Lol 84% with Bernie and 81% with Rubio. I don't know how to feel about that.
Archived M2K2 Forum
I've heard of it, but I couldn't have a conversation about it. I confess that I'm not up to speed on many issues involving politics, and when I ask people who are very vocal on these issues to help me understand them, I often discover that they don't know what they're talking about either but like to pretend they do. At least I'm honest about my ignorance.
If trickle down economics works, then how do you explain the wealth disparity that's been getting worse every year for the past 4 decades, despite the fact that americans are working more?
I just don't believe that the wealth is re-invested for any other purpose than to expand the fortunes of those investing it. It might create jobs, but the wealth isn't trickling down, it's trickling up.
I just don't believe that the wealth is re-invested for any other purpose than to expand the fortunes of those investing it. It might create jobs, but the wealth isn't trickling down, it's trickling up.
Here's my theory on americans when it comes to attitudes about money. There are two kinds of people, type A and type B.
Type A has a goal to acquire wealth, and works towards that goal. They may or may not succeed, but they work towards that goal. They're often exceptional, talented, motivated people who work hard. They need type B people to work for them in order to make this happen, in most cases.
Type B may daydream about wealth, but they don't actively pursue the goal. The most common reason they don't pursue the goal is because they value other things more than wealth. They're also often exceptional, talented, hard-working people, but their motivated by other things than wealth because they have different passions. They are content to dedicate their time and work to help type A achieve their goal of wealth so long as they are compensated fairly.
Both types need each other, and when they both succeed at getting what they want from each other then everybody wins. Type A gets rich while type B lives comfortably but not lavishly. If type B isn't compensated enough to live comfortably, then their goals/passions are out of reach and they're not happy. It only works when both are happy. The type A's are doing better than they ever have, so it's not as if they can't afford to compensate type B fairly. Type A is killing their own golden goose.
That's why the social economic model is becoming more appealing to americans. If type A is too greedy, then govt has to step in so it doesn't all crash. I wish they didn't, but it sounds like they do.
Type A has a goal to acquire wealth, and works towards that goal. They may or may not succeed, but they work towards that goal. They're often exceptional, talented, motivated people who work hard. They need type B people to work for them in order to make this happen, in most cases.
Type B may daydream about wealth, but they don't actively pursue the goal. The most common reason they don't pursue the goal is because they value other things more than wealth. They're also often exceptional, talented, hard-working people, but their motivated by other things than wealth because they have different passions. They are content to dedicate their time and work to help type A achieve their goal of wealth so long as they are compensated fairly.
Both types need each other, and when they both succeed at getting what they want from each other then everybody wins. Type A gets rich while type B lives comfortably but not lavishly. If type B isn't compensated enough to live comfortably, then their goals/passions are out of reach and they're not happy. It only works when both are happy. The type A's are doing better than they ever have, so it's not as if they can't afford to compensate type B fairly. Type A is killing their own golden goose.
That's why the social economic model is becoming more appealing to americans. If type A is too greedy, then govt has to step in so it doesn't all crash. I wish they didn't, but it sounds like they do.
Quote from Firenukes777:
Government regulation in the private sector I think. If the Profits of US businesses is a good round number like 20 Trillion and the Government taxes 39.6% or 40 for simplicity then the government would profit 8 Trillion, leaving the combined group of businesses, or economy, 12 Trillion, with which most of will be re-invested to grow one's business and some set away for retirement, future costs and other things NOTE: the average growth of the US GDP per year science 2000 is 3.90%. The Government would then take the 8 Trillion, which they would pay towards the massive debt and would then continue to deficit spend at 121,067 dollars a second as of 2011. So the next year the Profits would be 20.78 Trillion or 21 Trillion so the government would tax it the same and both would make a little more. But if say, the tax rate to be lowered to, say 10% in the highest income bracket then the large Businesses would make after taxes 18.9 Trillion or 19 Trillion. I hypothesize that the rate of growth would more than double to ~7% per year increase. The way this supports the economy is that, included in the GDP are small businesses and that over time the government would see a major increase in tax revenue in as soon as 10-15 years. If the government can spend more on Roads and infrastructure then businesses can use those things, and in addition to this, businesses need to buy things. Offices need paper, Factories need metals. they can in turn get these thing from Paper mills and Mines, which in turn need to purchase more things and so on. the point of trickle down is not to be robin hood, merely it is better for all.
Of course it's not Robin Hood. In the tale of Robin Hood, he STEALS from the rich, and GIVES to the poor. Proponents of trickle down economics tout that the WORKING poor and middle class will benefit from the success of the rich, but the opposite is happening. Trickle down economics sounds like it's based on some kind of honor system, with the ball in the court of the rich. They're not compensating people fairly. I think they can afford to pay people more and still be insanely rich, but they're not. It clearly isn't working.