Based on this affirmations “trickle down economic has its benefits as well as drawbacks. However, if we take a look at what is happening actually in the economic, I would not agree on continuing this initiate after its expiration date. I would say that from my personal observation and experiences that the trickle down is not the best way to stimulate the economy because since it was created until now there was not a great amelioration in the American economy. I believe that it is a cover for the rich people to manipulate the average American; meaning that the rich will get richer while the poor will just continue to work harder with the same hope at the same level.
Im not much into politics and its surroundings but the economy issue just can't be ignored.I definetely agree with Stenia on the statement that this is just a cover up by the upper class population to continue benefiting from our hard worked up sweats.I mean im not poor and im very thankful and fortunate for what i have and can do with the little chante that i get but it's not fair while some are working hard to make a buck eryday while others have it easy and just spend whenever and however they want carelessly thinkin of the less fortunate.im not much of an expert when it comes to economic issue but I know enough to say that as long as the rich are getting richer with the false promise of doing so in order to help the lesser ones,this country along with it's hopes for changes are just spoken words that can be easily forgotten.
What is the role of the government in economic and financial matters? Even the layperson admits that its role consists on protecting the taxpayers and saving the country's economy from danger. Do all the government's financial and economic decisions respond to the well-being of the population? Certainly not. About the tax rate cuts, the question someone needs to ask is the following: Does the tax rate cuts a response to the financial need of the taxpayers? What the government aim to? Experts talk about this. Some are proponents, other opponents to what they call the "trickle-down economics", but what is the common point of view? Tax rate cuts are not necessarily good or bad for the economy. It depends on what perception people have of it, and how they use it. Paying less taxes may garantee better life condition for the employers and the employees as well. It's obvious, but at the same time, less benefits for the government. More taxes help government to create more infrastures for the well-being of every single citizen. What must be the right choice? Any choice can be right, but any decision must take into account the interest of small groups of investors and the majority as well. The problem is not the action, but the philosohy of the action posed by the government.
I think the trickle down economic could be a good thing that does not accomplish what it was intend to. Why? If there is a possibility that a cut tax for the rich people will increase the investment in small business which will lead to more jobs and low prices goods; there is no reason to abolish this system. However, it will be a risk to reintroduce it in that present economy situation for two reasons. First, we are not certain that most of this rich people will invest in the country or would even live there. And based on certain research made by United for a fair economy, cutting top tax does not: 1. lead to income growth 2. lead to economy growth 3. lead to wage growth 4. lead to job creation Based on these findings this system doesn’t fulfill its purpose. Thus, it is not an initiative that should have another consideration after its expiration date.
I personally think that Keynesian economics will work better for everyone, since the money which big corporations and millionaires aren’t paying in taxes is coming out of the lower classes pockets basically, giving those tax cut in some sort of way which is obligatory for the people to use the money will stimulate the economy and help the country in general. Borrowing money from other countries won’t solve the problem and will only make it worse in the long run, the government needs to plan better for the future and create a better way to manage the economy. A good way is for the federal government to give more powers and responsibilities to the states.
Like the Communist Manifesto, trickle down economics is an idea that seems good on paper and in theory but when put into play in the ever shifting reality doesn't deliver what it promises. When we read the goals and aims of trickle down, it could be very seductive, but we have to understand that the economy is a shifting organism and when dealing with a shifting situation, one has to adapt to the shift, there is never one solution. The tactics we use to pull ourselves out of recessions have to be as versatile as an army facing a guerilla force. When one looks at the results of trickle down, the numbers, the concrete evidence, there is nothing substantial enough to say that it works. In the early 1980s Ronald Reagan promised that if we lowered tax rates on the wealthy, our country's budget would become balanced in a couple of years. What actually ended up happening two years after trickle down, popularly known as "Reaganomics", was that the economy shrank 2.2%, the worst economic performance since the great depression. The light shined for trickle down in 1984 when the economic growth rate bubbled up to 7.3%, however, as the taxes kept getting slashed for the wealthy, the growth got slashed down to negative levels. Another interesting fact to ponder is that two of the three years of our highest growth rates were in the 1950s when the top tax rate was 91%. To this, a supporter of trickle down may cite the fact that the year with the worst median income decrease, 3.3%, was in 1974 when the top tax rate was 70%. Funnily enough, however, the top tax rate was also at 70% in the year with the highest median income which was 4.7% in 1972. Using this evidence, there seems to be no link between trickle down economics and income growth. Something that did work, however, was when Clinton came into office and reversed the trickle down by raising taxes on the rich and lowering them for the lowest wage earners. The result of that change was that in the years 1992-2000, the U.S. economy sustained the longest economic expansion in U.S. history, dropped inflation down to 2.5% (compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years), and created more than 18 million new jobs. He actually managed to transform the rising deficits into gains and began using those gains to pay the national debt (woah). So, it seems this theory is not supported by empirical evidence and until it can be, I don't think this is a theory that should be put into further practice. Long Live Clinton!
I do not agree with "Trickle-down economics”. The riches population earns tax cuts. My opinion is that to avoid this economy disaster people need jobs and as soon as they could get one, people would start to spend again. I agree with James K. Galbraith that is the only support the affluent minority. I do not think the tax cuts will lead us to economic growth. I agree with the Keynesian economics, helping from the government should be divided across all groups, not just focused on one group expecting that it will affect some of the others. Christopher Galvez
History has shown that whenever there has been a need for rapid growth in the economy, Keynesian theories have helped out a lot. This trickle down economy is just giving little slap on the wrist of rich people, without taking any power from them, and still they are the ones controlling wall street. This became a vicious circle, this big snow ball that is going downhill that someone has to stop. Taxes dont affect rich people as much as poor ones and this economic system we have, is promoting that, government has to look for a way out of this mess.
Trickle down economics is where the burden of taxation is reduced on the rich and stays the same or greater on the middle class and the poor. It is attempting to put a positive public face on stealing from the poor and letting the rich get a free ride.
A real economic theory would eliminate taxes on everyone. No trickle down–just a vast outpouring of prosperity. The government is like a charging elephant–and like the old joke says, you stop a charging elephant by taking away his credit card.
It is basically all based on a Keynesian myth of circulation of money, that if you give 10 trillion dollars to bankers then the bankers will buy things and the poor will make money from their jobs. But of course the scam is that the 10 trillion dollars that was given to the bankers was stolen from the poor through inflation, so the act of giving them that money made the poor poorer.
If we are talking about income tax, it is not necessary to speak of indirect wealth effects as an income tax on high incomes has a direct wealth effect on the poor; it makes hiring high-income producers like doctors more expensive for everyone and makes them poorer.
Breaking it down to simpler terms, having the rich pay less while the poor pay more makes little sense. Trickle-down economics does not work, as our recent economic stresses could show, so why would the American people not want to try something different? It's not like us wage-slaves aren't making a sacrifice that would be an impulse purchase for someone in the top two percent. Then again these people in the top two percent may have more of a say in political affairs than you or I do/ever will have, so it is my belief that they can get away with these political agendas while we are busy working our lives away, distracted by the real issues at hand.
As everyone before me has said, trickle down economics is not working. It might look good on paper, but when it is applied to reality it just falls short of expectations. Politicians have probably kept it around for so long simply because they themselves benefited from it. And they were not so concerned with poorer voters since so many people don’t even bother to vote. That’s just a theory I have, but it makes sense. Trickle down policies have not worked well and certainly have not worked consistently in the past. We should try to let go of policies that simply do not work.
I have never been interested in the economy, but after reading this article "Trickle Down Economics"? I have found the economy a bit interesting. As I was reading I noticed that to trickle down economics its not necessarily a bad thing, It just depends from which perspective you see it. If you are rich then obviously you are going to like the idea of generating money with less effort and work, while the poor class is struggling. If you are poor you wish for taxes to be cut from your wages, and that rich people should have higher taxes. To be honest people will just take sides on whatever benefits them, I personally believe the Government should do whatever it takes to help this nation's economy. We should start focusing more on our nation, and be willing to make a few sacrifices.
I personally think that as long as the human element is present in economics nothing will ever satisfy the populace as a whole. too many people in power are constantly fighting each other for their own interests instead of the greater good. Unfortunately any position of power seems to corrupt the person regardless of their moral standing. Ideally a system in which the rich are taxed higher and the blue collar workers are looked after better would make sense. It is a shame that these positions are almost secured no matter what.
I don’t agree with this whole “trickle down economics” theory because it is obvious that it does not benefit anyone else other than the upper class. Why should top corporations and politicians be the only ones who take profit from this? Why should we have to be the ones paying more tax money for them? Supporters of this say that by this approach, more money is spread and redistributed, but the only distribution I see going on is to the upper class. Promotes economic growth? Creates jobs? That’s pretty funny considering the state of America’s economy right now. I think it is unfair and does not seem to bring any positive effectiveness to our country; much less be reconsidered after its expiration.
The concept of a trickle down economic plan may seem effective, theoretically, but that's if we assume the inner good in people. If citizens of a higher economic class are given tax cuts, it's hopeful that they will use this money to invest in small business and therefore provide jobs for the middle and lower classes. Unfortunately, many wealthy citizens use this break to pay for personal needs, i.e. nothing to help stimulate the economy. They use this money to benefit their own businesses by outsourcing and hiring workers in third-world countries for cheaper labor. The best thing to do would be to continue charging taxes, but using that money to create government funded and operated factories and other public manufacturers to turn America from a consumer society to a producing society. More jobs will be available for blue collar citizens and these American produced items can be sold to China in an effort to pay off our national debt.
I lack a lot of information about the American economy due to the fact that I am not from this country. One thing that i can assure is that this is a problem that has to be looked into because it affects every single person living in this country. After reading "Trickle Down Economics" i was able to learn new things about how the economic system works and also some ways that might help the eonomy grow. Cutting down taxes from the rich is not going to solve the problem because we will have to increase it on the poor. We must find a solution to this issue before it collapses again.
Trickle down economics directly postulates that the act of creating tax cuts on the upper bracket of the population, will resultantly lead to a noticeable leak down the hierarchical pyramid and into the bellies of the lower classes. This theoretical standpoint is evidently based on a prototypical and unfounded faith in a linear and static reality. One could not stress enough, that there is absolutely no failsafe method to accurately audit the benefactors. In other words, there must exist a 'suitably justified' reason for believing that there will be an abrupt shift in the predictable nature of capitalistic monopolization. Could the citizens possibly uphold an economic strategy that relies on the trustworthiness of the individuals in the social apex? The insides of these tyrants are projected out into the quality of the services that are provided and the products that are created. They have successfully fabricated evermore insatiable appetites for unnecessary,incessant, and irrational consumption on a massive scale. Evidenced is their desire to maintain the status quo and an opiated subservient preponderance of sheeple. They seek unmatched competition and the unstoppable spread of the gnarling roots of destruction. Consider that the individuals that are in the top 3% of the population have inserted an injection of lobbyists in the government senate that influence the decision making process. Big pharmaceutical, Big Oil, big fashion, big glutenous black holes of delineated regression. For example, George Bush maintains an undisputed connection with Exxxon Mobil, which could easily be an explanation for the invasion of Oil-Rich countries. These purely self-serving autocrats wish to continue spreading their manipulation.. once you reach the core of the majority of irrational implementations, we find the big profit involved; trickle down economics is no exception-- and we have no reason to believe otherwise.
I’m not a big fan on politics never have been, but I don’t agree when people say that the poor will be poor and the rich will only get richer. You don’t know there story as to how they became so rich. Some of those rich people started somewhere, like the bottom but were fortune enough to keep climbing. You can’t blame the rich, but I do agree this trickle down system did not work out for our economy. For example my friend of the family came from Cuba with nothing and made their way up the scale later to open the business in the port of Miami but yes like many business it went down during the economy crisis. The economy like a lot of things in life has its ups and downs and you can’t blame the government for trying.
I am not an expert on how the economy works. I don’t even know how my own former country economy is functioning. It is not that I don’t care or worry about it. I do worry about those taxes but there is nothing that I can do. From experience, this economy had an adverse effect on my life and still is. I work at a pizza place (I am a delivery expert) where they use to pay me $7.25. I use to have decent amount of money due to the generous customer with their tips. Now, they say that we get too much money and we have to work now with a rate of $5.50 and plus they take taxes from our tips. Seriously, this is getting out of hands but it seems as if even the President cannot change how things are going. The rich will always get richer. The less fortunate will be working way harder but then there will be always a limit. This is the real American dream!
24 comments:
Based on this affirmations “trickle down economic has its benefits as well as drawbacks. However, if we take a look at what is happening actually in the economic, I would not agree on continuing this initiate after its expiration date. I would say that from my personal observation and experiences that the trickle down is not the best way to stimulate the economy because since it was created until now there was not a great amelioration in the American economy. I believe that it is a cover for the rich people to manipulate the average American; meaning that the rich will get richer while the poor will just continue to work harder with the same hope at the same level.
Im not much into politics and its surroundings but the economy issue just can't be ignored.I definetely agree with Stenia on the statement that this is just a cover up by the upper class population to continue benefiting from our hard worked up sweats.I mean im not poor and im very thankful and fortunate for what i have and can do with the little chante that i get but it's not fair while some are working hard to make a buck eryday while others have it easy and just spend whenever and however they want carelessly thinkin of the less fortunate.im not much of an expert when it comes to economic issue but I know enough to say that as long as the rich are getting richer with the false promise of doing so in order to help the lesser ones,this country along with it's hopes for changes are just spoken words that can be easily forgotten.
What is the role of the government in economic and financial matters? Even the layperson admits that its role consists on protecting the taxpayers and saving the country's economy from danger. Do all the government's financial and economic decisions respond to the well-being of the population? Certainly not.
About the tax rate cuts, the question someone needs to ask is the following: Does the tax rate cuts a response to the financial need of the taxpayers? What the government aim to? Experts talk about this. Some are proponents, other opponents to what they call the "trickle-down economics", but what is the common point of view?
Tax rate cuts are not necessarily good or bad for the economy. It depends on what perception people have of it, and how they use it. Paying less taxes may garantee better life condition for the employers and the employees as well. It's obvious, but at the same time, less benefits for the government. More taxes help government to create more infrastures for the well-being of every single citizen.
What must be the right choice? Any choice can be right, but any decision must take into account the interest of small groups of investors and the majority as well. The problem is not the action, but the philosohy of the action posed by the government.
I think the trickle down economic could be a good thing that does not accomplish what it was intend to. Why? If there is a possibility that a cut tax for the rich people will increase the investment in small business which will lead to more jobs and low prices goods; there is no reason to abolish this system. However, it will be a risk to reintroduce it in that present economy situation for two reasons. First, we are not certain that most of this rich people will invest in the country or would even live there. And based on certain research made by United for a fair economy, cutting top tax does not:
1. lead to income growth
2. lead to economy growth
3. lead to wage growth
4. lead to job creation
Based on these findings this system doesn’t fulfill its purpose. Thus, it is not an initiative that should have another consideration after its expiration date.
I personally think that Keynesian economics will work better for everyone, since the money which big corporations and millionaires aren’t paying in taxes is coming out of the lower classes pockets basically, giving those tax cut in some sort of way which is obligatory for the people to use the money will stimulate the economy and help the country in general. Borrowing money from other countries won’t solve the problem and will only make it worse in the long run, the government needs to plan better for the future and create a better way to manage the economy. A good way is for the federal government to give more powers and responsibilities to the states.
Like the Communist Manifesto, trickle down economics is an idea that seems good on paper and in theory but when put into play in the ever shifting reality doesn't deliver what it promises. When we read the goals and aims of trickle down, it could be very seductive, but we have to understand that the economy is a shifting organism and when dealing with a shifting situation, one has to adapt to the shift, there is never one solution. The tactics we use to pull ourselves out of recessions have to be as versatile as an army facing a guerilla force. When one looks at the results of trickle down, the numbers, the concrete evidence, there is nothing substantial enough to say that it works. In the early 1980s Ronald Reagan promised that if we lowered tax rates on the wealthy, our country's budget would become balanced in a couple of years. What actually ended up happening two years after trickle down, popularly known as "Reaganomics", was that the economy shrank 2.2%, the worst economic performance since the great depression. The light shined for trickle down in 1984 when the economic growth rate bubbled up to 7.3%, however, as the taxes kept getting slashed for the wealthy, the growth got slashed down to negative levels. Another interesting fact to ponder is that two of the three years of our highest growth rates were in the 1950s when the top tax rate was 91%. To this, a supporter of trickle down may cite the fact that the year with the worst median income decrease, 3.3%, was in 1974 when the top tax rate was 70%. Funnily enough, however, the top tax rate was also at 70% in the year with the highest median income which was 4.7% in 1972. Using this evidence, there seems to be no link between trickle down economics and income growth. Something that did work, however, was when Clinton came into office and reversed the trickle down by raising taxes on the rich and lowering them for the lowest wage earners. The result of that change was that in the years 1992-2000, the U.S. economy sustained the longest economic expansion in U.S. history, dropped inflation down to 2.5% (compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years), and created more than 18 million new jobs. He actually managed to transform the rising deficits into gains and began using those gains to pay the national debt (woah). So, it seems this theory is not supported by empirical evidence and until it can be, I don't think this is a theory that should be put into further practice. Long Live Clinton!
I do not agree with "Trickle-down economics”. The riches population earns tax cuts. My opinion is that to avoid this economy disaster people need jobs and as soon as they could get one, people would start to spend again. I agree with James K. Galbraith that is the only support the affluent minority. I do not think the tax cuts will lead us to economic growth. I agree with the Keynesian economics, helping from the government should be divided across all groups, not just focused on one group expecting that it will affect some of the others.
Christopher Galvez
History has shown that whenever there has been a need for rapid growth in the economy, Keynesian theories have helped out a lot. This trickle down economy is just giving little slap on the wrist of rich people, without taking any power from them, and still they are the ones controlling wall street. This became a vicious circle, this big snow ball that is going downhill that someone has to stop. Taxes dont affect rich people as much as poor ones and this economic system we have, is promoting that, government has to look for a way out of this mess.
Trickle down economics is where the burden of taxation is reduced on the rich and stays the same or greater on the middle class and the poor. It is attempting to put a positive public face on stealing from the poor and letting the rich get a free ride.
A real economic theory would eliminate taxes on everyone. No trickle down–just a vast outpouring of prosperity. The government is like a charging elephant–and like the old joke says, you stop a charging elephant by taking away his credit card.
It is basically all based on a Keynesian myth of circulation of money, that if you give 10 trillion dollars to bankers then the bankers will buy things and the poor will make money from their jobs. But of course the scam is that the 10 trillion dollars that was given to the bankers was stolen from the poor through inflation, so the act of giving them that money made the poor poorer.
If we are talking about income tax, it is not necessary to speak of indirect wealth effects as an income tax on high incomes has a direct wealth effect on the poor; it makes hiring high-income producers like doctors more expensive for everyone and makes them poorer.
Breaking it down to simpler terms, having the rich pay less while the poor pay more makes little sense. Trickle-down economics does not work, as our recent economic stresses could show, so why would the American people not want to try something different? It's not like us wage-slaves aren't making a sacrifice that would be an impulse purchase for someone in the top two percent. Then again these people in the top two percent may have more of a say in political affairs than you or I do/ever will have, so it is my belief that they can get away with these political agendas while we are busy working our lives away, distracted by the real issues at hand.
As everyone before me has said, trickle down economics is not working. It might look good on paper, but when it is applied to reality it just falls short of expectations. Politicians have probably kept it around for so long simply because they themselves benefited from it. And they were not so concerned with poorer voters since so many people don’t even bother to vote. That’s just a theory I have, but it makes sense. Trickle down policies have not worked well and certainly have not worked consistently in the past. We should try to let go of policies that simply do not work.
I have never been interested in the economy, but after reading this article "Trickle Down Economics"? I have found the economy a bit interesting. As I was reading I noticed that to trickle down economics its not necessarily a bad thing, It just depends from which perspective you see it. If you are rich then obviously you are going to like the idea of generating money with less effort and work, while the poor class is struggling. If you are poor you wish for taxes to be cut from your wages, and that rich people should have higher taxes. To be honest people will just take sides on whatever benefits them, I personally believe the Government should do whatever it takes to help this nation's economy. We should start focusing more on our nation, and be willing to make a few sacrifices.
I personally think that as long as the human element is present in economics nothing will ever satisfy the populace as a whole. too many people in power are constantly fighting each other for their own interests instead of the greater good. Unfortunately any position of power seems to corrupt the person regardless of their moral standing. Ideally a system in which the rich are taxed higher and the blue collar workers are looked after better would make sense. It is a shame that these positions are almost secured no matter what.
I don’t agree with this whole “trickle down economics” theory because it is obvious that it does not benefit anyone else other than the upper class. Why should top corporations and politicians be the only ones who take profit from this? Why should we have to be the ones paying more tax money for them? Supporters of this say that by this approach, more money is spread and redistributed, but the only distribution I see going on is to the upper class. Promotes economic growth? Creates jobs? That’s pretty funny considering the state of America’s economy right now. I think it is unfair and does not seem to bring any positive effectiveness to our country; much less be reconsidered after its expiration.
Ana Alfaras
The concept of a trickle down economic plan may seem effective, theoretically, but that's if we assume the inner good in people. If citizens of a higher economic class are given tax cuts, it's hopeful that they will use this money to invest in small business and therefore provide jobs for the middle and lower classes. Unfortunately, many wealthy citizens use this break to pay for personal needs, i.e. nothing to help stimulate the economy. They use this money to benefit their own businesses by outsourcing and hiring workers in third-world countries for cheaper labor. The best thing to do would be to continue charging taxes, but using that money to create government funded and operated factories and other public manufacturers to turn America from a consumer society to a producing society. More jobs will be available for blue collar citizens and these American produced items can be sold to China in an effort to pay off our national debt.
I lack a lot of information about the American economy due to the fact that I am not from this country. One thing that i can assure is that this is a problem that has to be looked into because it affects every single person living in this country. After reading "Trickle Down Economics" i was able to learn new things about how the economic system works and also some ways that might help the eonomy grow. Cutting down taxes from the rich is not going to solve the problem because we will have to increase it on the poor. We must find a solution to this issue before it collapses again.
Trickle down economics directly postulates that the act of creating tax cuts on the upper bracket of the population, will resultantly lead to a noticeable leak down the hierarchical pyramid and into the bellies of the lower classes. This theoretical standpoint is evidently based on a prototypical and unfounded faith in a linear and static reality. One could not stress enough, that there is absolutely no failsafe method to accurately audit the benefactors. In other words, there must exist a 'suitably justified' reason for believing that there will be an abrupt shift in the predictable nature of capitalistic monopolization. Could the citizens possibly uphold an economic strategy that relies on the trustworthiness of the individuals in the social apex? The insides of these tyrants are projected out into the quality of the services that are provided and the products that are created. They have successfully fabricated evermore insatiable appetites for unnecessary,incessant, and irrational consumption on a massive scale. Evidenced is their desire to maintain the status quo and an opiated subservient preponderance of sheeple. They seek unmatched competition and the unstoppable spread of the gnarling roots of destruction. Consider that the individuals that are in the top 3% of the population have inserted an injection of lobbyists in the government senate that influence the decision making process. Big pharmaceutical, Big Oil, big fashion, big glutenous black holes of delineated regression. For example, George Bush maintains an undisputed connection with Exxxon Mobil, which could easily be an explanation for the invasion of Oil-Rich countries.
These purely self-serving autocrats wish to continue spreading their manipulation.. once you reach the core of the majority of irrational implementations, we find the big profit involved; trickle down economics is no exception-- and we have no reason to believe otherwise.
I’m not a big fan on politics never have been, but I don’t agree when people say that the poor will be poor and the rich will only get richer. You don’t know there story as to how they became so rich. Some of those rich people started somewhere, like the bottom but were fortune enough to keep climbing. You can’t blame the rich, but I do agree this trickle down system did not work out for our economy. For example my friend of the family came from Cuba with nothing and made their way up the scale later to open the business in the port of Miami but yes like many business it went down during the economy crisis. The economy like a lot of things in life has its ups and downs and you can’t blame the government for trying.
I am not an expert on how the economy works. I don’t even know how my own former country economy is functioning. It is not that I don’t care or worry about it. I do worry about those taxes but there is nothing that I can do. From experience, this economy had an adverse effect on my life and still is. I work at a pizza place (I am a delivery expert) where they use to pay me $7.25. I use to have decent amount of money due to the generous customer with their tips. Now, they say that we get too much money and we have to work now with a rate of $5.50 and plus they take taxes from our tips. Seriously, this is getting out of hands but it seems as if even the President cannot change how things are going. The rich will always get richer. The less fortunate will be working way harder but then there will be always a limit. This is the real American dream!
Post a Comment