The idea of "trickle down economics" is one of the many illusions in our economy that excuse the wealthy society to get away with the huge gap between them and everybody else.
personally, I believe in the importance of taxation and don't think it should be cut, not for anyone. Instead, like William Gale in the article debates, it should be put to better use. There are plenty of great uses that could be made with taz money to improve things such as education (instead of increasing budget cuts, which affects people getting layed off and departments being closed down), welfare, and so forth. Tax money should be invested on the things that need work like our piece of shit insurance policies, that refuse to pay for the benefits we should be reaping out of the monthly bills we pay to these corporations. The doctor's that have contracts with these insurance companies are truly the only ones getting the most benefit out of the "insurance" so why should the doctor be getting tax cuts? This to me is bizare. This is only one example of the many contradictions to the idea of "trickle down economics". Coming from Reaganomics, not much success can be expected, so it is of no surprise that this idea wa even created. However this does not mean that it should still be in place and should be kept going for more time.
Another clear contradiction to this idea is the thought that the probability of the wealthy spreading their riches to the lower classes is HIGHLY unlikely. The "American Dream" or the illusion that is socially created to keep the masses fed and brainwashed into thinking they can achieve such wealth, is one of the many mechanisms in place to keep the rich where they are, and the "middle class" (which does not exist) and the poor where they are.
I am extremely agains tthe idea of the hard working class being tools for the wealthy and in any way fueling more the injustice that takes place in our economy.
The Trickle Down economics theory to me sounds a bit unearthing nonetheless asserts the philosophy of “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”. The idea of granting tax cuts to the upper class in order for them to “EVENTUALLY” buy more and produce more jobs is not a reassuring scheme for bettering the U.S. economy. The United States of American is a prominent country in the world’s economy because of our democratic beliefs, however Trickle Down economics (tax cuts for the rich) sounds a bit bias towards the capital elite. Taxation is necessary for an economy with a governing body to prosper, as long as it’s a fair share to all Americans. In order for this country to get back on the right track the government needs to stop “BANKING” there expectations on the wealthy to shape up this economy and start producing more jobs, better immigration policies, job assurance for people in the medical teaching & criminal fields while imposing fair taxation on all citizens of this nation.
America is known for its over consumption ways but now that a Depression has fallen on the nation, the idea rises that tax cuts should be given to just the wealthy. Obviously, those whose purse isn’t filled with money are going to find it unfair. Don’t we deserve a break too? Why is it seen as though the wealthy will know what to do this the extra cash? Why not the slum dog? Don’t we all know how to invest? The wealthy, as well as the broke know how to invest and they can probably do a better job in using the extra money. The wealthy may simply use the money to overseas. A poor man living in the U.S. might simply invest in necessary items for survival. Would that not be wise and just? A series of interlocking doors may open to solve this Depression. More U.S. consumption unlocks the doors of employment and therefore helps relieve the Depression. My opinion is that, rather than the wealthy having more tax cuts, the poor should indeed be given that opportunity. This is not necessarily a realistic appeal because even during the Great Depression, the New Deal appeared incorrect to most economist yet the president still allowed it to pass.
At surface value it appears that allowing Bush’s tax reductions for the rich to continue like a plausible idea, but considering where most of the money of wealthy goes it may not be the best solution for the economy. James K. Galbraith poses an interesting concern, should a minority hold the nation’s central interest? Perhaps tax breaks should be distributed across different groups such as Keynesians have argued. Just because there is a group of people that are highly wealthy does not guarantee that their wealth is directed towards our economy. It is not uncommon that they spend or invest their money overseas whereas the average American would most likely spend it here. The trickledown theory doesn’t consider lower classes essential to reaching economical stability and, as Laura Tyson suggests, does not consider how much the wealthy are likely to consume. People from the middle and lower classes put their money in banks, start businesses, hire employees, or buy houses. Whether they have the money are not they continue to consume.
I agree with Linda Beale’s argument about “trickle down economics”, when she mentioned that “tax cuts are not the most effective way to stimulate the economy”. America is based in hard work and freedom”, but now all of us are suffering this economic crisis because of “us”. For example; during the boom of the real estate market, most of us wanted to be part of the wagon, by trying to buy a house, apartment, condo and rent it out so we can make some “profit out it”, and the banks helped us on the purpose so they can meet their loan’s goals and sales and their employees can have a huge bonus checks “for helping the economy”. Doctors, CEOs, wealthy families make enough money, and also they need “tax cuts “in order to help us to keep this economy running? It does not make sense at all, because they should be paying more taxes and these funds can help to create more jobs. Most of rich people have the tendency to be “greedy” that more they make that more they want to get, so Do you really think these people will help us to recovery the economy?....one point to be considered…
I do agree that the tax rate cuts for the wealthy as being "trickle down", arguing tax cuts directly targeting those with less income would be more economically stimulative. There's always tax cuts that help only the high income households. Like James K. Galbraith says if we should go on expanding the frontiers of high living then the teachers and polices will face layoffs and the parks and libraries will be closed. I don't think a lot people would like that. I just think that it is true that the top income earners should invest more into the business infrastructure so it could lead to more goods at lower prices and create more jobs for middle and lower class. At this moment, a lot of people are without jobs because it very hard finding one these days, not like before which it was very easy finding one, even though I still think that the American economy is doing well. It's one of the countries who is alright with their economy, compared to other countries. I think everyone should just work harder and try their best and us, the students, we should just keep on studying harder so we will be able to get a better job for our future.
This idea of "Trickle down economics" is unjust and unrealistic. All that it is doing is making the rich,richer and the poor poorer. In our economy we need a sort of "Robin Hood" that will take from the rich and give to the poor. In this instance the "Robin Hood" would be taxation. I believe, for an economy to function at its full potential it must have a balance between the high and low classes thus creating a majority middle class. That means raise the taxes on the rich and put the tax money to better uses. For example, the tax money should go towards education, repairing run down cities, and creating more jobs for the unemployed. The hard working should be recognized in this society instead of always being in the shadows of these rich tyrants.
I'm still a little confused on the idea, being that I have never fully understood economics in the ifrst place. But I was able to conclude that the trickle down economic thoery is very questionable. it claims that if more economic acticity were generated with the upper class, through stimulus plans and bailouts, the rest of the economy would follow. What would in reality happen, in my view, is that the upper class would spend money on expensive products from other countries, rather than in this country where we need it. It is also unfair for the lowerclass, the people who need money, to not recieve anything while the upperclass recieves even more money.
Among the suggestions being made for getting the American economy moving up again is a reduction in the capital gains tax. But any such suggestion makes people on the left go ballistic. It is "trickle down" economics, they cry. Liberals claim that those who favor tax cuts and a free market want to help the rich first, hoping that the benefits they receive will eventually trickle down to the masses of ordinary people. But there has never been any school of economists who believed in a trickle down theory. No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man. This straw man is not confined to the United States. A critic of India's change from a government-dominated economy to more free market activity in the 1990s accused those behind this change of having "blind faith in the 'trickle-down' theory of distributing the benefits of economic growth among different socio-economic groups in the country." But free-market economics is not about "distributing" anything to anybody. It is about letting people earn whatever they can from voluntary transactions with other people.
There is a somewhat noticeable effect on the overall economy by having tax breaks on the wealthy class. However, this is not the only process by which our regulators can stimulate the economy. Also, the intention behind the Bush tax cuts doesn’t appear to be for the wellbeing of the rest of society, it seems more a way to manipulate laws to support the upper class (of which most politicians take part in). Obviously Berthoud could not have been more wrong on his views of our economy. We are currently addicted as a country to Chinese products and don’t recognize that if China decided to boycott we would file bankruptcy. Lastly, “Necessity, who is the mother of invention” (Plato) is something that the upper class should have more of. Something the lower and some of the middle class have always had to deal with is necessity. In these times when so many people have been laid off or fired is when innovation is at its peak. Perhaps the upper class just needs some stimulation by being forced to do so. Plus it’s displeasing to hear that I’m going to be charged all of my taxes and meanwhile some other man who has way much more ease to make large amounts of money will get it easy just because he has money.
The Trickle Down economics theory to me is very contradicting! who is to say that the rich will bring the economy back, or give out jobs to the people that need it.who is to say that instead they will do something else, tax breaks should be given to everyone equaly? in that perspective where is the equality???? so the rich get richer while the poor get poorer... it makes no sense, evryone should get the same treatment as far as i am concern! but economics has never been my subject, so very much the little i know is what i am giving my opinion about.... i hope that this economy picks up but i hope we all do it with equality and everyone putting something, cause if they give only tax breaks to the rich it will be a vicious cycle making them always above all of us that strugle to make ends meet. i hope that the government would see that with the right plan everything can be done, it just takes initiative.
I consider that taxes should not be cut because it will affect the government, in fact is a measure that not only will affect the current government but the state itself because it also affects the government coming later.Cutting taxes can be a good idea the first or second year because it will keep the population satisfy but it will cause trouble for the state because it will be short in funds to implement certain policies of the same state such as social, educative,and health programs. On the other hand some companies are exempt to pay taxes with the only condition to keep investing in the country which is a benefit for the country because incentive the companies to invest in the state polices. Cecilia
consider that taxes should not be cut because it will affect the government, in fact is a measure that not only will affect the current government but the state itself because it also affects the government coming later.Cutting taxes can be a good idea the first or second year because it will keep the population satisfy but it will cause trouble for the state because it will be short in funds to implement certain policies of the same state such as social, educative,and health programs. On the other hand some companies are exempt to pay taxes with the only condition to keep investing in the country which is a benefit for the country because incentive the companies to invest in the state polices. Cecilia
I strongly disagree with the idea of “trickle-down economics”. I do not think that this is a way to create more jobs for middle and lower class individuals. It is, however, a huge benefit for the wealthy society. Like Linda Beale said, tax cuts are not the most effective way to rouse the economy. Higher taxes will not help us save more money. I believe that tax money should be used for different purposes. The most important one to me would be education. This money would be very helpful for many students in the United States. Instead of helping lazy mothers with welfare, they should be helping hard working students that are trying to become someone in life.
All men are created equal, so why should there be tax cuts for the wealthy minority? Sure they will invest much more and therefore offer employment to the "unwealthy majority" but what about schools and libraries like James Galbraith mentioned?
I believe there must be another way of stabilizing the economy without having to be unfair to either classes. Surely somone would protest. It doesn't matter at what time you go to a mall, whether its monday morning or saturday it's jammed packed with people spending their money.What I mean by this is that perhaps if they go through with this the unwealthy will protest and spend less and the economy will suffer greater.
I do not think that cutting taxes just for the wealthy minority is fair. This will just emphasize the difference among social classes: the richer will become richer and the poor will become poorer. All of us work and get paid as well. Therefore if we have to pay taxes I think it should be mandatory for all of us; and if it comes the time to cut them off, it should be for all of us as well, but my question is: Wouldn't the economy of the country suffer more?
As a business major, the idea that economics = philosophy does not seem right at all. Clearly, there is a philosophical basis for one's views on economic policy issues. Philosophy will dictate whether someone believes individual freedom is the proper goal of an economic system, or whether redistribution of wealth and collectivization is the proper goal (or something in between).
The actual study of economics, however, is positive whereas philosophy is more normative. Many economists will make normative recommendations based on their positive findings, but the way economics is taught is not like philosophy. Is the system in which we live, and we chose to live this way with taxes, rules and everything else. To control us! To regulate us since we can't do that in our own. This system will keep on changing depending on the situation that we are at the certain time. And thats the beauty of it! That it changes with us.
" Trickle down economics" could help many people to get jobs. Company will be more interested to invest in business in the way they will be able to get more benefit.However, they should control it because the companies will abuse of it.The government should associated with a law telling these companies to create many jobs to be elligible for the "trickle down economics" If the government use the " trickle down economics " to help business to grow , this will be very good for the population. The companies will create more jobs. There will be less unemployed people. This will be very good for the economy. More jobs means the economy will get stronger. It will be bvery useful for the population if the companies can rely on the " trickle down economics"
The perverse notion that "trickle down" economics is successful has brought upon a very polarized Congress incapable of doing anything for the people it serves (around 20% approval rate, nice job, guys!). As the United States suffers from an ever greater gap between its most affluent members and those less fortunate parties, politicians continue to get swindled by special interest groups (in the case, the rich), spreading failed Reaganomic policies buried in the wake of the Clinton administration. Fear mongering Republicans argue incessantly for continuing the Bush era tax cuts, which are, arguably, a huge component of our national debt. (In other words, the "trickle down effect" was not working; the top earning Americans were able to save more of their income while also denying the government millions in taxes). Although such members of Congress are quick to point out the Obama administration is playing with fire by increasing deficit spending, one mustn’t look far to see these same politicians raving about a booming economy whilst George W. Bush nearly tripled the national debt in merely 8 years (and to think Clinton had balanced the budget only a few years prior!). Trickle down economics, largely nonsensical and designed to "make the rich richer and the poor poorer," is a backwards form of taxation with close ties to regressive tax codes. Under such codes, people who make less income pay a higher percentage of taxes than people who are wealthy. Highly critical of the United States' tax policy, millionaire Warren Buffet cites his own tax rates when arguing for a more proportionate solution to taxation. Reaping an income of $46 million, Buffet pays a tax rate of 17.7%, while his receptionist pays a tax rate of 30%. To address such a gross disproportion in tax rates, Obama should allow the Bush era tax breaks to expire for the wealthiest Americans while pushing for reform towards a more progressive tax rate, characterized by greater taxes for increased income brackets.
The perverse notion that "trickle down" economics is successful has brought upon a very polarized Congress incapable of doing anything for the people it serves (around 20% approval rate, nice job, guys!). As the United States suffers from an ever greater gap between its most affluent members and those less fortunate parties, politicians continue to get swindled by special interest groups (in the case, the rich), spreading failed Reaganomic policies buried in the wake of the Clinton administration.
Fear mongering Republicans argue incessantly for continuing the Bush era tax cuts, which are, arguably, a huge component of our national debt. (In other words, the "trickle down effect" was not working; the top earning Americans were able to save more of their income while also denying the government millions in taxes). Although such members of Congress are quick to point out the Obama administration is playing with fire by increasing deficit spending, one mustn’t look far to see these same politicians raving about a booming economy whilst George W. Bush nearly tripled the national debt in merely 8 years (and to think Clinton had balanced the budget only a few years prior!).
Trickle down economics, largely nonsensical and designed to "make the rich richer and the poor poorer," is a backwards form of taxation with close ties to regressive tax codes. Under such codes, people who make less income pay a higher percentage of taxes than people who are wealthy. Highly critical of the United States' tax policy, millionaire Warren Buffet cites his own tax rates when arguing for a more proportionate solution to taxation. Reaping an income of $46 million, Buffet pays a tax rate of 17.7%, while his receptionist pays a tax rate of 30%. To address such a gross disproportion in tax rates, Obama should allow the Bush era tax breaks to expire for the wealthiest Americans while pushing for reform towards a more progressive tax rate, characterized by greater taxes for increased income brackets.
These days it seems like the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. It is definitely not fair that the wealthy are getting tax cuts because they are not the only ones who contribute to our economy. The average American with the average job contributes just as much to the economy as the wealthy. Sadly I feel like this is out of our hands because what can we really do about it? We elect politicians who say they will turn things around for the better but we wait and wait and still no change. I have heard many times that numerous politicians up their salaries and those of the people around them that are deemed worthy. I remember watching the news and hearing about a particular politician who remodeled his entire office for a total sum of over one million dollars. It seems like the people in charge of our money and taxes are so corrupt that there is no hope. As a democratic nation we need to start taking charge and not just sit around and let “them” do with our money what they will. I have also heard that my generation may not even get social security benefits with the way things are looking.
The idea of "trickle down economics" is somehow not really fair for many. Like Linda Beale mentions on her argument, is not the most effective way to get a stable and better economy. Although the idea behind the tax cuts is suppose to help the poor, in my opinion it wont make an extreme difference. I beleive that we cannot count on what we don't have; so why would the goverment leave the expections of a better economy on the wealthy society? as this idea could work, it is always possible that it doesn't. The money of some is just theirs and nobody else can dispose of their wealthness; they might spend it here helping to rebuild a better economy or they might invest it overseas. Tax cuts may beneficiate the upper class, however the necesities that the lower class goes through are not under any kind of consideration. As we all know today is very hard to find a job, but I beleive many people just don't want to work and live by the hard work of others, to me this is one reason why the struggle of the economy is on still. I strongly disagree with the theory and I think the most interested with a recovery on the economy should come up with better ideas, also fair for everyone.
I don’t think cutting taxes mostly for the wealthy is fair. It’ll just prove “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” right. Investing in employment for the unwealthy is a good thing to consider, but what about schools and libraries? If the same increase in taxes is set for all social classes, then a lot more good could be done for the economy benefiting everyone. Plus there would be a lot less inequality between classes. If only the unwealthy have their taxes raised, they will spend less (for obvious reasons) making the economy suffer more. But if the wealthy pay higher taxes too, they will still spend therefore helping the economy.
The "trickle down economics" theory has been a popular republican strategy for a long time. It has been attempted many different times throughout American history but has never worked. The idea of giving tax breaks to the top one or two percent in hopes that it will "trickle" down to the people who really need it doesn't really make sense. In my opinion it's just an excuse for the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor. I am a firm believer that if you make more than you can afford to pay more back to the government.
25 comments:
The idea of "trickle down economics" is one of the many illusions in our economy that excuse the wealthy society to get away with the huge gap between them and everybody else.
personally, I believe in the importance of taxation and don't think it should be cut, not for anyone. Instead, like William Gale in the article debates, it should be put to better use. There are plenty of great uses that could be made with taz money to improve things such as education (instead of increasing budget cuts, which affects people getting layed off and departments being closed down), welfare, and so forth. Tax money should be invested on the things that need work like our piece of shit insurance policies, that refuse to pay for the benefits we should be reaping out of the monthly bills we pay to these corporations. The doctor's that have contracts with these insurance companies are truly the only ones getting the most benefit out of the "insurance" so why should the doctor be getting tax cuts? This to me is bizare. This is only one example of the many contradictions to the idea of "trickle down economics". Coming from Reaganomics, not much success can be expected, so it is of no surprise that this idea wa even created. However this does not mean that it should still be in place and should be kept going for more time.
Another clear contradiction to this idea is the thought that the probability of the wealthy spreading their riches to the lower classes is HIGHLY unlikely. The "American Dream" or the illusion that is socially created to keep the masses fed and brainwashed into thinking they can achieve such wealth, is one of the many mechanisms in place to keep the rich where they are, and the "middle class" (which does not exist) and the poor where they are.
I am extremely agains tthe idea of the hard working class being tools for the wealthy and in any way fueling more the injustice that takes place in our economy.
The Trickle Down economics theory to me sounds a bit unearthing nonetheless asserts the philosophy of “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”. The idea of granting tax cuts to the upper class in order for them to “EVENTUALLY” buy more and produce more jobs is not a reassuring scheme for bettering the U.S. economy. The United States of American is a prominent country in the world’s economy because of our democratic beliefs, however Trickle Down economics (tax cuts for the rich) sounds a bit bias towards the capital elite. Taxation is necessary for an economy with a governing body to prosper, as long as it’s a fair share to all Americans. In order for this country to get back on the right track the government needs to stop “BANKING” there expectations on the wealthy to shape up this economy and start producing more jobs, better immigration policies, job assurance for people in the medical teaching & criminal fields while imposing fair taxation on all citizens of this nation.
- Oscar Garay MWF 9AM
America is known for its over consumption ways but now that a Depression has fallen on the nation, the idea rises that tax cuts should be given to just the wealthy. Obviously, those whose purse isn’t filled with money are going to find it unfair. Don’t we deserve a break too? Why is it seen as though the wealthy will know what to do this the extra cash? Why not the slum dog? Don’t we all know how to invest? The wealthy, as well as the broke know how to invest and they can probably do a better job in using the extra money. The wealthy may simply use the money to overseas. A poor man living in the U.S. might simply invest in necessary items for survival. Would that not be wise and just? A series of interlocking doors may open to solve this Depression. More U.S. consumption unlocks the doors of employment and therefore helps relieve the Depression. My opinion is that, rather than the wealthy having more tax cuts, the poor should indeed be given that opportunity. This is not necessarily a realistic appeal because even during the Great Depression, the New Deal appeared incorrect to most economist yet the president still allowed it to pass.
At surface value it appears that allowing Bush’s tax reductions for the rich to continue like a plausible idea, but considering where most of the money of wealthy goes it may not be the best solution for the economy. James K. Galbraith poses an interesting concern, should a minority hold the nation’s central interest? Perhaps tax breaks should be distributed across different groups such as Keynesians have argued. Just because there is a group of people that are highly wealthy does not guarantee that their wealth is directed towards our economy. It is not uncommon that they spend or invest their money overseas whereas the average American would most likely spend it here. The trickledown theory doesn’t consider lower classes essential to reaching economical stability and, as Laura Tyson suggests, does not consider how much the wealthy are likely to consume. People from the middle and lower classes put their money in banks, start businesses, hire employees, or buy houses. Whether they have the money are not they continue to consume.
I agree with Linda Beale’s argument about “trickle down economics”, when she mentioned that “tax cuts are not the most effective way to stimulate the economy”. America is based in hard work and freedom”, but now all of us are suffering this economic crisis because of “us”. For example; during the boom of the real estate market, most of us wanted to be part of the wagon, by trying to buy a house, apartment, condo and rent it out so we can make some “profit out it”, and the banks helped us on the purpose so they can meet their loan’s goals and sales and their employees can have a huge bonus checks “for helping the economy”. Doctors, CEOs, wealthy families make enough money, and also they need “tax cuts “in order to help us to keep this economy running? It does not make sense at all, because they should be paying more taxes and these funds can help to create more jobs. Most of rich people have the tendency to be “greedy” that more they make that more they want to get, so Do you really think these people will help us to recovery the economy?....one point to be considered…
I do agree that the tax rate cuts for the wealthy as being "trickle down", arguing tax cuts directly targeting those with less income would be more economically stimulative. There's always tax cuts that help only the high income households. Like James K. Galbraith says if we should go on expanding the frontiers of high living then the teachers and polices will face layoffs and the parks and libraries will be closed. I don't think a lot people would like that. I just think that it is true that the top income earners should invest more into the business infrastructure so it could lead to more goods at lower prices and create more jobs for middle and lower class. At this moment, a lot of people are without jobs because it very hard finding one these days, not like before which it was very easy finding one, even though I still think that the American economy is doing well. It's one of the countries who is alright with their economy, compared to other countries. I think everyone should just work harder and try their best and us, the students, we should just keep on studying harder so we will be able to get a better job for our future.
This idea of "Trickle down economics" is unjust and unrealistic. All that it is doing is making the rich,richer and the poor poorer. In our economy we need a sort of "Robin Hood" that will take from the rich and give to the poor. In this instance the "Robin Hood" would be taxation. I believe, for an economy to function at its full potential it must have a balance between the high and low classes thus creating a majority middle class. That means raise the taxes on the rich and put the tax money to better uses. For example, the tax money should go towards education, repairing run down cities, and creating more jobs for the unemployed. The hard working should be recognized in this society instead of always being in the shadows of these rich tyrants.
I'm still a little confused on the idea, being that I have never fully understood economics in the ifrst place. But I was able to conclude that the trickle down economic thoery is very questionable. it claims that if more economic acticity were generated with the upper class, through stimulus plans and bailouts, the rest of the economy would follow. What would in reality happen, in my view, is that the upper class would spend money on expensive products from other countries, rather than in this country where we need it.
It is also unfair for the lowerclass, the people who need money, to not recieve anything while the upperclass recieves even more money.
Among the suggestions being made for getting the American economy moving up again is a reduction in the capital gains tax. But any such suggestion makes people on the left go ballistic. It is "trickle down" economics, they cry.
Liberals claim that those who favor tax cuts and a free market want to help the rich first, hoping that the benefits they receive will eventually trickle down to the masses of ordinary people. But there has never been any school of economists who believed in a trickle down theory. No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man.
This straw man is not confined to the United States. A critic of India's change from a government-dominated economy to more free market activity in the 1990s accused those behind this change of having "blind faith in the 'trickle-down' theory of distributing the benefits of economic growth among different socio-economic groups in the country." But free-market economics is not about "distributing" anything to anybody. It is about letting people earn whatever they can from voluntary transactions with other people.
Victor Mustelier
There is a somewhat noticeable effect on the overall economy by having tax breaks on the wealthy class. However, this is not the only process by which our regulators can stimulate the economy. Also, the intention behind the Bush tax cuts doesn’t appear to be for the wellbeing of the rest of society, it seems more a way to manipulate laws to support the upper class (of which most politicians take part in).
Obviously Berthoud could not have been more wrong on his views of our economy. We are currently addicted as a country to Chinese products and don’t recognize that if China decided to boycott we would file bankruptcy.
Lastly, “Necessity, who is the mother of invention” (Plato) is something that the upper class should have more of. Something the lower and some of the middle class have always had to deal with is necessity. In these times when so many people have been laid off or fired is when innovation is at its peak. Perhaps the upper class just needs some stimulation by being forced to do so.
Plus it’s displeasing to hear that I’m going to be charged all of my taxes and meanwhile some other man who has way much more ease to make large amounts of money will get it easy just because he has money.
ALFREDO GONZALEZ MWF 9:00 AM
The Trickle Down economics theory to me is very contradicting! who is to say that the rich will bring the economy back, or give out jobs to the people that need it.who is to say that instead they will do something else, tax breaks should be given to everyone equaly? in that perspective where is the equality???? so the rich get richer while the poor get poorer... it makes no sense, evryone should get the same treatment as far as i am concern! but economics has never been my subject, so very much the little i know is what i am giving my opinion about.... i hope that this economy picks up but i hope we all do it with equality and everyone putting something, cause if they give only tax breaks to the rich it will be a vicious cycle making them always above all of us that strugle to make ends meet. i hope that the government would see that with the right plan everything can be done, it just takes initiative.
alfredo gonzalez.
I consider that taxes should not be cut because it will affect the government, in fact is a measure that not only will affect the current government but the state itself because it also affects the government coming later.Cutting taxes can be a good idea the first or second year because it will keep the population satisfy but it will cause trouble for the state because it will be short in funds to implement certain policies of the same state such as social, educative,and health programs. On the other hand some companies are exempt to pay taxes with the only condition to keep investing in the country which is a benefit for the country because incentive the companies to invest in the state polices.
Cecilia
consider that taxes should not be cut because it will affect the government, in fact is a measure that not only will affect the current government but the state itself because it also affects the government coming later.Cutting taxes can be a good idea the first or second year because it will keep the population satisfy but it will cause trouble for the state because it will be short in funds to implement certain policies of the same state such as social, educative,and health programs. On the other hand some companies are exempt to pay taxes with the only condition to keep investing in the country which is a benefit for the country because incentive the companies to invest in the state polices.
Cecilia
I strongly disagree with the idea of “trickle-down economics”. I do not think that this is a way to create more jobs for middle and lower class individuals. It is, however, a huge benefit for the wealthy society. Like Linda Beale said, tax cuts are not the most effective way to rouse the economy. Higher taxes will not help us save more money. I believe that tax money should be used for different purposes. The most important one to me would be education. This money would be very helpful for many students in the United States. Instead of helping lazy mothers with welfare, they should be helping hard working students that are trying to become someone in life.
All men are created equal, so why should there be tax cuts for the wealthy minority? Sure they will invest much more and therefore offer employment to the "unwealthy majority" but what about schools and libraries like James Galbraith mentioned?
I believe there must be another way of stabilizing the economy without having to be unfair to either classes. Surely somone would protest. It doesn't matter at what time you go to a mall, whether its monday morning or saturday it's jammed packed with people spending their money.What I mean by this is that perhaps if they go through with this the unwealthy will protest and spend less and the economy will suffer greater.
I do not think that cutting taxes just for the wealthy minority is fair. This will just emphasize the difference among social classes: the richer will become richer and the poor will become poorer. All of us work and get paid as well. Therefore if we have to pay taxes I think it should be mandatory for all of us; and if it comes the time to cut them off, it should be for all of us as well, but my question is: Wouldn't the economy of the country suffer more?
As a business major, the idea that economics = philosophy does not seem right at all. Clearly, there is a philosophical basis for one's views on economic policy issues. Philosophy will dictate whether someone believes individual freedom is the proper goal of an economic system, or whether redistribution of wealth and collectivization is the proper goal (or something in between).
The actual study of economics, however, is positive whereas philosophy is more normative. Many economists will make normative recommendations based on their positive findings, but the way economics is taught is not like philosophy. Is the system in which we live, and we chose to live this way with taxes, rules and everything else. To control us! To regulate us since we can't do that in our own. This system will keep on changing depending on the situation that we are at the certain time. And thats the beauty of it! That it changes with us.
" Trickle down economics" could help many people to get jobs. Company will be more interested to invest in business in the way they will be able to get more benefit.However, they should control it because the companies will abuse of it.The government should associated with a law telling these companies to create many jobs to be elligible for the "trickle down economics"
If the government use the " trickle down economics " to help business to grow , this will be very good for the population. The companies will create more jobs. There will be less unemployed people. This will be very good for the economy. More jobs means the economy will get stronger. It will be bvery useful for the population if the companies can rely on the " trickle down economics"
The perverse notion that "trickle down" economics is successful has brought upon a very polarized Congress incapable of doing anything for the people it serves (around 20% approval rate, nice job, guys!). As the United States suffers from an ever greater gap between its most affluent members and those less fortunate parties, politicians continue to get swindled by special interest groups (in the case, the rich), spreading failed Reaganomic policies buried in the wake of the Clinton administration.
Fear mongering Republicans argue incessantly for continuing the Bush era tax cuts, which are, arguably, a huge component of our national debt. (In other words, the "trickle down effect" was not working; the top earning Americans were able to save more of their income while also denying the government millions in taxes). Although such members of Congress are quick to point out the Obama administration is playing with fire by increasing deficit spending, one mustn’t look far to see these same politicians raving about a booming economy whilst George W. Bush nearly tripled the national debt in merely 8 years (and to think Clinton had balanced the budget only a few years prior!).
Trickle down economics, largely nonsensical and designed to "make the rich richer and the poor poorer," is a backwards form of taxation with close ties to regressive tax codes. Under such codes, people who make less income pay a higher percentage of taxes than people who are wealthy. Highly critical of the United States' tax policy, millionaire Warren Buffet cites his own tax rates when arguing for a more proportionate solution to taxation. Reaping an income of $46 million, Buffet pays a tax rate of 17.7%, while his receptionist pays a tax rate of 30%. To address such a gross disproportion in tax rates, Obama should allow the Bush era tax breaks to expire for the wealthiest Americans while pushing for reform towards a more progressive tax rate, characterized by greater taxes for increased income brackets.
edit - easier to read
The perverse notion that "trickle down" economics is successful has brought upon a very polarized Congress incapable of doing anything for the people it serves (around 20% approval rate, nice job, guys!). As the United States suffers from an ever greater gap between its most affluent members and those less fortunate parties, politicians continue to get swindled by special interest groups (in the case, the rich), spreading failed Reaganomic policies buried in the wake of the Clinton administration.
Fear mongering Republicans argue incessantly for continuing the Bush era tax cuts, which are, arguably, a huge component of our national debt. (In other words, the "trickle down effect" was not working; the top earning Americans were able to save more of their income while also denying the government millions in taxes). Although such members of Congress are quick to point out the Obama administration is playing with fire by increasing deficit spending, one mustn’t look far to see these same politicians raving about a booming economy whilst George W. Bush nearly tripled the national debt in merely 8 years (and to think Clinton had balanced the budget only a few years prior!).
Trickle down economics, largely nonsensical and designed to "make the rich richer and the poor poorer," is a backwards form of taxation with close ties to regressive tax codes. Under such codes, people who make less income pay a higher percentage of taxes than people who are wealthy. Highly critical of the United States' tax policy, millionaire Warren Buffet cites his own tax rates when arguing for a more proportionate solution to taxation. Reaping an income of $46 million, Buffet pays a tax rate of 17.7%, while his receptionist pays a tax rate of 30%. To address such a gross disproportion in tax rates, Obama should allow the Bush era tax breaks to expire for the wealthiest Americans while pushing for reform towards a more progressive tax rate, characterized by greater taxes for increased income brackets.
These days it seems like the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. It is definitely not fair that the wealthy are getting tax cuts because they are not the only ones who contribute to our economy. The average American with the average job contributes just as much to the economy as the wealthy. Sadly I feel like this is out of our hands because what can we really do about it? We elect politicians who say they will turn things around for the better but we wait and wait and still no change. I have heard many times that numerous politicians up their salaries and those of the people around them that are deemed worthy. I remember watching the news and hearing about a particular politician who remodeled his entire office for a total sum of over one million dollars. It seems like the people in charge of our money and taxes are so corrupt that there is no hope. As a democratic nation we need to start taking charge and not just sit around and let “them” do with our money what they will. I have also heard that my generation may not even get social security benefits with the way things are looking.
The idea of "trickle down economics" is somehow not really fair for many. Like Linda Beale mentions on her argument, is not the most effective way to get a stable and better economy. Although the idea behind the tax cuts is suppose to help the poor, in my opinion it wont make an extreme difference. I beleive that we cannot count on what we don't have; so why would the goverment leave the expections of a better economy on the wealthy society? as this idea could work, it is always possible that it doesn't. The money of some is just theirs and nobody else can dispose of their wealthness; they might spend it here helping to rebuild a better economy or they might invest it overseas. Tax cuts may beneficiate the upper class, however the necesities that the lower class goes through are not under any kind of consideration. As we all know today is very hard to find a job, but I beleive many people just don't want to work and live by the hard work of others, to me this is one reason why the struggle of the economy is on still. I strongly disagree with the theory and I think the most interested with a recovery on the economy should come up with better ideas, also fair for everyone.
I don’t think cutting taxes mostly for the wealthy is fair. It’ll just prove “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” right. Investing in employment for the unwealthy is a good thing to consider, but what about schools and libraries? If the same increase in taxes is set for all social classes, then a lot more good could be done for the economy benefiting everyone. Plus there would be a lot less inequality between classes.
If only the unwealthy have their taxes raised, they will spend less (for obvious reasons) making the economy suffer more. But if the wealthy pay higher taxes too, they will still spend therefore helping the economy.
The "trickle down economics" theory has been a popular republican strategy for a long time. It has been attempted many different times throughout American history but has never worked. The idea of giving tax breaks to the top one or two percent in hopes that it will "trickle" down to the people who really need it doesn't really make sense. In my opinion it's just an excuse for the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor. I am a firm believer that if you make more than you can afford to pay more back to the government.
Post a Comment