This isn't the first time I have heard this story lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
Printable View
This isn't the first time I have heard this story lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
Quote:
Originally Posted by William
I have no doubt, but this doesn't prove trickle down. I think my previous posts covered my view as to why.
Hows it not? I guess until you became an employer, you won't have personal experience how much employment tax + income tax you have to pay per employee. Furthermore, how much tax break will effect your hiring and expansion decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMat
As I mentioned before, go to a public company stock holder meeting... heck buy a $1 stock and get invited to one. Most of the discussion/presentation is around the cost in labor, taxes, tax incentive and soon to sustain growth and finally make profit.
You remind me of one of my best friends who has this romantic and noble idea of equality - until one year he opened his own muffler shop. Now, he appreciates why the hard workers should earn more. He is also a big small govt proponent now. I dont know how he voted the past few terms, but he is still a registered dem. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB888
I don't disagree with anything you have said, except for most of it. I have owned stock and come from and have participated in a long line of people who own businesses and employee many people, by the way. (my mistake, didn't think logic needed a resume and I thought it was no ones business but my own) I appreciate how you assume a person who disagrees with you must be ignorant, makes it a joy to try to express my opinion as logic and information will never mean anything to you as they don't align with what you believe. Don't mean to be a dick, but I get grumpy when disrespected. Patting a man on the head and calling them an ignorant dem. is a good way to get someone angry.
Just to express it differently, true, rich people employee poorer people, generally, depending on how the business is doing.
that said- the theory of trickle down is that by making the rich more wealthy the money will be handed down to the poor, there by making them rich too. I disagree with this. Money trickles, always, up and down. trickle down is a theory that has not been solidly supported by macro economic history.
To continue, a rich person can start a company and create many jobs, true! But ask ANY business owner why they succeeded and it is not that they had a ton of money when they started and they poured all of their money into their company, that is a perfect example of a failed venture and a now bankrupt business person! A company will succeed by drawing in customers who spend money at said business, at which time a business can spend said money as it needs to grow and pay out dividends to those invested.
The wages paid, bonuses given, tools bought, etc. pass through a boss, but it is just a redistribution of the money spent by the customers.
The key is who spends more of their income, who spends more as a customer, and as expressed in previous posts, it is not the rich man, the rich man puts his money in the bank or in some off shore account, the poor MEN spend all of their money here, at small businesses that rich men own, as they are too poor to not spend it.
I do not say what I have said because of any desire for equality, people will be poor, people will be rich, I have worked very hard to try to get into the later. As I have said. But to think that by making the rich, richer, everyone gets rich, just doesn't hold water, there is no evidence to support it, and the theory is too simplistic even when thought about seriously.
Saying that "I am a boss, and I pay people" means you forgot where the money came from. Hint: starts with C ends with -ustomers.
More examples, that will align with a right leaning thought process-
Q. Did Pres. Obama fix the economy?
A. I assume you will say no
Q. What was the largest measure to fix the economy?
A. Huge hand outs to Banks and GM
Q. Who runs and controls GM and the Banks?
A. Very very rich men
Q. Did Pres. Obama fix the economy with the hand outs?
A. Still no
Do I think being rich is evil. NO
I would have wasted a lot of time in school. I didn't have to work this hard.
I just don't like being feed a line by other men who want an edge by coming up with a shiny phrase to trick others.
It is just backward entitlement-
I am poor, I need your money (in handouts) so you feel better
vs.
I am rich, I need your money (in tax breaks) so you feel better
same thing- different dress
Bullshit, I want my money.
You failed to include couple things in your equation - Time/effort minus the 35% corporate tax. The money that I have earned is mostly from my OWN time. Most of business owners started as workers. We put in more time and effort to the point that we must delegate our work to our employees.
I hope you don't need explanation on the whole 35% of my effort are to be redistributed back to the lazy masses.
You over simplified the economy by saying that all of the money earned is from consumers. If that's the case every single start up would have succeeded and no one would be poor. It would be the perfect cycle.
Some of us work harder and/or smarter than the rest, and we share our success by hiring employees (per your definition). These next line of folks get equal opportunity to be successful too. By US chamber of commerce only 1 per 100 startup lasts into its 2nd year. Your definition of success is if these 100 employees are to be as successful as their employer - while mine is if I get to hire an extra guy or two thanks to some tax break, I have affected the next person in line - hence the money I saved from taxes have trickled down to my employee. Again, I have formed my opinion of you that since you have never been an employer, your 'theory' in trickle down effect is as good as my 40 year economic professor who have never once ran his own companies - he did however published a lot of books and paper.
A great example of successful trickle down tax break:
http://www.guidemesingapore.com/taxa...rate-tax-guide
Singapore has steadily reduced its coorporate and income tax from 26% to 17%. The first 3 years of newly formed corp won't have to pay tax on the 100k to encourage the rich to invest.
Result? I quote
Quote:
On 14 February 2007, the Singapore government announced that economic growth for the whole year of 2006 was 7.9%, higher than the originally expected 7.7%. Singapore's unemployment rate is around 2.2% as of 20th Feb, 2009. As of August 8, 2010, Singapore is the fastest growing economy in the world, with a growth rate of 17.9% for the first half of 2010.
I edited my previous post with more info after you posted this as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MB888
wasted post- sorry, just said the same crap over again. Ah, the miracle of the written word!
I guess you are asking to be treated like a juvenile. Money = payment for the value goods or service, hence your time and effort = money.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMat
Genius! I did say you left out the value of time and effort while you are so focus on 'customers = money.'Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMat
Its not a theory..its the way you have characterized yourself so far to me. The professor is years ahead of you, and yet he still cannot put his theory into action. BTW, within your definition, how do you explain expansion of economy? Also explain how there are more buying power dollars than the actual paper dollars. I am very curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMat
As far as the Singaporean economy, a quick search in google with get your answer. 4.5 millions singaporeans w/ more billionaires ratio than most nations. Poverty line is thing of the past... http://wphr.org/2010/andrew-jensen/b...success-story/
Want another example? Look into Chinese's copy of Reaganomic. Look up what the Chicom finance minister said about sending Chinese Economists to our top schools and applying reaganomics in the early 90s. You can certainly do your own research and learn what the communist chinese learnt from us.
I didn't want to mention Chinese previously obviously due to their minimum wage and working class treatment. Now, in the 21st century, the leadership are worried about the growing middle class. They are definitely curbing certain things lately.
awww.. don't be so butt hurt. I wish I have more time watching or listening to news radio. I am always behind on the news, but I do know what I am doing as far as economy or business.Quote:
-waste of time, you think I am a dumb child, I think you listen to too much talk radio and have come to enjoy the wool over your eyes, and believe your companies money falls out of your butt.
I will try to explain my view as best as possible, I lost my temper last time but I am not interested in an internet pissing match, nor being insulted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB888
Pulled from above-
Do I think being rich is evil. NO
I would have wasted a lot of time in school. I didn't have to work this hard.
I just don't like being feed a line by other men who want an edge by coming up with a shiny phrase to trick others.
It is just backward entitlement-
I am poor, I need your money (in handouts) so you feel better
vs.
I am rich, I need your money (in tax breaks) so you feel better
same thing- different dress
Money will trickle, both ways, and taxing one group more to help another, will not get anyone in an economy anywhere. Tax the rich more-fewer jobs, tax the poor more fewer customers. either way, we all fail.
What I support, so you can see an alternative-
A smaller government and by extension lower taxes for all of us. This fails as it is politically unpopular, as you can see right now as expressed by our Congress trying to cut the budget. Both sides trying to cut the hand that feeds the other side.
We'll just have to disagree. While the top tier of US income earners are paying majority of the taxes, you cannot really argue for 'tax break' for the bottom half who doesn't even pay taxes. You have mentioned that the lower earners actually pay more taxes combined - that's not true. Fact is the top tier still pay much more taxes than the 95% of the people. Walmart comparison is flaw too - All walk of life shopped at Walmart. I am a cheap bastard, I shop there along with TJMaxx, Ross etc so are many middle income folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMat
I know this is an extreme view, but I truly believe that the bottom 30% of the population will stay on the bottom 30% w/ very few expections. We have seen this in so many different countries who put so much effort to lift the bottom. Austria, Swiss, India are the top three to put so much money into social safety net. Germany recently pretty much said 'fuck it.'
During the reagonomics, the anti-reagan claimed that trickle down never worked because the poverty rate was steady at 30% - However, while the rate did stay the same, the US economy grew 30% during his 8 years, US federal income increased, eventhough by percentage to the GDP it drops or in short Reagan was able to increase Federal income by cutting down Taxes. I have yet seen one statistic where the federal income increases accordingly to the tax rate increase. Most of all, the middle folks enjoyed $4000 increase in median income (low inflation too). Yet, the 'poorest' of us were still on entitlement programs. The same unemployed were still unemployed while the US businesses were having hard time with hiring labor. So much so that US passed the 1986 Amnesty to the illegals to enlarge its labor pool.
Btw thanks for being the adult - I know I was being an ass. Thats just me when I argue.
I'm all for a flat tax. I think all citizens should pay a percentage of their earnings. Let's say 10% across the board, none of this garbage about the bottom 40% not paying and the top 1% paying the majority, 10% for everyone. I'm also for drilling here in America. We in America have oil wells drilled and setup to pump right now. We can start there and expand. Oh, and that also creates jobs.
E85 is garbage, less fuel mileage, less power, and an engine has a hard time starting on it in the winter. Only fill up with it (if you choose to) if your vehicles says it can handle it. The reason being it is not compatible with the rubber seals and plastic in the fuel lines and engine components. It will destroy them.
I think, after reading it and getting less pissed, we agree with each other-
I get the impression that you read what I wrote and got the impression I was a socialist. This couldn't be further from the truth. Try reading it thinking I am ultra-conservative.
I just don't want to fix the economy by only cutting taxes to the rich, that will not fix the deficit, nor bring the poor up. These are the tenets of the theory.
Laissez-faire with some rules, controlled government size and reduced tax burden for all will help much more. I do realize that you can't cut taxes on the very poor already.
I said the middle class pays more into the domestic spending, not taxes.
Try looking at the Walmart thing the other way, do you think there are a lot of people making $20,000 a year walking around Nordstrums, much less buying enough to support the business.
I agree regarding the poor too, poor people will always be poor, if they choose to, from my experience and people I have known, poverty is more of a result of a state of mind (or a couple of bad habits) than a state of being in all but a few rare instances. In the cases of the rare instance, I am fine with helping out. Single mom types.
What do you call job creation?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMat
If they went ahead with there venture they need too ad a new building at there manufacturing facility. They already have the talent to architect it and oversee construction, but they would need to hire construction workers. THey would need specialized equipment to the tune of about $5 million. They would borrow the money, but to get the rate they want they have to put 30% down. To do this requires lots of paperwork and contract negotiation. Their finance department is already swamped, so they might make the decision to hire another financial manager. Once the equipment is in place they will bring over some experienced machinists and operators from the other line, but they need that running at full capacity, so they will hire some new operators. Granted that last part requires customers, but before that there was construction work and several full time positions without a customer's dime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William
Sorry William, I've had this discussion 3 times, I'm done with it. My opinions are all out there in previous posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMat
hehe a rich man getting a tax break is the same as a poor man getting a hand out?
okie dokie.
when a rich man says "I need your money" just who is he talking to and what money is he talking about?
(above question is rhetorical)