Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why doesn't "trickle down" work?

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 6:55:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Either employment is a real thing or something made up.

since the unemployment rate is not 100 percent, and it's illegal to enslave so only compensation can get employees, there must be something trickling down.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2010 7:47:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It doesn't work because if I've above you, I can take more than my own share and stop it trickling down to you.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 1:37:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 7:47:01 PM, tvellalott wrote:
It doesn't work because if I've above you, I can take more than my own share and stop it trickling down to you.

It isn't goddamn rain. You can't just take it, you have to make it. The trickling down happens when you seek labor to realize your planning on how to make it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 1:40:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
and again, tvelliot, that is falsifiable by the fact that employment exists. If what you say is true, no one would ever employ anyone.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 2:31:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 1:37:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/20/2010 7:47:01 PM, tvellalott wrote:
It doesn't work because if I've above you, I can take more than my own share and stop it trickling down to you.

It isn't goddamn rain. You can't just take it, you have to make it. The trickling down happens when you seek labor to realize your planning on how to make it.

At 11/21/2010 1:40:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and again, tvelliot, that is falsifiable by the fact that employment exists. If what you say is true, no one would ever employ anyone.

You capitalist dog.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 9:00:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Why don't we just increase taxes on rich people, and eliminate them on poor people. Tell the rich to chill because the wealth of the masses will trickle up to them.

Lower overall tax rate. Stops the left from complaining. Win win.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Howard69
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 10:45:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The general economic policy of "Trickle-Down" is a Supply Side theory that was put in place by Reagan and has gone fundamentally unchanged since it was adopted by the country in the 1980s.

What the "Trickle-Down"/Supply Side policies of the Reagan administration were designed to do was to increase the amount of money available to wealthy Americans for investing and developing businesses. This was intended to create an increase in production of products and services and hence and increase in new jobs. The reason that the policy is called Supply Side, is because the supply of goods increases before there is a demand for goods. So, in that case, the supply of goods is intended to then spark demand, resulting in economic growth.

This use of Supply Side policy led to a huge increase in consumerism and the use of credit. An environment of consumerism was created in American society through the media via advertisements, movies, and television shows, etc. that promoted consumerism. Consumers though, did not have the money to fulfill the desires created by society so debt was used to participate in the economy. Restrictions on credit were loosened under the Reagan administration making it easier for individuals to gain credit lines because the use of credit was essential to growing the economy because real wages were not going up for the average American, yet it was essential that the average American increase spending in order to fuel the economy.

The result of this is that American household debt is higher today than ever before.

The claim of Reagan was that "all boats would rise" by giving huge tax cuts for the wealthy. This did not happen. I don't think that was ever the real intention. The majority of boats stayed the same or sank, while only between 5% and 1% of the boats actually rose.

The truth. I believe, is that "Trickle-Down" was never intended to help middle income and poor Americans; it was only ever intended to help the wealthy and Corporate America.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 10:56:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
desires created by society
"Society" doesn't create desires. Advertisements can do nothing but inform you of what is available, it is up to you whether you want them. I've seen many credit card advertisements, I own no credit cards. Individuals are to blame for the poor decisions of individuals.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 10:59:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 6:55:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Either employment is a real thing or something made up.

since the unemployment rate is not 100 percent, and it's illegal to enslave so only compensation can get employees, there must be something trickling down.

This.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:04:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 9:00:08 AM, Sieben wrote:
Why don't we just increase taxes on rich people, and eliminate them on poor people. Tell the rich to chill because the wealth of the masses will trickle up to them.

: Lower overall tax rate. Stops the left from complaining. Win win.



What left are you talking about?

It does and did work.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:15:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
What left are you talking about?
The Pinko Comonist.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:20:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:15:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What left are you talking about?
The Pinko Comonist.

I have yet to meet the pinko comonist that is kept complaining if the tax rate is lowered. What's his name?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:31:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:20:39 AM, innomen wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:15:58 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What left are you talking about?
The Pinko Comonist.

I have yet to meet the pinko comonist that is kept complaining if the tax rate is lowered. What's his name?

seems to be giving his two cents a lot lately.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:44:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:04:33 AM, innomen wrote:
At 11/21/2010 9:00:08 AM, Sieben wrote:
Why don't we just increase taxes on rich people, and eliminate them on poor people. Tell the rich to chill because the wealth of the masses will trickle up to them.

: Lower overall tax rate. Stops the left from complaining. Win win.



What left are you talking about?
The annoying left. The ones who's only idea is to steal more from rich people.
It does and did work.
Yes but I'd rather not argue that it does. They have in mind a very simple "poor man gets shafted" vision of the market. The matter is actually much more complex. I'd have to educate them on capital structure, formation... even just nominal wealth outcomes are more complicated (in our favor).

So if restricted between the two, trickle down is harder to argue with leftists than trickle up.

tl;dr libertarians need to not get hung up on these little micro-battles like the this and the minimum wage.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 11:57:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 11:44:24 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/21/2010 11:04:33 AM, innomen wrote:
At 11/21/2010 9:00:08 AM, Sieben wrote:
Why don't we just increase taxes on rich people, and eliminate them on poor people. Tell the rich to chill because the wealth of the masses will trickle up to them.

: Lower overall tax rate. Stops the left from complaining. Win win.



What left are you talking about?
The annoying left. The ones who's only idea is to steal more from rich people.
It does and did work.
Yes but I'd rather not argue that it does. They have in mind a very simple "poor man gets shafted" vision of the market. The matter is actually much more complex. I'd have to educate them on capital structure, formation... even just nominal wealth outcomes are more complicated (in our favor).

So if restricted between the two, trickle down is harder to argue with leftists than trickle up.

tl;dr libertarians need to not get hung up on these little micro-battles like the this and the minimum wage.

Taxes are a fundamental issue of all libertarians. Lower taxes make the lefties squeal like pigs, so i am unsure of what you mean by your statement.

Their idea is 'a rising tide lifts all boats'.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 12:30:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 12:08:43 PM, Sieben wrote:
Cutting taxes on poor people will make lefties cry?

They never do that, although they may say that they do. By increasing cigarette taxes who do they tax? They never decrease taxes on the poor, but they just prefer to disproportionately tax the wealthy. Lefties want the poor dependent, and the rich less rich.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 12:57:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 12:51:02 PM, Sieben wrote:
Regardless of what their goons actually do, its easier to argue to reduce taxes on the poor than on the rich.

It's easier to get elected by the leftist base when you argue to reduce taxes on the poor, but the left are incapable of actually drawing any piece of law that would reduce taxes in any way.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 1:06:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 12:51:02 PM, Sieben wrote:
Regardless of what their goons actually do, its easier to argue to reduce taxes on the poor than on the rich.

The poor don't pay taxes. 47% of the population is owed more in federal help than they pay in federal taxes.

QED.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 1:11:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't want to give the wrong impression, the poor get royally SCREWED by many federal policies, but high taxes isn't one of them.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 1:23:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 1:11:56 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I don't want to give the wrong impression, the poor get royally SCREWED by many federal policies, but high taxes isn't one of them.

Exactly, the poor stay poor by many federal policies, and yeah not by taxes, and the poor still pay every consumption tax possible, and because of their sinful nature they pay all those sin taxes that are wise politicians put in place.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 3:43:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wow, what? I am so shocked to see the people that believe the "trickle-down effect" works.

The wealth of this country has absolutely nothing to do with some or each of its citizens. It has everything to do with all of its citizens, simultaneously. Thus, economic classes are nothing but the manifestation of various imbalances. Therefore, making rich people more rich actually requires that the other two classes are proportionately less rich.

The "trickle-down effect" requires the same rationale that leads to gentrification. It supposes that when rich people become more rich, our general quality of life will improve. But, it's something for which it seems we're still waiting, despite the fact that rich simply become more and more rich. Middle class is still $40-90k, the majority still fall within that range, and nothing is any more accessible. In fact, the dollar bill seems to be becoming weaker, since there's such an abundance of money, but it's so far weighed on one side.

With thorough exploration and analysis, you'll see that it's roots lay in a sole interest in rich "whites."
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2010 4:13:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/21/2010 1:06:29 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/21/2010 12:51:02 PM, Sieben wrote:
Regardless of what their goons actually do, its easier to argue to reduce taxes on the poor than on the rich.

The poor don't pay taxes. 47% of the population is owed more in federal help than they pay in federal taxes.

QED.

Right and wrong. Someone making only $20,000 a year is still taxed 28.8% (I live is Wisconsin so I am using their taxes also). However they 'supposedly' (I've made this much before but never gotten any of it back) get all or the majority of it back come tax time and the good ol' tax refunds. However one large lump sum of money doesn't help them for the previous year, and for the most part isn't used to prepare them for the future (due to having to catch up from the previous year, and in some splurge spending).
Noblesse Oblige
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2010 7:16:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/20/2010 6:55:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Either employment is a real thing or something made up.

since the unemployment rate is not 100 percent, and it's illegal to enslave so only compensation can get employees, there must be something trickling down.

When people say "trickle down" they don't mean that there is wealth moving to the lower classes.. they mean that there is more wealth going to the lower classes than is going from the lower classes to the upper class. Simply stated, if 10 units of wealth are transfered from class x to class y (employment), but the amount of wealth being transfered from class y to class x (consumption) is greater than or equal those 10 units, then you have a situation in which class x either doesn't grow in wealth or loses wealth and eventually goes into debt... which is exactly what is happening.

And all of that contradicts trickle down theory which implies that their will be a net gain in wealth for the lower classes (hence "trickle down")
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
Bipolarmoment
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 2:22:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 7:16:00 PM, DevinKing wrote:
When people say "trickle down" they don't mean that there is wealth moving to the lower classes.. they mean that there is more wealth going to the lower classes than is going from the lower classes to the upper class.

Wealth is not zero-sum. Also: wealth is a perception by the person accumulating it.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:55:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/23/2010 7:16:00 PM, DevinKing wrote:
At 11/20/2010 6:55:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Either employment is a real thing or something made up.

since the unemployment rate is not 100 percent, and it's illegal to enslave so only compensation can get employees, there must be something trickling down.

When people say "trickle down" they don't mean that there is wealth moving to the lower classes.. they mean that there is more wealth going to the lower classes than is going from the lower classes to the upper class.
The lower classes don't possibly have enough to replace that amount.

Simply stated, if 10 units of wealth are transfered from class x to class y (employment), but the amount of wealth being transfered from class y to class x (consumption)
Your notion of consumption fulfilling that class role loses me.

is greater than or equal those 10 units, then you have a situation in which class x either doesn't grow in wealth or loses wealth and eventually goes into debt... which is exactly what is happening.
It is not and cannot be, because there is no point in such a thing, it results in bankruptcy, which ends it.

And all of that contradicts trickle down theory which implies that their will be a net gain in wealth for the lower classes (hence "trickle down")
And there is such a gain. Modern living standards for the lower class are far higher than those, say, 50 years ago, which are higher than those 50 further years ago. It continues about 2 more times like that, then we go into the preindustrial age when the lower classes did not in fact receive improved standards of living.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:57:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It continues about 2 more times like that, then we go into the preindustrial age when the lower classes did not in fact receive improved standards of living.

Notably, at that time the rich did not improve their standards of living either.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 4:57:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 2:22:14 PM, Bipolarmoment wrote:
At 11/23/2010 7:16:00 PM, DevinKing wrote:
When people say "trickle down" they don't mean that there is wealth moving to the lower classes.. they mean that there is more wealth going to the lower classes than is going from the lower classes to the upper class.

Wealth is not zero-sum. Also: wealth is a perception by the person accumulating it.

If you're preparing a financial statement for your company it better be.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"