Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you have to look at the time and other factors to determine if trickle down economics works. Such as when first implemented during the Reagan years it worked great considering some were getting taxed in the 70% of their income? and went down to 28%? { I have a bad memory and maybe those are not exact numbers} No one can deny that the tax cuts did not gas the economy nor can anyone deny the gvt increased revenue 6 out of the 8 years of Reagan.
But keep in mind we still had a manufactoring base in the 80s which is different today where China and a global economy have shrunk our manufactoring base. So in other words our trickle down has gone global where other countries share in the benifit.
The little 5 % that we have been argueing over since Bush Sr really do not have much effect on the economy. Case in point, Clinton raised taxes and the economy still boomed. Why? beacuse of internet technology gassed the economy. Case in point 2, Bush cuts taxes but did that really gas the economy or was it the housing bubble? I say the housing bubble since when it crashed so did the economy.
Right now what is keeping our economy afloat? big gvt spending and QE gassing the stock market. In conclusion the 5 % does not mean squat and raising or cutting will have hardly any effect on the economy there has to be another factor that would gas our economy and history proves I am right.
But on the other hand a huge increase would have a very negative effect. For example, if the {D}s gained control and went crazy and raised the top rate to 50%. The economy would slow no doubt. I just wish we would go to a flat tax or sales tax and have everyone with skin in the game and stop debating the 5% year after year.
I think you have to look at the time and other factors to determine if trickle down economics works. Such as when first implemented during the Reagan years it worked great considering some were getting taxed in the 70% of their income? and went down to 28%? { I have a bad memory and maybe those are not exact numbers} No one can deny that the tax cuts did not gas the economy nor can anyone deny the gvt increased revenue 6 out of the 8 years of Reagan.
Revenue immediately fell after the Reagan tax-cuts and only rebounded after he raised taxes in the following years. In fact, revenue rose 80% in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988.
However, the 1980s recovery occurred years after the tax-cuts and can't be seriously considered cause and effect. Moreover, the Reagan years are a very good example of why when charting revenue numbers one must adjust for inflation and population growth, both which tend to increase revenues regardless of tax policy. Real revenue per capita grew only 19% over the same period. During the previous period, 1972-1980, real revenue per capita rose 24% and during 1992 to 2000 it rose 41%.
I keep thinking about trickle down, but it stops making sense to me when the government is too large. If you apply trickle down if the government is too big, eventually you will have a serious debt problem. On the other hand, if taxes are too high the rich will go somewhere else and the situation will only be slightly better than the worst case scenario.
I`m not convinced that the rich will go somewhere else unless they would flee to Haiti or Rwanda or some other impoverished nation. To the best of my knowledge there`s not another developed nation where they would get the deal they`re getting here.
I keep thinking about trickle down, but it stops making sense to me when the government is too large. If you apply trickle down if the government is too big, eventually you will have a serious debt problem. On the other hand, if taxes are too high the rich will go somewhere else and the situation will only be slightly better than the worst case scenario.
we still have trickle down. Big government takes money trickles it down to be wasted on companies like solyndra and other waist then trickle down just enough to enslave the poor to government
we still have trickle down. Big government takes money trickles it down to be wasted on companies like solyndra and other waist then trickle down just enough to enslave the poor to government
what I’ve been reading and hearing in various places, that the right-wing line is that it’s all Solyndra — that your tax dollars are going to pay for vast numbers of wasteful projects.
Now, even the Solyndra story is a lot more nuanced than that. But this seems like a good time to repeat, once again, the truth about federal spending: Your federal government is basically an insurance company with an army. The vast bulk of its spending goes to the big five: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest on the debt.
...
The amounts spent on anything remotely resembling Solyndra is a rounding error on a rounding error. It’s just not what your government does on any significant scale.
Revenue immediately fell after the Reagan tax-cuts and only rebounded after he raised taxes in the following years. In fact, revenue rose 80% in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988.
However, the 1980s recovery occurred years after the tax-cuts and can't be seriously considered cause and effect. Moreover, the Reagan years are a very good example of why when charting revenue numbers one must adjust for inflation and population growth, both which tend to increase revenues regardless of tax policy. Real revenue per capita grew only 19% over the same period. During the previous period, 1972-1980, real revenue per capita rose 24% and during 1992 to 2000 it rose 41%.
Depending what kind of lean you have would be a factor on how much emphasis a person would put on more gvt revenue. Myself, the gvt was taking in more money period. My emphasis is that there was a lot of building all over the country and if you wanted too work you could find it. I would trade the Reagan or Clinton economy over what we have now. The economy we have now is a dead man walking that is propped up by gvt spending and QE.
Depending what kind of lean you have would be a factor on how much emphasis a person would put on more gvt revenue. Myself, the gvt was taking in more money period. My emphasis is that there was a lot of building all over the country and if you wanted too work you could find it. I would trade the Reagan or Clinton economy over what we have now. The economy we have now is a dead man walking that is propped up by gvt spending and QE.
Those economies were better, no doubt. But the discussion was about taxes, which were much higher under Reagan than now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
