Republicans still going on about trickle down economics

Tax cuts deal rejected in DC, despite the presidents deal with the Republicans. Obama is proving that he has no backbone in making a deal with the Republicans who want nothing less than to continue this tax pyramid scheme. Democrats fortunately rejected it, however knowing how unreliable the Democrats can be, I'd wonder how long before this failed tax scheme is back in place:

WASHINGTON -- In a meeting on Thursday morning, the House Democratic caucus rejected the president's proposed deal on the Bush tax cuts but did not fully submarine the possibility of its passage, multiple sources tell The Huffington Post.

Members, by voice vote, passed a motion to reject the deal as currently written. The motion had been put forward by Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.) and was seconded, informally, by Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and Jay Inslee (D-Wash.).

"It was an indication of disapproval and a rejection of the deal as currently written," said one House Democratic aide.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I figured we may have learned? This way of cutting taxes from the top has not made a difference to the economy since Reagan made his historical cuts in the 80's. What follows is a significant rise in debt and a continuation of jobs being shifted overseas. I cannot believe people still buy it? I can understand why the Republicans are pushing for it, they have their lobbyist buddies to look out for it, the rest us, we suffer. I believe that tax cuts are necessary to the middle and lower classes, to small businesses and even large businesses that keep the jobs here. But tax cuts all around for mostly the wealthy, all of the wealthy?

In 1981-82 Reagan dramatically decreased the corporate tax rates to historical lows, what followed was our debt being tripled by the end of Reagans administration and doubled by Bush senior. Real income also decreased under Reagan and unemployment averaged higher during that time as compared to the 70's. People point to the 1982 GDP growth at a record high but this was a temporary positive response to the record tax cuts, and what followed was a real negative for this country. Bush junior? Spent nearly $1 trillion on tax cuts at the beginning and what followed was one of slowest GDP averages of any presidency.

What has the trickle down tax cuts done for us? Nothing really, aside from benefitting the wealthy and our jobs steadily being shifted off overseas. People are still deluded enough to think these top-down tax cuts are bringing or keeping jobs here, they are not. I believe that tax cuts can be effective, I believe that in a relatively stable economy tax cuts for the middle class and lower classes, for small businesses can actually stimulate the economy further and benefit. But this idea of cutting taxes for mostly the top and insisting time and time again it will do one thing when it doesnt, I cannot for the life of me understand.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Tax cuts deal rejected in DC, despite the presidents deal with the Republicans. Obama is proving that he has no backbone in making a deal with the Republicans who want nothing less than to continue this tax pyramid scheme. Democrats fortunately rejected it, however knowing how unreliable the Democrats can be, I'd wonder how long before this failed tax scheme is back in place:

WASHINGTON -- In a meeting on Thursday morning, the House Democratic caucus rejected the president's proposed deal on the Bush tax cuts but did not fully submarine the possibility of its passage, multiple sources tell The Huffington Post.

Members, by voice vote, passed a motion to reject the deal as currently written. The motion had been put forward by Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.) and was seconded, informally, by Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and Jay Inslee (D-Wash.).

"It was an indication of disapproval and a rejection of the deal as currently written," said one House Democratic aide.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I figured we may have learned? This way of cutting taxes from the top has not made a difference to the economy since Reagan made his historical cuts in the 80's. What follows is a significant rise in debt and a continuation of jobs being shifted overseas. I cannot believe people still buy it? I can understand why the Republicans are pushing for it, they have their lobbyist buddies to look out for it, the rest us, we suffer. I believe that tax cuts are necessary to the middle and lower classes, to small businesses and even large businesses that keep the jobs here. But tax cuts all around for mostly the wealthy, all of the wealthy?

In 1981-82 Reagan dramatically decreased the corporate tax rates to historical lows, what followed was our debt being tripled by the end of Reagans administration and doubled by Bush senior. Real income also decreased under Reagan and unemployment averaged higher during that time as compared to the 70's. People point to the 1982 GDP growth at a record high but this was a temporary positive response to the record tax cuts, and what followed was a real negative for this country. Bush junior? Spent nearly $1 trillion on tax cuts at the beginning and what followed was one of slowest GDP averages of any presidency.

What has the trickle down tax cuts done for us? Nothing really, aside from benefitting the wealthy and our jobs steadily being shifted off overseas. People are still deluded enough to think these top-down tax cuts are bringing or keeping jobs here, they are not. I believe that tax cuts can be effective, I believe that in a relatively stable economy tax cuts for the middle class and lower classes, for small businesses can actually stimulate the economy further and benefit. But this idea of cutting taxes for mostly the top and insisting time and time again it will do one thing when it doesnt, I cannot for the life of me understand.

edit on 9-12-2010 by Southern Guardian because: fixed

THEGUBBERMINT DOESN'T "SPEND" MONEY FOR A G-D TAX CUT!

THEY JUST DON'T GET TO BLOW SO MUCH THEMSELVES.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I wrote this some time back.

Why trickledown economics works!


I’m trying to be the lest political I can but the most ignorance I find on this board comes from liberals or democrat supporters. Their arguments come as “if you give tax breaks to the rich they are just going to send their money to off shore bank accounts.” Or “they are so rich what’s another million extra dollars when they have 10 million already” another favorite is “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” I find all these statements as talking points from the MSM. They provide no evidence and no substance and come from people who I believe have no concept of the market and how business is ran.

Why do the “RICH” need tax breaks? Simple, they need more money to start businesses and open up branches in new markets. Let’s create a business model. Let’s say the federal corporate tax is 35 %( I believe this number is correct) and state corporate tax is another 10%. (California) So right off the bat you are going to pay 45% in any gross profit.

Let’s say your net sales is $5,200,000 (revenue) for the year and you’re a small construction company

A good guess of goods sold would be (cost to supply jobs and finish)
Materials $2,200,000
Labor and Burden $1,213,000
Subcontract $87,000
Total Cost are $3,500,000

This leaves us with $1,700,000 Gross Profit and 32.69% margin (margin is the percentage of return on our sale, our $5,200,000 number)

But wait we must now pay for overhead! (the cost to keep the doors open and pay admin)

General and Admin expenses
Insurance $237,000
Facilities Expenses $84,000
Vehicle expenses $241,000
Other $656,000
Total overhead expense $1,218,000

We are now left with $1,700,000- $1,218,000 = $482,000 profit at 9.27% margin (margin is the percentage of return on our sale, our $5,200,000 number)

Now its April 15th, Time to pay taxes!!! Our profit of 482,000 must now be taxed at 45% so $216,418 gets taken for taxes. We are now left with $265,582 our company made for the year at 5.10% Margin (margin is the percentage of return on our sale, our $5,200,000 number) and this is a very conservative number. Company usually make about 3% return on investment!

So we invested 5.2 million dollars to make $265,582! These are true life real numbers. It takes a lot of money to invest and make money. And to be able to finance this work for the year the company need to have 5.2 million in the bank! So when you libs talk about company hording money in banks that’s not the case. The companies need this money in the bank to finance the jobs and as insurance if anything goes wrong.

So the next year we have 265,582 to invest with. We need at least $350,000 to open another branch and start work but since 45% went to taxes we have to wait and save till next year to open up another branch and hire more people to bring in more money. If we were taxed only 25% this number would have been achieved and we would have hired more people and started up more jobs!

These are the number and numbers don’t lie. You need a large bank roll now a day to make a little money. If only our taxes were cut for company it would take less money to start up more companies in more markets to gain more jobs. simple as that.

Remember the owner of the company is forking out 5.2 million of his own money for this company. if it falls he loses it all ( unless you know obama and he bails you out) other wise he is intiteled to the win falls and the money the company makes. would you be willing to lay your life on the line like that to make a buck. lucky your have bosses who are. other wise you would not have a job.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I have full intentions in discussing this issue. Tis my birthday though so I must attend the duties that celebrate my life.

My first preponderance upon this subject though is the vast injustice that all players have done with trickle down economics.

First, that term is a marketing tool. A phrase that sat well with some focus group somewhere.

Second, all sides have and continue to take a complex theory that works well in a static, controlled environment but then put to practice into the most diverse, complex, always in motion market.

Third, when you have something you want to champion out that can be REMOTELY connected to economics, just saddle it on top of this.

Fourth, Supply-Side Economics, which Trickle Down Economics is loosely built upon operates under the assumption of a Free Market. My own guesstamation is that our economy rides a 5-10% Free Market while the other 90-95% is State Controlled (either via taxes, regulation or law).

That last point really throws a wrench in any economic theory based upon the Free Markets. They are not. The State controls large swaths of it either directly or by proxy.

Again, I will be back to fill this out in more depth.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Why do the “RICH” need tax breaks? Simple, they need more money to start businesses and open up branches in new markets.

You are just regurgitating the same talking points that we have been hearing for the last few decades, with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Since the 1980's we have cut the corporate tax rate from 70% to 35%, we have spent more than $2 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy since that period and the result? Our debt has dramatically increased since then, Our jobs have been shipped overseas, our GDP growth has not been as high as it was before the 80's. Yet your still insisting?

Remember the owner of the company is forking out 5.2 million of his own money for this company. if it falls he loses it all ( unless you know obama and he bails you out) other wise he is intiteled to the win falls and the money the company makes. would you be willing to lay your life on the line like that to make a buck. lucky your have bosses who are.

Bosses? This example is not representitive of the entire top 5% and those of the business owners in this country. There are many businesses shifting jobs overseas, many businesses playing around with economy, we saw what the banks did over the last few years. You are essentially arguing that all businesses and business owners are in our best interests which is absolutely not true. We should reward businesses for employing americans, for putting money back into the economy, we should not be rewarding every single wealthy person in this country because we assume all of them are putting back into this economy.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


and why are they shipping jobs overseas????? because taxes are to high here. hate to brake it to ya

Republicans are a BUNCH OF HYPOCRITES that are so worried about spending money yet they want to LOSE TONS OF REVENUE FROM THOSE WEALTHY FOLKS' TAXES WHO HAVE MORE THAN THEY CAN SPEND IN THIS LIFETIME!!!

What a JOKE the Republicans are. Just look at the STATISTICS of the traditional "Red" states and look at where they spend money and how there is NO benefits or perks for anyone but the WEALTHY!! The common worker has LOW WAGES and no benefits compared with the "Blue" states. The wealthy get the money and the rest work for POOR SUB-PAR WAGES and HORRIBLE to NO BENEFITS.

Thats why they can boast like they do in the Red states about jobs. Its BECAUSE EVERYONE IS MAKING MINIMUM WAGE IN THE RED STATES. And minimum wage in the South is LOWEST as they stay with the BARE-Minimum, where "Blue" states have compassion and set it higher than mandated by federal laws.

The Red Republican states are perfect examples of what Republicans do. And its [color=cyan]nothing for you and I, its ALL FOR THE WEALTHY!!!

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

and why are they shipping jobs overseas????? because taxes are to high here. hate to brake it to ya

edit on 9-12-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

That's total Rush, BS. I'm a small time manufacturer of custom guitars and basses. The reason I have some of my parts made in Mexico is because of cost of raw materials and labor. It has nothing to do with taxes and most of the manufactures I meet at the trade shows will tell you the same thing. Hate to break it to ya. Most big time manufactures pay less taxes than us small guys. They even still get govt. subsidies to move jobs off shore and hide their profits in off shore accounts. A few classes in real economics and marketing will get your mind right.

www.newrules.org...

dissidentvoice.org...

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

and why are they shipping jobs overseas????? because taxes are to high here. hate to brake it to ya

edit on 9-12-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

That's total Rush, BS. I'm a small time manufacturer of custom guitars and basses. The reason I have some of my parts made in Mexico is because of cost of raw materials and labor. It has nothing to do with taxes. Hate to break it to ya. Schools out now go play.

VERY WELL SAID!!!

There are so many "PARROTS" here that repeat all the Rush and Beck NONSENSE all the time having NO CLUE what they are talking about!! It is LAUGHABLE at best!!!!

To the Rush and Beck PARROTS: please give it a break and do some research FOR YOURSELVES for a CHANGE.

[color=cyan]Do your own THINKING and give the "parrot" nonsense a rest, PLEASE!!!

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Since the 1980's we have cut the corporate tax rate from 70% to 35%, we have spent more than $2 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthy since that period and the result? Our debt has dramatically increased since then,

I am curious how you arrive at "we have spent more than $2 trillion on tax cuts"? Though it is clever verbiage to further incite the "eat the rich" mentality; it makes no sense, whatsoever. No one gave the "wealthy" anything. They, along with all other Americans, were allowed (though I despise having to use that word in this context) to keep more of their money.

The fact is that, following the Reagan tax cuts, tax revenues increased.
www.heritage.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/391c0088550b.gif[/atsimg]

As to your last statement, from the quote at the beginning of this reply... Tax cuts do not and can not increase debt. Only spending can do that. If you or I write checks, knowing we lack the funds to cover them, it is called theft. When government does it, they are allowed to just take money from someone else to cover them? I simply can't comprehend anyone who is a taxpayer, actually approving of such behavior.

I can tell you this, if my neighbor comes knocking on my door and says "You need to give me $60,000, because I bought a new King Ranch Edition Ford pickup, when I could only afford to pay for a used Chevy Luv", he is in extreme danger of finding my size 13 boot embedded in a body orifice not suited for a size 13 boot.

Originally posted by WTFover
I am curious how you arrive at "we have spent more than $2 trillion on tax cuts"?

Reagan spent an estimated $750 billion in 80's on tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts that occcured in the 2000's came to more than $900 billion dollars in cost by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, some estimate more of a cost than this figure. Between the Reagan and Bush jnr administration various tax cuts and incentives were implemented through this country, including the continuation of Reaganomics into George Bush's administration. Clinton actually raised taxes in 1993, the corporate tax rate went up from 31% to 35%, but in 1997 he was pressured to pass tax breaks amounting to most than $170 billion.

These tax cuts benefitted the wealthy for the most part, they did not good for the middle class. Things were looking up during the 90's, in part because Clinton raised taxes, and in part of having a backbone where he blocked much of what the Republicans were trying to get through in his first administration.

www.ombwatch.org...
www.cbpp.org...

The fact is that, following the Reagan tax cuts, tax revenues increased.
www.heritage.org...

Oh goodness, it's the heritage foundation again. There was a jump in GDP growth of 7.2% and revenue following Reagans decrease of the tax rate from 70% to 31%, what followed was a jump in debt from around $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. There was a brief period as a reaction to the drastic tax cuts that the economy experiences exceptional growth, but over time, spread over the Reagan administration, this country actually lost revenue and growth. The wealthy responded positively to tax hikes the first 1 or 2 years, then began hiding their money the years following.

As the result of Reaganomics wealthy disparity increased to histoical highs:
www.economist.com...

Just like the debt avalanche that started under Reagan, so did the growth in gap between the rich and poor.

As for the heritage foundation? Since this is your preferred source, lets see their past articles:

Heres the heritage foundation on the Iraq war:
www.heritage.org...
Apparently withdrawing from it is declaring "defeat", that it was "necessary". The Iraq war cost this nation more than $700 billion, it amounted to nothing, and you want to reference them as a source for an economic arguement?

They also have numerous articles supporting the patriot act:
www.heritage.org...

They have time again posted articles around the idea of dealing with Iran in a militarist fashion:
www.heritage.org...

heres alittle comment from them:

Acquiescing to Iranian regional hegemony would undermine Western energy security by jeopardizing the free flow of Persian Gulf oil at reasonable prices.

The heritage foundation is a neoconservative mouthpiece. But then again that's typically where you stand WTFover?

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

and why are they shipping jobs overseas????? because taxes are to high here. hate to brake it to ya

edit on 9-12-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

That's total Rush, BS. I'm a small time manufacturer of custom guitars and basses. The reason I have some of my parts made in Mexico is because of cost of raw materials and labor. It has nothing to do with taxes and most of the manufactures I meet at the trade shows will tell you the same thing. Hate to break it to ya. Most big time manufactures pay less taxes than us small guys. They even still get govt. subsidies to move jobs off shore and hide their profits in off shore accounts. A few classes in real economics and marketing will get your mind right.

www.newrules.org...

dissidentvoice.org...

edit on 9-12-2010 by whaaa because: reload

Well it looks like your part of the problem then. You liberals complain about jobs and money getting ship out of the country then you just admitted you buy your parts out of country because it’s cheaper. Wow what a hypocrite. How about you buy your parts in America, You don’t because it’s cheaper!

I have taken economic classes. I’m also work in a large corporation and if you would read my example on why trickle down works then maybe you would learn something. What you guys don’t have anything to say about my example up top on the first page?

Why is money being ship off to off shore banks….. um because they don’t get taxed as high over there so in turn that money sitting in that bank is helping that country now instead of ours.

And about this money in off shore accounts. You’re so posed to clam that to the FED’s every year and if you don’t you get fined. So who are these people that ship there money to off shore accounts hum??? You say there are people that do this. Who are they? O sorry to question your liberal talking points. Stop watching Rachel MADCOW

I stopped reading at "Huffington Post"...

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I stopped reading at "Huffington Post"...

Then you don't have to. Go onto the Washington post or politico which will say the same thing, Democrats refuse to support tax cut deal with the Republicans. The OP has little to nothing to do with the opinions of the Huffington Post, had you actually read.

"Trickle Down Economics," as it's called was not started by Ronald Reagan. Reagan got the idea from who? That's right, John F. Kennedy!!! Kennedy was hailed as a genius when he ran his campaign on "cutting taxes across the board." Look it up. Also, Kennedy's tax cut was 2% of GDP, W's was 1.3% of GDP. Kennedy was a genius while W and Reagan were idiots and all three did the same thing. thank propoganda from the media for that.

People having more disposable income is not a bad thing no matter how much you make. The govt can't handle the enormous amount of money they have coming in now and has time and time again proven they can't handle our finances so I fail to see how giving them MORE money is the answer! I also don't see the need to finance politicians promises they can't pay for by us paying higher taxes. They know what they can spend, the deficit is their problem to solve, we shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes. If they lose their jobs over broken promises then oh well.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Reagan spent an estimated $750 billion in 80's on tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts that occcured in the 2000's came to more than $900 billion dollars in cost...

Reagan didn't "spend" anything on tax cuts. Bush's and Clinton's tax cuts didn't "cost" anything. They allowed Americans to keep more of their money. Any costs attributed to tax cuts are a result of spending. The blame does not lie with those who benefited from the cuts; it lies with Congress spending more than they are given.

There was a jump in GDP growth of 7.2% and revenue following Reagans decrease of the tax rate from 70% to 31%, what followed was a jump in debt from around $900 billion to $2.7 trillion.

Again, the increased debt can not be assigned to tax cuts. If Congress would not spend more than it is given, there is no need to borrow. Debt is a result of deficits and deficits are a result of over-spending. Unfortunately, the distractionary tactic of blaming deficits and debt on the greed of the "wealthy", seems to be working.

Just like the debt avalanche that started under Reagan, so did the growth in gap between the rich and poor.

Oooooh, those evil rich

Those who earned less than $30,000 thought that a household income of $74,000 would qualify as rich.
Those who made $30,000 to $50,000 said an income of $100,000 would be rich.
And people in the top half of earners were more likely to say that an income of $200,000 earns you the right to the R word.

articles.moneycentral.msn.com...

I wonder, SG, who do you consider to be rich? What income level qualifies a person to be punished for their success, by your standards?

But, that liberal attribute is typical of your "preferred" source of information, huh?

The number of U.S. households with a net worth of $1 million or more -- excluding wealth derived from a primary residence -- grew 16 percent last year, according to a new report by the Spectrem Group, a Chicago-based consulting firm. After a 27 percent decline in the number of millionaire households in 2008, the ranks of U.S. millionaires swelled to 7.8 million last year.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Taking a promising and positive statistic and turning it into a negative, eat the rich, article. How is the growth in the number of millionaires a bad thing? Where are those new "wealthy" coming from? Not thin air, that's for sure.

By liberal logic, what happens if they are successful in their attempt to purge America of the evil rich? Who then becomes the enemy?

reply to post by Southern Guardian

What has the trickle down tax cuts done for us? Nothing really, aside from benefitting the wealthy and our jobs steadily being shifted off overseas.

Well, we have to ask ourselves who spends money more productively - the government or private investors?

Then we must ask ourselves what constitutes the creation of wealth. Is the government capable of creating new wealth?

What makes society richer as a whole?

What differentiates America from Zimbabwe?

If Zimbabwe duplicated every single US law, program, and bureaucracy - would their people be able to live at our same standard of living over night?

Originally posted by camaro68ss



Well it looks like your part of the problem then. You liberals complain about jobs and money getting ship out of the country then you just admitted you buy your parts out of country because it’s cheaper. Wow what a hypocrite. How about you buy your parts in America, You don’t because it’s cheaper!

See, now there's your problem. You have labeled me a liberal which shows that your ideology has gotten in the way of your common sense and critical thinking. If you had of bothered to have read any of my previous threads and posts, you would have seen that in fact I am an entrepreneurial capitalist. I have many traits that some would deem conservative in fact. Like being extremely well armed, supporting the death penalty, disdain for foolish taxes, regulation and serving in the military.

How about you buy your parts in America, You don’t because it’s cheaper!

It's called the profit motive and besides the parts I need aren't manufactured in the US.

topic.....trickle down economics is a lie fostered by those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense. "Trickle on" the middle class is a more apt description of that economic model.

www.faireconomy.org...

reply to post by whaaa


Out of context and relevancy...but doesn't it suck to be labeled as a group or party...

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

and why are they shipping jobs overseas????? because taxes are to high here. hate to brake it to ya

edit on 9-12-2010 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

It's true; and you are running around unquestioning to the detriment of the whole lot of us.
The national debt STARTED when trickle down started, don't just be a number in a line, look at it square.
Taxes use to be at 90% - LITERALLY - we did not have this job problem we have now. For the love of mercy
you write this over and over, just look at history, you are repeating a political marketing slogan that is not commensurate with reality.


People are shipping jobs over seas because they can get a days labor for 9 bucks a day... no amount of tax breaks can combat this... Therefore, again, I ask you examine your stubborn position, because your explanation was knocked over very easily

It use to be you either REINVESTED your money in AMERICA OR it got taxed -