Gas Prices

[William]

I understand the theory, as its very simple, however, I have yet to find a single example of this working on a Macro scale. Things just don't work this way in the real world. Educate me if you have something, I just can't find the realities of it. Please don't just say "your boss is rich." This is evidence of capitalism, not trickle down theory.

My sister works for a small manufacturing company that was established around 20 years ago. The owners are so called rich people ie combined income over $200,000 a year (they were not rich before starting this company). Currently this company employs over 100 people. They want to start another venture but are concerned about regulatory conditions and corporate taxes under the current administration. This has kept them on the fence and they have not started the new venture.

[Byte Stryke]

My sister works for a small manufacturing company that was established around 20 years ago. The owners are so called rich people ie combined income over $200,000 a year (they were not rich before starting this company). Currently this company employs over 100 people. They want to start another venture but are concerned about regulatory conditions and corporate taxes under the current administration. This has kept them on the fence and they have not started the new venture.

This isn't the first time I have heard this story lately.

[BigMat]

My sister works for a small manufacturing company that was established around 20 years ago. The owners are so called rich people ie combined income over $200,000 a year (they were not rich before starting this company). Currently this company employs over 100 people. They want to start another venture but are concerned about regulatory conditions and corporate taxes under the current administration. This has kept them on the fence and they have not started the new venture.

I have no doubt, but this doesn't prove trickle down. I think my previous posts covered my view as to why.

[ChunkyMonkey]

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.

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.

[BigMat]

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.

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.

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.

[ChunkyMonkey]

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

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.

[BigMat]

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.
-Time and effort only produce money if you work at a mint-
the money came from somewhere-


I hope you don't need explanation on the whole 35% of my effort are to be redistributed back to the lazy masses.
-Nope, I agree

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.
-not true, only business that get customers would succeed. By your logic, all business started by rich men who put in a lot of time and effort will succeed, regardless of customers. Good luck with that.

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.
-I appreciate your theory of me. not what I am talking about, and I don't care. Good to hear I've been promoted from an ignorant dem. to a college professor with 40 years under my belt, slightly less grumpy. To get back to the point- you can hire a billion people, unless you make, as in print, money, you need to pull it in someplace. that is a fact. Unless you are the .gov, you are pulling it in from people who spend it willingly on a product or service.
-side note, you sure know a lot about business, maybe there is a professor you should thank.

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.

-Info presented is of a successful economy with no mention as to income levels. Best case, we are now 1:1 in terms of examples, not enough to prove a theory is fact, enough to start thinking it is an irrelevant item in the discussion, as I have been trying to explain!


Result?
-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 edited my previous post with more info after you posted this as well.

[BigMat]

wasted post- sorry, just said the same crap over again. Ah, the miracle of the written word!

[ChunkyMonkey]

-Time and effort only produce money if you work at a mint-
the money came from somewhere-

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.

-not true, only business that get customers would succeed. By your logic, all business started by rich men who put in a lot of time and effort will succeed, regardless of customers. Good luck with that.

Genius! I did say you left out the value of time and effort while you are so focus on 'customers = money.'

-I appreciate your theory of me. not what I am talking about, and I don't care. Good to hear I've been promoted from an ignorant dem. to a college professor with 40 years under my belt, slightly less grumpy. To get back to the point- you can hire a billion people, unless you make, as in print, money, you need to pull it in someplace. that is a fact. Unless you are the .gov, you are pulling it in from people who spend it willingly on a product or service.
-side note, you sure know a lot about business, maybe there is a professor you should thank.

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.

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.

-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.

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.

[William]

I have no doubt, but this doesn't prove trickle down. I think my previous posts covered my view as to why.

What do you call job creation?

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.