that illustrate what the economist in the video was describing with pie charts.

I like that idea @Soubresaut ,but the wealthy probably wouldn’t it would show how off sided trickle down really is, and they would have to come up with a different strategy to continue their large tax cuts.

One reason is because some of these people have decided Reagan is like a God, and if they think one thing he did was wrong it destroys their current world construct.

Then there is the idea that they think paying taxes is being part of redistributing income and they hate that.

Lastly, they believe it because that’s what they have been told.

Then their world has been built on lies,told to them by the party they love above all else.^^^

It’s a great line. And a great excuse. Besides, what do they care if it works or not???

But they get working class Republicans to believe it, hell even poor Republicans believe it.
Shit it’s extremely plain as day doesn’t work,and yet they still believe it does.
WHY?

Because they really want it to, and their ultimate hero, Ronny Rayguns said so.

How long are they willing to wait to see if it is ever going to work?
Working class Rep/cons can’t be that dumb,or can they?

It’s their “go-to” phrase. Like a stuck record.

Sad and they claim Dem/libs are the brain washed ones ,yeah right.

Remember that these are the same people who say it is a good idea to take children from their parents & hold them in jail…oops, it’s NOT jail…hold them in dog cages!!!

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

And that delusion persists, and is whipped up by those raking it in.

That’s true. That’s part of the American dream. One day you too will be rich. That’s part of why our system resists, but it’s more than that. Capitalism is related to freedom, God, and why our country was so prosperous. These are the things people hold in their head. Socialism is akin to communism in many people’s minds, and most Americans believe communism is horrible. They can point to examples around the world in history. Russia, Cuba, China, places most Americans wouldn’t want to live, and I don’t think many people from other countries were banging on the door to get into those countries either.

It’s also not too hard to understand why many Americans right now don’t trust those in charge of the government.

Lastly, people are always afraid of change. Many of the countries geographically closest to America are full of corrupt governments and so America has spent many many years proud of our system by comparison.

Just to play devil’s advocate, how do you answer the following argument? Lowering corporate taxes makes it possible for them to sell goods at a lower price. Competition forces corporations to in fact lower their prices. The tax saving is thus passed on to consumers, most of whom are from the middle and lower classes.

The idea behind trickle down economics is not to minimize the income inequality. That is not even a goal of it. It is a thought process that says without boosting the income at the top, there is no growth and therefore everything else fails. It is the top of any company that decides what growth will look like and how it will be done. If the top of the income chain doesn’t feel they are making enough money, they don’t spend money to expand and create more jobs for those below them. If I start a business and suddenly the government is putting more and more taxes and regulations on my operation, I start getting antsy about making profit. I cut jobs to try saving costs since that is the quickest and easiest way to get income back up. If things get bad enough, I just close my doors and everyone is out of a job.
I see a lot of people on these pages that have the idea that capitalism is the only thing that causes income inequality. It isn’t. Pick any country you like and look at the hierachy. The wealthy are at the top. Always. They make more money and have more benefits than those at the bottom. Socialism and communism end up in the same places. In fact, the only place I have seen where income inequality is kept to a minimum is Japan. You have some of the biggest companies in the world headquartered there, yet they don’t give their CEOs multimillion dollar bonuses. There is a minimum difference between the top and the bottom. But I don’t believe that is driven by the government. It is an idea that the company is the entity that must be protected and fed and nurtured. All employees are there to help the company. That attitude permeates the entire organization. They pay their employees a decent wage because they know if they lose employees they have to train new ones and that isn’t cost effective. The employees know that if they aren’t giving their all, the company suffers and they suffer with it.

@LostInParadise I would answer the argument with: Have you noticed any price reductions on consumer goods resulting from the cuts in corporate taxes? Worse, there is clearly no benefit to the corporation or the society at large in the reduction of taxes on its millionaire executives.

@seawulf575 The problem with that line of thought can be seen in that passage beginning: “if the top of the income chain doesn’t feel they are making enough money, they don’t spend money to expand….” First of all it is necessary to distinguish between those taxes on executive salaries and the taxes on the profits of the corporations. Trump’s tax cuts inordinately benefitted both to the demonstrable lopsided benefit of those at the top—executive management and stockholders primarily from the same class. Repeatedly, every time these cuts are implemented, there is a short spurt of hiring and reinvestment, but the lion’s share of the cuts ALWAYS winds up lining the pockets of the 10%. The truth is that lowering taxes is a huge disincentive to both plowing money back into the business or expanding the work force. It works like this: In the 50s when the personal and corporate rates topped out at 91% there was little point in pocketing the huge profits to be taxed at 90%. The money was plowed back into the business to escape the tax man. Companies grew, and the value of stocks rose dependably as corporations were COMPELLED to think long term. THAT is the other thing Japanese firms have going for them—emphasis on long term advancement vs. the churning shortsighted greed around policies based on quarterly dividends. Little analysis is required to understand that when corpoations and their executives are no longer required to shoulder their share of the load, the money previously available for employee benefits such as health care and pensions “mysteriously” disappeared.

Well. In principle, there is some decent logic with trickle down. THE problem is that it is a system that overlooks greed. If not for greed, it would have a chance to work how it was designed to.

Perhaps it cannot coexist, with capitalism…

@MrGrimm888 I agree…the key is greed. Unfortunately, we are humans and it is part of us. As I said, it isn’t just capitalism or trickle down economics. Greed shows up in every method of ruling we have. Someone always wants more. And those in power always stack the deck to help themselves. Look at Congress as a fine example. There are many in Congress that enter their term as well off and within a few years are millionaires. How does one do that when the salary is only $200k (or less) per year and they still have to maintain a residence in DC and in their home state? They stack the deck to favor themselves. Much like execs in the private sector.

@stanleybmanly It isn’t just tax cuts that causes the wealth to be at the top. It is what the decision makers deem as important. In the company I work for, they are cutting back on everything…except executive salaries and especially bonuses. That is just how they set things up from a budgetary aspect…dividends for investors are top and bonuses for execs are a close second. After that, it becomes a lot more murky.

All of this is true. But the tried and true method of regulating greed—the method proven effective time and again is through manipulation of the tax codes; which is why the pressure is so intense from the top to eliminate taxes on the rich.

I am going to sorta agree with you @seawulf575 , but that isn’t how it’s sold to the lower income brackets, this last great tax cut for the top was sold saying it was going to put $4000 dollars back in the pockets of the average working joe,which later was an all out lie..

And for growth it was more true on how @stanleybmanly said, corporations would build their companies instead of paying a huge profit tax.
Now there is no say what corporations and the wealthy will do with the huge tax cuts,nothing says they have to grow their companies,or hire people most cases lately they don’t.
which does little to nothing about making your America great again.
The wealthy if you watched the video only spend about 30%, the average working joe spends about 92% and the poor spend 100% of their income seems like the lower classes are putting more back into the economy than the wealthy are.
So if the lower classes have more income THAT will grow the economy ,not putting more in the pockets of the wealthy.

@stanleybmanly And that is the greed aspect. If you are wealthy, you want to stay that way. You want to maintain your lifestyle. It’s human nature. I recently had an error on a paycheck. They withheld 71% of my gross. Ouch. Thankfully I have savings and am not living paycheck to paycheck. But if I had to live on 29% of what I gross? I couldn’t make it. Pretty much the same situation for the wealthy. And if I was wealthy (really rich) I would push for anything that protected my wealth. You would too, if you were honest. But none of this is due to trickle down economics. Look at the USSR. The well-to-do were taken care of, everyone else was not. Look at communist China. The upper echelon is well taken care of and the proletariat are not. Even look at Sweden. The Swedish royal family is WAY richer than the average person with a personal fortune of over 27M pounds as well as all their needs taken care of and the ownership of 11 palaces. All care of the working folks. Face it, nowhere gives control to the workers.

@SQUEEKY2 No elected official in their right mind would push for a tax bill that said “we want to make the rich richer.”. It doesn’t happen. It is sold to the workers by telling them what’s in it for them.
But none of this really has anything to do with trickle down economics. It is really a discussion about greed. And the ironic part is that people, out of greed, feel they should be entitled to a larger slice of the pie. Not saying it’s right or wrong…just ironic.

The Swedish royal family wants for nothing, but is not pressuring its government to eliminate child care to further enrich itself. The point is that greed is inevitable, and the way you keep it in check is through the NECESSARY regulator of taxes on wealth. As I stated before, there was no shortage of millionaires and our economy was NEVER better than when the top tax bracket in this country was 91% and that rate was sternly enforced. The thing that must be understood is that it is both a proper and necessary function of the government to determine where the economic benefits are distributed. If you are not in the top 10%, your government is failing you, and that failure is intensifying to the extent that the predictable cracks (Trump, etc.) appear and expand before us.

And I can’t emphasize strongly enough the importance of Squeeky’s point. It isn’t bad enough that money is flowing inordinately from the 90% to the 10%. There is the unnoticed but crippling effect of that money steered to the 1% being effectively hidden away and removed from economy.

It’s sold to the lower income brackets as trickle down economics, and if the wealthy get their big tax breaks it trickles down to them, but it doesn’t ,it just gets the rich richer on the backs of the working class.

What gets me and remember when said when I sorta agree with ya, the concept is there but as you said greed gets in the way.
But to me it seems the republicans push this trickle down fantasy to the working class far more than Democrats ever have, and the conservative working class buys it every time,only to be disappointed when none of the trickles get to them.

@stanleybmanly The Swedish royal family wants for nothing. Yet there is a huge income inequality between them and the lesser folks. I find it interesting that you make excuses for them. By your reckoning for everyone else, they should only be making 2.7 million pounds and the rest should be going to the people. Yet you don’t see it that way. Now if it was anyone else you believe they ought to be taxed at 91%. But you also have a slight flaw in your idea. The 91% (and I have seen it stated as high as 94%) was not the income tax rate on the top 1% or on corporate income. It was a marginal tax rate. That means that income (taxable earned income only) above a certain value was taxed at that rate. If you took the rate used in 1944–45 of $200k for a married couple and moved it to today’s value, you would be looking at something like a couple having to have taxable earned income in excess of $2.5M per year and then, only that portion over that amount would be taxed at the higher rate. So if I made $2,500,100 dollars in a year, I would get taxed at the normal rate on all of it except $100 which would be taxed at the 91% rate.

@SQUEEKY2 while it is true that the Repubs push trickle down economics, you need to be fair in your assessment. The Dems don’t do anything better when they have the power. When Obama was president, taxes went up while incomes went down. The wealthy got wealthier (especially if you were a big donor to Obama) and the poor got poorer. The middle class shrank significantly in size during those years, and the income inequality grew. And I’m not suggesting the Repubs have anything better. The problem isn’t which party is in office. It isn’t what you call the game you play. It is strictly greed. But it is also the same all over the world and it always has been. There have always been the haves and the have-nots. I suppose on an incredibly small scale of no more than about 50 people, you could have a situation where everyone pitched in and there was no inequality. But when you get more people, the greed goes up and the anonymity goes up and you start having things start to veer off.

So be it conservative or Democrat, as working middle class average joe you have to start calling the greed out.
Instead of a 1.4 trillion dollar tax cut to the super rich how about universal health care?
How about making universities not so expensive so the average person does have a chance at your American dream.
To be fair every time Obama wanted something like that Republicans got their tits in a wringer saying OMG how are we going to pay for that?
But billions of dollars increase to the military, not one screamed how are we going to pay for this?
A 1.4 trillion dollar tax cut to the wealthy NOT one screamed how are we going to pay for this.
But affordable health care for everyone,OMG that will bankrupt the nation.
GREED is going to be the downfall of the conservatives this fall,but please don’t believe me just sit back and watch.

And I should add, with the Koch Brothers own study shows it would be cheaper to have universal health care over what you have now, and yet it seems the conservatives still think it is just the first step toward communism, I mean you got to keep those over priced health insurance companies fleecing the the working class NOW that is real GREED.
It should be called bend over and take it economics.

@seawulf575 I don’t mean to make excuses for the Swedish royal family. They have more in common with animals in a zoo, because they are in fact an institution of the state—like the castles they live in and the jewels they wear.

https://youtu.be/aKprV0ud42A

And this little gem as well…
https://youtu.be/qp9xTwQet2A

Trickle down has never worked,and when Ronny Reagan saw that he rolled back those tax cuts for the wealthy,BUT the conservatives still play this broken record to their base, like promising $4000 dollars in the pockets of the average working joe,that never happened but the wealthy got theirs,Heck Trump’s son in law will get back in the tune of $14million,mean while wages for the average joe have stagnated since the late 1970’s.
And the only argument is well things are not any better from the Democrats when they were in power,that’s all you got?

@SQUEEKY2 You seem to think I have the answers or that I am a big proponent of trickle down economics. Time to go back and re-read my posts. What I have said is that human greed will get to the same end point every time…regardless of what economic model you choose. You are hugely trying to slam trickle down. Have at it. But let me ask…what else are you suggesting? You’re Canadian. Do you really believe there isn’t income inequality in Canada? Really? There is. It’s almost as bad as the US. But the problem is not your economic model. Every economic model ends up with layers of income. And here’s the clue: the wealthy always get richer. The only way to stop that is to stop people’s incomes at some maximum. But if you do that, you kill any incentive for ever investing in anything. Why should you? Why would you want to be a CEO when you aren’t going to make any more than the broom pusher? Why take on the extra responsibility and headache when you can be a drone instead and live the same way? Why start a business when others are going to benefit from the risks you took and the sweat you gave? Because that is what all this talk of income inequality is actually pointing at…everyone makes the same amount. So then let’s play that out. No one wants to start a company, no one wants to run a company…jobs fail and everyone becomes poor. Except the ruling class. Oops! there’s that income inequality again. But wait! All of our leaders should make the same as our least skilled workers. So no one will want to be a leader since they won’t be making any more money than the entry level job, so we will have no countries. It will be chaos right up until someone decides to take control by force and put themselves at the top again.
You come at me like I am supporting Trickle Down Economics. But I really don’t see you putting forth any other ideas. Universal healthcare is all you have suggested. But that doesn’t resolve it either. You have that in Canada and still have income inequality. So tell me, dear, if you could wave a magic wand and have any time economic structure, what would you make?

Once again, you seem to be telling us that since inequality exists everywhere, there is nothing to be done about it in the place leading the world with economic inequity. You then imply that those of us arguing for reductions in wealth extremes want doctors and dishwashers to receive comparable salaries. Of course both suppositions are once again ridiculous. Of course SOMETHING can be done about it, otherwise there would be no difference in stratification severities in the U S, Canada or Sweden. Here’s a clue and an amazing coincidence. For some mysterious reason it turns out that the place with the greatest resistance to taxing its billionaires also suffers the greatest extremes between wealth and poverty. You admit that Canada fares better than us on the subject without recognizing that one REALLY big reason for our lagging behind them is that universal healthcare you mentioned. Sure, the rich still can get richer in Canada or Sweden, just as you admit, and your admission of that fact locks up the argument that both the United States and Canada should strive for Swedish outcomes. And the truly hollow argument that reining in greed eliminates entrepreneurs and leadership is just plain silly. I ask you, if greed is the problem, which of the 3 systems is best at controlling it and which is failing miserably? And finally, let’s address the argument that the government must fail at social engineering toward a more equitable society. I can slap that one down through noting that the government has ALREADY succeeded at engineering every advantage to favor those who OWN the government.

@seawulf575 Of course there will always be different pay scales, and yes hard work should be rewarded, the problem with the average working slob hard work hasn’t been rewarded.
Since the late 1070’s the working slobs income has increased 4%, while those at the top have increased 400% That is what is wrong.
Now (not you) but the party you firmly believe in says it will boost things if we give those at the top a huge tax cut,they believe they will expand their companies and hire more,but that hasn’t been the case for some time,they just invest it where it brings them the biggest return,or just sit on it.
Wages for the average working class joe have been stagnant for over 30years.
We have had better wage increases for the working joe in Canada than you have had in the US.
But shit are we taxed, but at least we have some good social safety nets , such as universal health care,to rely on.

Sorry should have said the late 1970’s NOT 1070’s me bad.

There are a few things you miss with your assessment. First, I don’t firmly believe in the Repubs. As I have mentioned a number of times, I am an Independent. But I am also a conservative so I firmly reject the Democrat/Socialist Party. That might be your confusion. As for the corruption of either party, I don’t see any difference. They are both driven by greed and personal gain. The only difference I see is the path they want to take to get there.
Another issue you missed is that the real difference between the really wealthy and the working Joes isn’t how much their income has increased. I believe you are comparing apples to oranges. Most of the really wealthy don’t get a lot of earned income. Ask Warren Buffet. He makes more money off dividends than he does earned income. He makes next to nothing as “earned income”. Dividend income gets taxed at a different and much lower rate than earned income. Raising the taxes on the wealthy won’t get you to where you need to be. The real difference between how the wealthy get wealthier and the poorer folks don’t is the amount of disposable income available. If I earned $50,000 per year, but had a spare $500,000 to invest in the stock market, I could start building dividend income that would feed on itself and would allow me to stop working. I could adjust my lifestyle to allow me to accumulate more disposable income and build my wealth even more. Corporations do similar things, organizing the spending of their companies to first accommodate the stock holders and then the executives and finally the workers. So you are left with some choices. You can tax dividend income at a higher rate which will take away the incentive for investing and hurt the economy (why take a chance on investing and losing if you are going to get beat up on taxes anyway?) or you dictate how businesses spend their money which takes us back to why should you want to start a business.
My personal feeling is that we ought to start using a flat tax for all gross income of all sorts. Set it at 10% with no deductions and no loopholes. No differentiation between earned or dividend or qualified dividend or capital gains or even public assistance. 10% right off the top without favoring anyone. None of the loopholes of if you roll the income back into something else you can avoid getting taxed (please note that rolling an IRA into another IRA is not avoiding the tax since you will be taxed when you pull it out). The wealthy will be paying a whole lot in taxes since their deductions and loopholes will go away. Businesses would alter their operating model to accommodate the 10% before deductions. Meanwhile, the average Joe (or Joanne if you prefer) would actually see a smaller tax rate.
But these are my ideas. You haven’t actually come out and described your ideas of how things should work. You have only gone on about how wrong you think things are. Please…step up. Offer solutions instead of throwing turds on the table.

Most of the the repressed people don’t have an IRA and are living paycheck to paycheck ! Zero to invest so how is that going to work?

It is the amount taken away for the pool to pay for all the increased spending by Congress!
Can you spell deficit spending ^^^^ ?

Oh Mexico is going to pay for the wall.

@Tropical_Willie do you actually have a suggestion for improvement or are you just whining? Because I’ll be honest…it sounds like whining.

Put the taxes back on the “Rich and Famous” !
But that would adversely impact the Koch brothers and other high (and dollars) profile backers of the Republican party.

The wealthy shouldn’t just get tax breaks, as @stanleybmanly pointed out companies used to expand their business instead of paying a profit type tax I like that and have no problem with it.

Just giving these wealthy slobs a huge tax break what does that do for the economy,uh nothing.
I have always liked the idea of a flat 10% tax no deductions at all type thing,but a lot of people have problems with that as well.
But as long as there are working slobs to pay the nations bills, the rich will continue to gladly throw them under the bus while they enjoy their tax break Trump martinis .

@Tropical_Willie okay…that’s a suggestion. How much would you tax them? And what would you tax? C’mon man! It’s your time to shine! Solve this equation for us. So far I am the only one that has presented any sort of solution.

@SQUEEKY2 that isn’t a solution either. That is a gripe. What would your real world look like if you could wave your magic wand? Give a specific solution. It isn’t easy. If you dampen the wealthy too much, you take away incentive for trying to get ahead. If you don’t, you allow the wealth inequality to grow and continue to call it income inequality.

@seawulf575 I bow to your SUPERIOR intellect and your opinion of you being perfect.

What would you do; cut a deal with the Koch brothers too?

@seawulf575 There were times in history where the top tax bracket in America was 90%! We are very far from that. You do understand that the tax is only on income, not on the millions already accumulated in wealth, and the higher bracket is only on the money made in that bracket. So, let’s not use 90%, let’s use 40%. Let’s say 40% above $500k. That means the first $499,999 is taxed in the lower brackets just like everyone else making less than 500k.

So, a business owner making $510k adjusted gross, which is a lot of money, he probably is making $600k or much more gross, is only paying the 40% in my example on the $10k of his $510k. Do you really think the higher ax bracket is a deterrent for business owners? For small business owners? Most mom and pop business don’t come near that income. C-corps large corporations, are taxed differently. C-level executives paid over a million dollars get all sorts of benefits that help avoid taxes and they aren’t going to turn down higher salaries just because of the tax bracket.

The only time it comes into play is for married couples deciding if it’s worth having a second income.

I just wouldn’t give them a 1.4 trillion dollar tax cut, while making the working joe pay all the nations bills, the rest is I was agreeing with you .
You say you just can’t take the incentive away from the wealthy to get more wealthy, but uh isn’t that exactly what the Government is doing to the working class?
The latest tax cuts prove just that.
I am not against the wealthy getting richer,just not off the backs or the poor and working class, and that is proven by the stagnant wages of the working class for the last 30 some years.
While the wealthy reap the rewards off the hard work of the working class.

@Tropical_Willie when you present no actual suggestions, you are part of the problem.

@JLeslie You need to re-read about the 90% tax bracket. That was back in 1944/45. At that time, it applied to adjusted earned income over $200,000. That didn’t mean that if I made $250,000 I had to pay $225,000 in taxes. It meant I paid 90% on any adjusted earned income over $200,000. And that is adjusted earned income. After deductions and loopholes. So if my adjusted earned income was $250,000, I only paid the 90% on $50,000. However, if I managed to get my deductions and other loopholes to get my adjusted earned income below $200,000 I only paid normal taxes. And it had to be earned income, not dividend or capital gains income. So Warren Buffett would never get taxed at that rate. He lives on dividend income, not earned income.
My suggestion is still a 10% tax on gross income, of all sorts. No deductions, no loopholes. No different rates for dividend income or capital gains or even different tax brackets. Everyone pays the same percentage and no one gets deductions. I lose my mortgage interest deduction. I lose my deduction for being married, having kids, etc. There are no corporate deductions to hide earnings….nothing. If I make $20,000 I pay $2000. If I am Warren Buffett making $6000 per hour in dividend income, I am paying $5.256M per year in taxes.

@SQUEEKY2 I get that you don’t like tax breaks for the rich. So what is your proposal for doing away with it? Not increasing their tax breaks only goes so far. I’m not arguing with not giving them extra breaks. But the problem is how things play out down the line. What can be done to not kill growth in the country while not punishing the drive to be successful? Come up with suggestions is all I am saying.

Leaving it the way it was and paying down your nations debt, you know the debt that you conservatives bitched about any time Obama spent more than a dime.
Most of these tax breaks won’t do much or anything for the economy, some will be invested where it will bring the highest return,the rest will just sit in off shore accounts doing nothing but hiding.
These tax breaks are for the wealthy that already beyond rich.
Meanwhile the wonderful world of Trump conservatives are cutting an already approved pay increase to Government employees and veterans, saying it’s not sustainable REALLY?
Give the over bloated rich pigs a 1.4 Trillion dollar tax break.
But a $25 billion increase to hard working employees and veterans isn’t sustainable?
These people aren’t being punished for being extra rich they are being rewarded ,by not having to pay taxes they really should be paying.
How about giving the same percentage of tax break to people that make $50,000 and less a year now that would get the economy going, but no those are the ones that have to pay for these rich slobs tax breaks.
And you know it.
My solution give tax breaks only to those that show they are indeed hiring and expanding, and make the others pay the tax they should be paying.

My suggestions are contrary to your belief system which is to pay the rich (reduced taxes) to run the government with puppets !

Are you a puppet too ? ?

@seawulf575 I’m not sure why you go back to the 90%, when I never suggested getting close to that again. If the 90% bracket is on adjusted gross over $200k and your adjust gross is $250, then the 90% tax is on the $50k above $200k. I’m pretty sure you are saying the same thing I had said to you.

A flat tax with no loopholes definitely has an appeal for me, but we still would need to exempt the poorest of people. We also might get less donations to charities without the incentive for a tax break, so I’m not sure how I feel about that. There is somewhat of a game that the government plays to incentivize people to behave in a certain way.

Right now, we don’t have a flat tax, and not likely to get it. If we are going to have a progressive tax, let’s make sure the wealthy aren’t paying a lower percentage than the middle class.

You’re right, that right now capital gains is taxed lower, and so the very wealthy tend to pay lower taxes, because a good majority of their income is investments. That needs to be addressed. Part of their income likely is salary though. They need to be paid a salary in line with if they hired someone to do the same job they do—that’s the law.

@Tropical_Willie don’t they have that now, I mean a Government run by puppets controlled by the super rich?

I’m sorry for my North of the border brother, I meant to say GOP puppets !

;>0

@Tropical_Willie You continue to avoid actually being involved in the discussion. You are merely jumping in to snipe and then run away again. All I’m asking of you is a description of what you think a good solution would be. You keep trying to attack me by creating strawman arguments…assigning beliefs to me (which I have already shown through discussion that I don’t hold) so that you can try slamming me. Pretty sad really. You remain part of the problem.

I don’t call people IDIOTS @seawulf575 (you are perfect in every way in your mind). I don’t respect people that do.

The solution would not include your idea of taking the money from the middle and lower classes and giving the top 2% a tax cut. You mileage may vary.
The Republican Party is backed by big money from the 2%.

sigh You continue to be part of the problem. You continue to attribute things to me so you can attempt to slam me. Please, enlighten us all….where in this thread have I called anyone an idiot? Oh, that’s right, I haven’t. Hey! You know what else hasn’t happened? You haven’t actually given a suggestion about how to make things better. You just continue to do what is coming off as whining. That continues to make you part of the problem. Look at it this way: You see a condition that you don’t like…the wealthy getting wealthier while the middle and lower classes aren’t. So if you see something that bothers you, then think…what about that actually bothers me? Then consider what good would look like. Then make a suggestion on changes that could make good come to be. Why is it you just can’t do that? Are you really afraid that someone will disagree with you? Do you just not know because the liberal agenda didn’t actually go that far? If you aren’t willing to try making things better, then you are settling for the way things are and then whining about it.

@seawulf575 The problem is you are perfect, I know you will not disagree and walk on water when required.
Have you “CALLLED ANYONE ON FLUTHER an IDIOT ?
You are the problem as a self righteous self appointed protector of the ultra RIGHT !

ARE you part of the 2% or are you just a wannabe? ? ?

Don’t negotiate if you can kill the Jews, sick and infirm ! The rallying cry of the Third Reich !

@seawulf575 What exactly is your solution then?
You have stated it isn’t right to take the wealthy peoples right to accumulate more wealth, is that the Government handing them huge tax breaks,taxes they really should be paying.
Wait….a minute handing them huge a huge tax break almost like that is (GASP!) an entitlement!
The wealthy bitch that if they raise the working mans wages,EVERYTHING will have to go up just to compensate it, is that why wages have been stagnant for around 30years?
Just wondering?
The wealthy have grown extremely wealthy in the past 30 years while the poor and working class have not.
I know the GREED thing, but it’s time to start paying a real living wage and the wealthy to start paying their share of taxes.
The wealthy can receive tax breaks when they show they are paying their workin class workers a real living wage.

@SQUEEKY2 I have already stated that a flat tax would be a great start towards levelizing things. I have explained why. It isn’t the full answer, but it would be a step in the right direction without damaging the entrepreneurial spirit. Sadly, I am the only one here that has put forth any suggestions.

@Tropical_Willie Of course I have called people on Fluther Idiots. I am old school…when someone willfully clings to ignorance, I view them as idiots. And as I get older, my filter is getting pretty thin…I tend to say what is on my mind.
What I find telling is that you go out of a thread to try finding something to hurl at me. What that says to me is that you are obsessed with me. It tells me that you really aren’t interested in actually discussing a topic, but rather want to try spewing hatred. You only have name-calling and hatred and no actual constructive thoughts. I have asked you 3 times to join in the the conversation constructively. You absolutely refuse. What does that say? It says you don’t have a thought or are too terrified to make one, afraid someone might criticize it. I suspect it is the former since you really don’t seem to mind opening yourself up to criticism. You actually seem to seek it. Let me guess….you felt ignored as a child and found acting up got you attention?
You continue with the strawman arguments, you continue with the spewing of hatred, you continue with everything except being constructive. Amazing. I truly do pity you.

Elizabeth Warren has presented a bill with some interesting proposals. Of particular interest is a provision that would require that 40% of the corporate board be workers elected by employees. This is called co-determination and, according to the article, is fairly common in Europe. With representation on the corporate board, there would be a greater chance of part of profits going to the workers.

@seawulf575 and if you look up a few posts I did agree with you on that, but you said I was just bitching.

@LostInParadise I’m a big fan of employee owned businesses. They tend to be more focused on doing things well and efficiently. However, think about what you are suggesting. Allowing the government to dictate how companies run? That seems wrong at every level for myself. I can see how the government runs themselves, I really don’t want them expanding their incompetence and partisanship to the rest of the country unimpeded.

I don’t see how having a requirement for a certain percentage of worker ownership is equivalent to having the government tell how the business should be run. It may in fact be in the best interest of the company. It is certainly in the interest of the workers for the company to do well. After all, that is where their income comes from. Cooperation at a fundamental level could be a way of averting strikes. I would say that having major outside stockholders dictate things leads to shortsighted behavior that could hurt the company.

It is government telling businesses how they should run by telling them how they have to operate. When the government stipulates how they have to organize their corporate structure, it is limiting their operations. It might very well be the best for the company, but it isn’t the government that is responsible to the stock holders. So it is those people that should be making those decisions. Because if it isn’t good for the company, then what? I’ll give you an example: Sweden stepped in to dictate to industry how much profit they could make and how they had to spend any excess. Many industries realized how that would hurt their companies and they left…including IKEA. Recently, Sweden has backed off to allow companies their own latitude on operations and some of the industries are returning.

WRONG! Not having massive profit margins, doesn’t hurt anyone. As long as there is a profit, it is a successful business. There is usually plenty to go around. Greed is what fucks it up…

Why should stockholders be the only ones making the decisions? Stock holders may only be interested in short term gains, making decisions that could hurt the company in the long term. Employees have a vested interest in seeing the company do well. It makes good sense to give them a say in how the company is run.

@LostInParadise It true for USA companies made decisions for the next quarter; not so in Japan and other countries.

The first order of business should be a serious crackdown on white collar crime. The one thing the Mueller investigation has delivered thus far is the revelation that tax evasion and money laundering are now upper crust epidemics.

^How is that a “revelation? ”

The revelation is that most of the people caught up in Mueller’s net would almost certainly have gone undetected had not the peripheral investigation of Russian interference in the election stumbled upon the crimes. I mean if you look at these folks, their crimes were virtually right out there in the open. There was no sophistication or clever subterfuge. All you had to do was look. When massive criminal enterprise is so simple that a dummy can pull it off, you can bet your ass that there will be plenty of dummies eager to try their hand. Meanwhile our Congress has choked off funding for the IRS, depriving the enforcement branch of that agency of the resources to do its job. The FBI on the other hand has the wherewithall to chase a bankrobber with a $50 score to the ends of the earth and back.

@stanleybmanly I agree with you. White collar crime should be punished more severely than blue collar crime, in my book. I consider it more damaging to more people. If a guy walks into a liquor store, sticks a gun in the cashier’s face, gets all the money and then gets caught, he is arrested for armed robbery. Not a good crime, don’t get me wrong. But what did he do? He threatened one person, didn’t actually hurt anyone other than possibly emotionally. Meanwhile, you look at someone like Michael Milliken whose actions destroyed a lot of savings and loans. His actions were all white collar crime, but they impacted thousands upon thousands of people, some with devastating effects. The two crimes carried similar penalties Typical penalty for a 2nd degree armed robbery is about 3 years. Milliken got a mandatory 3 with up to 10 which was later reduced and he spent under 2 years in prison. In my opinion, Milliken should have gotten 25+years at a minimum. Until we jack up the punishments for white collar crime, it will continue and will intensify.

This is where the system is most clearly rigged as those making the laws very openly “take care of their own”.

I have a solution about taxes, 5% for everything up to $20,000 and 15% for everything over NO deductions you pay that on all money no matter how it’s accumulated.

The wealthy are far too greedy. Nothing will ever satisfy them. They will pay for their greed, as time goes by. Their offspring will suffer a terrible world that their own families created…

You mean poisoned water ways, polluted air, fields that won’t grow crops,thats ok because global warming is just a hoax orchestrated by China, and deregulating pollution laws help maximize profits.
And who needs that stuff when you have lots of ka-$$$ching$$ in the bank.

^I mean, these people who can’t withstand subtle criticism online, their children will be living in a world with raising sea levels, famine, disease, war, like humanity has never seen. It was all a choice too. In 50–100 years, it’s going to get very interesting. The only way for our species to get through it, will be through the power of coexistence.

The Trump administration’s destruction of the EPA, and climate saving agreements with the rest of the world will guarantee the short term profit from large pollution contributing corporations, and long term environmental impacts that could make the planet a living Hell…

They do NOT care,or see it as long as big profits are in the bank TODAY, who cares what tomorrow brings.
After all the world will have the US space force.

It isn’t that they don’t care. It’s a matter of which “care” takes priority. Profit and its maximization will ALWAYS come first, and the principle will always be rigorously pursued and defended.

VERY TRUE @stanleybmanly we just can’t say they don’t care,they will always care about big profits, and their donors and again you are right they will defend that to the death.
Climate, pollution, and the welfare of the average working slob ,not so much.