Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
T, 5:40pm
27 comments:
Maria Tatiana Gonzalez
said...
I agree with James K. Galbraith, “Trickle-down economics” will only support the private consumption of the wealthy minority. Cutting tax rates in America will not benefit or improve the standard of living of the working class. Cutting taxes rates will not lead to economic growth either because the wealthy people will save the money from the tax cut instead of spending it. The working class will be the ones who probably end up spending the money from the tax break but it will not be enough to make the economic grow. Unemployment rates will not decrease either because jobs are created only when it's necessary. If people are not spending, companies will have full inventories and no reason to hire new employees. The working class will probably spend the money from the tax break on goods and services already available in the market. Also, wealthy companies could use the money to increase the salaries of the already high-earning executives instead of hiring new people. The concept of “Trickle-down economics” seems like a strategy to help big companies and wealthy people to get even wealthier.
The original tax cut was sold us as a way to stimulate the economy by allowing the rich to keep their oney and create more jobs. It didn't happen. One way to get the economy growing is to get the population spending again, and to do that, they need to be employed. The government should be keeping investing in infrastructure and stimulating small business. Another way to created more jobs is reducting interest rates. Both actions comes fro the Keynesian theory, and its has been succesfully proved since the Great Depression. In conclusion, no to cutting tax to the wealthy.
This concept is actually a concept that was theorized in the Reagan tax cut era. The whole theory is that lower taxes will spur growth in the private sector which will eventually lead to a higher net residual in the money supplied to the Federal Govt. This seems to be an amazing protocol, since it would benefit all parties. As far as I am concerned, it is worth another try. This is one of the reasons that we are seeing a grass roots movement to the right. A lot of people think that the current administration's policies are not sound and are simply not working. I believe that the tax savings will be spent and put back into the economy in a lot of instances. Of course we will see some of the tax savings being hoarded as suggested by Maria Tatiana Gonzalez, however, I believe that a good portion of the savings will in effect "trickle down" and enhance our ability to come out of a stagnant situation in the economy. I understand that some people are concerned that tax savings might just be hoarded and not spent, however, we must make a concerted effort to get things back on track and one way to do that is to look at the past. Let us specifically examine what transpired during the Reagan era when we all enjoyed low employment, lower taxes, and a stable Federal Budget. In fact, Clinton actually managed to have the deficits and money to the Govt. in a great position. How can we repeat that process? What can we do now to make sure that we do not dip farther into recession? We should be able to learn from history. All taxes should be cut across the board which will ignite and fuel private sector growth. Let us put the country back on track by implementation of the true "trickle down" strategies that were employed by Reagan in the 1980's. We need to put this country back onto the straight and narrow. We will return to greatness. All we need is lower taxes and less regulation, however, with strict regard to any financial shenanigans. Financial fraud is total abuse of the system and will not and cannot be tolerated. We have to develop a system where the lower regulations do not affect the safety and welfare of the public.
I agree with Linda Beale, studies have shown that tax cuts don’t necessarily stimulate the economy. I also agree with the fact that “trickle-down” policies won’t have too large of an effect on the economy. Sure, it can help but only if done right. I believe that giving tax cuts to middle and lower classes and increasing taxes for the upper class will really help out the economy. Slightly increasing taxes for the upper class can little by little save the economy, especially in a time like this. Like Matthew Weinzierl said, the government is in a huge debt right now, so increased taxes will help repay this debt and get us out of this economic slump we are currently in.
This idea that keeping the rich wealthy so that they can help the middle class and the poor was not a well thought out plan at all. The rich don’t consider helping those beneath them by creating the jobs that are needed or putting that money back into their businesses when they receive their tax breaks. If this plan worked even half as good as people that it would the economy would be doing a lot better than it is right now. I agree with the Keynesian economics, incentives and help from the government should be evenly divided across all groups, not just centered on one group hoping that it will affect some of the others. Ashley Mueller-Gomez
Since when it is a crime to be rich; in a capitalist economy. After all, most of us aspire to be. To tax the rich or not? How about to tax the poor? Is it a matter of good luck versus bad luck which separates the two? As for trickle down economics goes it does work to a certain degree. As the rich have more disposable income they do spend it. As we know this is good for the economy. The poor too, spend their disposable income. Most Americans with salaries less than $30,000 pay no income tax and actually get a refund on average of $5,000. The IRS estimates that there are 5 billion dollars in fraud to which was paid to incomes less than $43,000. As the rich save on taxes and the poor pays no taxes who then pays taxes, the middle class. Let’s be fair. Let us all pay our fair share. The use of the word “fair share” can open a large debate but I counter by say “a fair share of what you consume”. The best way to tax fairly is what the state of Florida does with its state tax. We as a resident of Florida do not pay state income tax we pay a sales tax on consumables. The state excludes from taxation necessities such as milk, bread eggs etc. By doing this it “stops” the rich from saving and the poor from not paying taxes. By having all three classes spending their disposable incomes (middle class being the largest) would most defiantly help the economy. The solution is a national flat tax. Make your vote count! Ruben M
Well in my opinion i have always thought that economic crisis and political issues are really complicated. Its all about who has more to say than what the issue really is. I dont think is about cutting taxes or giving more or less to the rich or poor , or more jobs . It is about setting something and really do it. In my opinion the rich people is getting richer and the poor people is getting more poor , it might be because of the taxs or the economy but i think it can be also up to you.Sometimes people blame the economy for their own money issues and its not fair for it its just an excuse for not blaming themselves.
In the last decade, the Bush tax cut for the wealthy as led us in the financial mess that we are now. Surprisingly, some people are still asking for tax cut for the wealthy minority ignoring the negative side effects on the working class.I absolutely agree with James K. Gslbraith; it is a matter of choice. What kind of society or what kind of country do we want? The purpose for this tax cut for the wealthy minority was to create jobs. They getting richer and most of the jos have been shipped overseas where the labor is very cheap. When the products are imported in the U.S. they even do not pay the regular custom taxes.As a result,nowadays the middle class is without job and the level of poverty is getting higher.Why give them a tax cut when we can not find money to support the basic systems of a society? What will happen to this generation of people if they do not have access to the education and health? Indeed, less teacher, more school drop out,less technician, more juvenile delinquencies, more prostitutions, more STDs, more gang groups, more incarcerations, more poverty, more health problems. The whole society will be a mess.
Pavlo Drobentsov Tax rates in United States were always hi. And as more money you make, the more taxes you pay. Middle class people, sometimes struggle a lot from paying taxes to the government, instead of having an opportunity to keep those money inside of their families. In my opinion tax cut is not the way out of situation. If the government wants to do something good to pore people, they should consider looking at pore people and people of middle class. But cutting taxes on people who can afford paying them and still manage to have enough for living wouldn't work well for the country. When I went to my country Ukraine this year, I felt really bad for Ukrainians. Why? because people don't have that luxury like we do in U.S., The streets are dirty, everything that is not privatized is not being taking care, the roads look like you are in a war zone. And why is it like that, people do pay their taxes, but first of all their much less, and second our politicians still those money instead of investing them in to their own country. So we should be glad that our taxes are used the right way they should be. And cutting them off, would be a financial plus for everybody, but will it help the country?
Pavlo Drobentsov Tax rates in United States were always hi. And as more money you make, the more taxes you pay. Middle class people, sometimes struggle a lot from paying taxes to the government, instead of having an opportunity to keep those money inside of their families. In my opinion tax cut is not the way out of situation. If the government wants to do something good to pore people, they should consider looking at pore people and people of middle class. But cutting taxes on people who can afford paying them and still manage to have enough for living wouldn't work well for the country. When I went to my country Ukraine this year, I felt really bad for Ukrainians. Why? because people don't have that luxury like we do in U.S., The streets are dirty, everything that is not privatized is not being taking care, the roads look like you are in a war zone. And why is it like that, people do pay their taxes, but first of all their much less, and second our politicians still those money instead of investing them in to their own country. So we should be glad that our taxes are used the right way they should be. And cutting them off, would be a financial plus for everybody, but will it help the country? I also tried to post a comment for the love theory at 9pm on Sunday night, but the post were already closed.
The trickle-down theory appears to me as simply being a flimsy excuse to cater to the upper class. If the intent is to stimulate investment and/or higher rates of consumption, then simply installing programs which reward or assist investments, expansions, hiring, spending, etc would be a much more direct and reliable way of insuring this is what is taking place with the money. It may be true that economic growth does flow from top to bottom, but it does not appear that the trickle-down inspired tactic of cutting bigger tax breaks for the rich stimulates a level of growth which would justify the amount of money being directed out of the government's budget and into the pockets of the rich, with no strings attached.The trickle-down theory is a gamble on what will happen with that money and since the evidence does not support the expected result, it should be adjusted or else discarded altogether.
While it's true that "Trickle-down economics" doesn't generally "work" the way it is defined, but i generally am in support of it. Ya it's true that the upper class are the main ones benefiting from it but in the long run, the reason we actually "have" an economy IS because of the wealthy people, the ones who actually want to take the risk of investing millions of dollars into somethin in order to make more money, the by product of that of course is extra jobs for people. while yes sometimes wealthy people do use alot of money on "personal gains", we can't argue that medium class or lower people would put the money to "better" use. talking logically, how are "we" going to help the economy grow and prosper? working at a mediocre job and getting tax breaks? the economy will become stagnant. while yes the trickle down effect isn't a perfect system, it does in fact help the economy grow.
Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish? Do we give money to men or do we give them the opportunity to make money? I believe most wealthy people have become wealthy because of their knowledge of their specialized business. What happens to someone who studies and graduates acquiring knowledge of the economy or how to run a business? They usually do run a business in the future or obtain a high position within a big company. What happens to those who do not study (because of any reason, lack of money for education etc) they usually become workers of the lower and middle class. The following makes sense to me: Who knows best how to spend, invest or save more money the rich or the poor? Clearly the rich; that is how they were able to make their money in the first place, because first they studied and became knowledgeable about it and they have made their money create more money once they had it. The richer become richer because they have the experience and knowledge of how to put their money to work to create more money. What can a rich man do with more money if is not to make it grow? How do you make your money grow? By making your company grow. And how does your company grow? By selling more products. And how do you do that if you don’t invest in more equipment, more knowledge and more labor? It is obvious that companies which have more income become bigger and do employ more people and do invest in the economy, if they didn’t there is no way their business will keep growing. To say that rich companies will not invest their money and instead save it and not spend it in the economy simply does not make sense because if it was like that then companies will not show any growth or their stock will not increase in value which is clearly not the case. Rich and big companies do get bigger and richer not because of tax cuts but because the money from those tax cuts is re-invested and used for creating more positions within the company to increase supply. This is the whole concept of owning a business, making it grow by employing more people and increasing production. Of course the profits for stock holders will increase with the growth of the company but this is only logical, if not what would be the purpose of creating your own business and making it grow if not to increase your personal gain. But business owners cannot increase their personal gain if they don’t increase the gains of the company and increasing the gains of the companies means more production which means more employees (high and low positions). This is basically the same concept as the invisible hand, of course one creates a company with their personal gain only in mind but unintentionally this logically follows into creating gains for the lower class since they are the ones who will work for the company being created. How would it work the other way around? Give the money to the poor, which are already poor because they didn’t not have the opportunity to study, gain knowledge about money or for whatever other reasons. Suppose the tax cuts are only for them and not for big companies as well, what would the poor do with the money? Spend it on cloths, trips, food, benefiting only themselves and creating more demand for products which companies are not producing since they are not being benefited by tax cuts. How will the poor trickle up the wealth? Will giving them more money will make them more knowledgeable of how to use money? Will having more money will teach them how to invest? No, money that comes easy goes easy and it is not well invested. Poor people will not invest their money and make it grow or benefit anyone else but their family, it is a way to use the money individualized and in a small picture, it is thinking individualistically and not as a whole. Poor people with more money will immediately satisfy they need of buying what they need and want, they will not make that money grow, therefore the economy as a whole will not grow.
(Continues from comment above) The way I see it is, taxes should not be increased on any level of the economy, nor to the rich or the poor. The focus should be on another way for the government to generate income that is not from the taxes from anyone. The less government enrolment the more freedom for rich and poor people to prosper. The united states reached the number one spot in the world of economy not by putting obstacles on entrepreneurs and business owners but by providing them with the tools for growth. The 3rd world countries are not prosperous because they do not allow their people to create business and make them grow, there is no incentive because taxes on businesses are so high and the result is? More poor people, more “equality” and less wealth in the country as a whole. Countries like United States that have implemented trickle-down economics results in more wealth, less poor and more bright minds. Unless for some is a better option to live in a country where the poor stay poor and no one becomes rich… Try Cuba for example, over there, there is no trickle-down economics whatsoever and does it trickle-up? Not at all.
“Screw the Little Man!”Trickle-down economics is based on the notion that if the rich do better, then the benefits will trickle down to the rest. The notion rests on the fact that tax breaks will result in more jobs being created, higher wages paid to the average worker, and an overall upturn in the economy. Historically in the US, income taxes on the wealthy have always been high. To put things in perspective, they were 94% until JFK dropped them down to 70% in 1963 and remained so until 1982 when Regan dropped them down to 28% and then now to their 35% levels. If you compare read GDP growth (which indicates performance of the US economy as a whole) vs. the tax rates for the last 50-60 years, there is no close relationship between the two. So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy. Also there is no correlation between income growth and tax cuts so no higher wages paid to average worker, nor is there a correlation between unemployment and tax cuts - so no overall upturn in the economy. We can therefore conclude, that cutting taxes for the wealthy will NOT lead to improved standard of living for the working class.
I do not believe that cutting taxes for wealthy citizens will stimulate the economy. I also do not believe that taxing them more and giving the money to poorer citizens will help the economy. To treat the wealthy more favorably than the poor will result in a society seperated by class. And Giving too much welfare to the poor results in a socialism where no one works. The United states is based theoretically on equality wherein every citizen should have equal opportunity - to be successful or to fail. So for someone to be penalized for making a lot of money honestly is not right. And giving someone free government handouts for doing nothing is also unfair to the rest of us. I agree with what Ruben said earlier. Everyone Needs to pay their fair share of taxes, say an even percentage no matter what tax bracket your in. In trickle down economics, it is thught that the poorer class depend on the wealthy to create jobs and to buy things. the same logic could be used to say that we depend on the wealthy to pay for our welfare checks. Both are incorrect as far as I am concerned.
Having heard the experts, there are some differences in what they feel and what would be best for the national economy. I personally feel the bush tax cuts should be eliminated, and also the taxes should increase for those that make more than 120,000. The reason why i feel this way is because having paying higher taxes allow the government to invest that money into infrastructure and create more jobs. Aside from that, people that pay higher taxes gets reimbursed approximately 23% of what they paid taxes on. So regardless, they are paying higher taxes, but when you factor in the reimbursement, it's not a significant difference in higher payments. Paying higher taxes is essential for balancing the deficit, and creating opportunities for those that are less fortunate. From my own experience in the business side, the tax bracket i pay doesn't affect me. And if the government want's to raise my taxes to provide with those that are jobless, i don't mind. Now what i do mind is when i have to pay for a higher tax bracket to feed those that have no interest or motivation in becoming a more respected individual.(looking for a job) A person that works hard and earns a living, earns respect and character. A person that feeds off of others hard efforts is to say the least shameful.
The idea that “trickle down economics” works, came from the people who want the tax cut. Today’s economy is a perfect example of how big business and the wealthy do not have the middle and lower class in their interests. They only plan on making interest off of their backs. Making money off money and betting that poor people will default on loans they couldn’t afford in the first place is no way to “trickle down” the money raked in by banks and their executives. A recent poll was published that stated that the top 2% of our economic society, own 60-70% of our national wealth. That leaves the last 294 million of us to divide up the remaining 30% at most. Sound like the trickle down effect works? I think not. But they sell this dream that, you too can be wealthy and successful, so you don’t want to have those taxes burdened upon you, do you? It’s false hope designed to protect profits and wealth.
Okay so who ever thought about the idea, lets give 1% of the population a lot of money, make them extremly rich so they could control the other 99%, didnt have that thought well organized, as a matter of fact didnt have it organized at all. Thats why i believe that Keynesian economics is right. Money should all be equally distribute. Not "oh lets take money out of here to give it to these class." If there shouldnt be discriminations on different races because we are all the same, then there shouldnt be a classification of what group we belong in. We should all be either poor, we should all be either middle, or we should all be rich!!
Daisy Gigantana says I feel that the trickle down economics does not work considering we are having a high unemployment. I don't see companies invest in stimulating job market. Instead, the money they are saving goes toward to merger or perhaps keep it until they get a better investment that can yield higher return. The trickle down theory for me seems to promote greed to have and promote desperation on have not. When I saw how Wall Street had been bail out by the government but yet no help on people who lost all their stocks because of Wall Street negligence. How about to those people who needs help on their home because they are facing foreclosure. No help for them but the government bail out the bank because they are too big to fail. This is just upsetting, it seems that the rich folks get more and then the working class get shafted. So much for trickle down economics, yeah trickle the money to the rich and get it from the working class or poor.
Daisy Gigantana says I just want to add that Bush Tax Cut create a deficit of about 2.74 trillion dollars revenue in about eight years. Imagine what we can do with this money. We can build our breaking bridges or improve highway or roads, maybe we can have money to fund our education system. And how about the healthcare. We can have enough money to take care of our social programs such us police, fire fighters, community hospital, and etc. Just a thought.
Daisy Gigantana says I just want to add that Bush Tax Cut create a deficit of about 2.74 trillion dollars revenue in about eight years. Imagine what we can do with this money. We can build our breaking bridges or improve highway or roads, maybe we can have money to fund our education system. And how about the healthcare. We can have enough money to take care of our social programs such us police, fire fighters, community hospital, and etc. Just a thought.
The trickle down economic idea only works, if the wealthy actually consumed in our country. The reality is that the wealthy spent most of their money in international businesses, and they don’t invest their money back. Either that or they are very prudent, saving every penny, and keeping it all to themselves. And if there is no money tricking down how would we those of lower class be able to become consumers. The money has become clogged, there is no money going in or out. So no technique they try will help the economic situation. All we can do is just watch as both wealthy and poor go down the drain.
The idea of trickle down is that if society protects the wealth of the rich, and let’s them keep more of their money by cutting income tax for the rich and giving money to the government, it will eventually trickle down to the poor and middle class. The high income earners will see an increase in their income. They will increase their spending and this creates additional demand in the economy and in turn creating jobs, and higher wages for all workers. But if you want to talk of doubtful theories, this is surely it. The rich have a tendency to save and save a higher amount of any tax cut or reinvest it. The Government’s power and/or money doesn’t trickle down, it takes money and pours it into even more bureaucracy and gives it to the rich. Its power grows and keeps growing at the expense of society, which in effect does little to improve the welfare of the average citizen. Unfortunately, the new jobs created are likely to be where the rich or investors can get most for the least amount invested which is in China, Mexico, or India, so jobs and wealth will be shifted to other parts of the world. If you want to reduce poverty or stimulate the economy, it makes sense to target income tax cuts and benefits to the majority of the population who need it. The middle class and the poor will spend more than invest and will lead to money being spent primarily on goods and services. Cutting taxes for the rich, in the hope some may trickle down to the poorest is a very ineffective way of working.
Trickle down economics? HA! ...I have to agree with Allison, the people that want the tax cut are the people who made it. I’m starting to believe that our government treats us as if we are in a controlled form of communism. The people that make this country are the blue collared ones, people like us who are trying against all the odds that are put in out path to make something out of ourselves and make a better life all around, but what “breaks” are they getting? I also have to agree with the comment from James K. Galbraith. I think as much as we may have moved forward in economics, we have definitely gone back some.
I think that "Trickle-down economics" helps more than just the wealthy class. I do agree that a company does become richer, and that maybe not all companies will recycle those funds back into the economy. The companies that do use the tax return funds for business purposes are able to sustain current employment, and possibly create new opportunities for job seekers. However, the working class may not be getting richer by these tax breaks, but they are able to maintain a job rather than being unemployed. I also think tax breaks, and being eligible for tax exemption, helps not only the large corporations, but also benefits self employed individuals, and small businesses.
Based on the comments from the professionals I can come to the conclusion that cutting taxes for the wealthy has almost no positive benefit to the middle and lower class. Wealth is not just an income but a lifestyle as well. All the wealthy people I have ever met in my life seem more concerned with maintaining their lavish lifestyle, whether they have the founds or not, rather than expanding to offer more jobs for the poor. If anything the rich would probably use this money to upgrade their own families by expanding their homes or cars considering I see more and more cars on the road that could easily purchase the block that my apartment is on or homes that could easily be mistake for shopping malls.
27 comments:
I agree with James K. Galbraith, “Trickle-down economics” will only support the private consumption of the wealthy minority. Cutting tax rates in America will not benefit or improve the standard of living of the working class. Cutting taxes rates will not lead to economic growth either because the wealthy people will save the money from the tax cut instead of spending it. The working class will be the ones who probably end up spending the money from the tax break but it will not be enough to make the economic grow. Unemployment rates will not decrease either because jobs are created only when it's necessary. If people are not spending, companies will have full inventories and no reason to hire new employees. The working class will probably spend the money from the tax break on goods and services already available in the market. Also, wealthy companies could use the money to increase the salaries of the already high-earning executives instead of hiring new people. The concept of “Trickle-down economics” seems like a strategy to help big companies and wealthy people to get even wealthier.
The original tax cut was sold us as a way to stimulate the economy by allowing the rich to keep their oney and create more jobs. It didn't happen. One way to get the economy growing is to get the population spending again, and to do that, they need to be employed.
The government should be keeping investing in infrastructure and stimulating small business. Another way to created more jobs is reducting interest rates. Both actions comes fro the Keynesian theory, and its has been succesfully proved since the Great Depression. In conclusion, no to cutting tax to the wealthy.
This concept is actually a concept that was theorized in the Reagan tax cut era. The whole theory is that lower taxes will spur growth in the private sector which will eventually lead to a higher net residual in the money supplied to the Federal Govt. This seems to be an amazing protocol, since it would benefit all parties. As far as I am concerned, it is worth another try. This is one of the reasons that we are seeing a grass roots movement to the right. A lot of people think that the current administration's policies are not sound and are simply not working.
I believe that the tax savings will be spent and put back into the economy in a lot of instances. Of course we will see some of the tax savings being hoarded as suggested by Maria Tatiana Gonzalez, however, I believe that a good portion of the savings will in effect "trickle down" and enhance our ability to come out of a stagnant situation in the economy.
I understand that some people are concerned that tax savings might just be hoarded and not spent, however, we must make a concerted effort to get things back on track and one way to do that is to look at the past. Let us specifically examine what transpired during the Reagan era when we all enjoyed low employment, lower taxes, and a stable Federal Budget. In fact, Clinton actually managed to have the deficits and money to the Govt. in a great position. How can we repeat that process? What can we do now to make sure that we do not dip farther into recession? We should be able to learn from history.
All taxes should be cut across the board which will ignite and fuel private sector growth. Let us put the country back on track by implementation of the true "trickle down" strategies that were employed by Reagan in the 1980's. We need to put this country back onto the straight and narrow. We will return to greatness. All we need is lower taxes and less regulation, however, with strict regard to any financial shenanigans. Financial fraud is total abuse of the system and will not and cannot be tolerated. We have to develop a system where the lower regulations do not affect the safety and welfare of the public.
I agree with Linda Beale, studies have shown that tax cuts don’t necessarily stimulate the economy. I also agree with the fact that “trickle-down” policies won’t have too large of an effect on the economy. Sure, it can help but only if done right. I believe that giving tax cuts to middle and lower classes and increasing taxes for the upper class will really help out the economy. Slightly increasing taxes for the upper class can little by little save the economy, especially in a time like this. Like Matthew Weinzierl said, the government is in a huge debt right now, so increased taxes will help repay this debt and get us out of this economic slump we are currently in.
This idea that keeping the rich wealthy so that they can help the middle class and the poor was not a well thought out plan at all. The rich don’t consider helping those beneath them by creating the jobs that are needed or putting that money back into their businesses when they receive their tax breaks. If this plan worked even half as good as people that it would the economy would be doing a lot better than it is right now. I agree with the Keynesian economics, incentives and help from the government should be evenly divided across all groups, not just centered on one group hoping that it will affect some of the others.
Ashley Mueller-Gomez
Since when it is a crime to be rich; in a capitalist economy. After all, most of us aspire to be. To tax the rich or not? How about to tax the poor? Is it a matter of good luck versus bad luck which separates the two? As for trickle down economics goes it does work to a certain degree. As the rich have more disposable income they do spend it. As we know this is good for the economy. The poor too, spend their disposable income. Most Americans with salaries less than $30,000 pay no income tax and actually get a refund on average of $5,000. The IRS estimates that there are 5 billion dollars in fraud to which was paid to incomes less than $43,000. As the rich save on taxes and the poor pays no taxes who then pays taxes, the middle class.
Let’s be fair. Let us all pay our fair share. The use of the word “fair share” can open a large debate but I counter by say “a fair share of what you consume”. The best way to tax fairly is what the state of Florida does with its state tax. We as a resident of Florida do not pay state income tax we pay a sales tax on consumables. The state excludes from taxation necessities such as milk, bread eggs etc. By doing this it “stops” the rich from saving and the poor from not paying taxes. By having all three classes spending their disposable incomes (middle class being the largest) would most defiantly help the economy. The solution is a national flat tax. Make your vote count! Ruben M
Well in my opinion i have always thought that economic crisis and political issues are really complicated.
Its all about who has more to say than what the issue really is. I dont think is about cutting taxes or giving more or less to the rich or poor , or more jobs . It is about setting something and really do it. In my opinion the rich people is getting richer and the poor people is getting more poor , it might be because of the taxs or the economy but i think it can be also up to you.Sometimes people blame the economy for their own money issues and its not fair for it its just an excuse for not blaming themselves.
In the last decade, the Bush tax cut for the wealthy as led us in the financial mess that we are now. Surprisingly, some people are still asking for tax cut for the wealthy minority ignoring the negative side effects on the working class.I absolutely agree with James K. Gslbraith; it is a matter of choice. What kind of society or what kind of country do we want? The purpose for this tax cut for the wealthy minority was to create jobs. They getting richer and most of the jos have been shipped overseas where the labor is very cheap. When the products are imported in the U.S. they even do not pay the regular custom taxes.As a result,nowadays the middle class is without job and the level of poverty is getting higher.Why give them a tax cut when we can not find money to support the basic systems of a society? What will happen to this generation of people if they do not have access to the education and health? Indeed, less teacher, more school drop out,less technician, more juvenile delinquencies, more prostitutions, more STDs, more gang groups, more incarcerations, more poverty, more health problems. The whole society will be a mess.
Pavlo Drobentsov
Tax rates in United States were always hi. And as more money you make, the more taxes you pay. Middle class people, sometimes struggle a lot from paying taxes to the government, instead of having an opportunity to keep those money inside of their families. In my opinion tax cut is not the way out of situation. If the government wants to do something good to pore people, they should consider looking at pore people and people of middle class. But cutting taxes on people who can afford paying them and still manage to have enough for living wouldn't work well for the country. When I went to my country Ukraine this year, I felt really bad for Ukrainians. Why? because people don't have that luxury like we do in U.S., The streets are dirty, everything that is not privatized is not being taking care, the roads look like you are in a war zone. And why is it like that, people do pay their taxes, but first of all their much less, and second our politicians still those money instead of investing them in to their own country. So we should be glad that our taxes are used the right way they should be. And cutting them off, would be a financial plus for everybody, but will it help the country?
Pavlo Drobentsov
Tax rates in United States were always hi. And as more money you make, the more taxes you pay. Middle class people, sometimes struggle a lot from paying taxes to the government, instead of having an opportunity to keep those money inside of their families. In my opinion tax cut is not the way out of situation. If the government wants to do something good to pore people, they should consider looking at pore people and people of middle class. But cutting taxes on people who can afford paying them and still manage to have enough for living wouldn't work well for the country. When I went to my country Ukraine this year, I felt really bad for Ukrainians. Why? because people don't have that luxury like we do in U.S., The streets are dirty, everything that is not privatized is not being taking care, the roads look like you are in a war zone. And why is it like that, people do pay their taxes, but first of all their much less, and second our politicians still those money instead of investing them in to their own country. So we should be glad that our taxes are used the right way they should be. And cutting them off, would be a financial plus for everybody, but will it help the country? I also tried to post a comment for the love theory at 9pm on Sunday night, but the post were already closed.
The trickle-down theory appears to me as simply being a flimsy excuse to cater to the upper class. If the intent is to stimulate investment and/or higher rates of consumption, then simply installing programs which reward or assist investments, expansions, hiring, spending, etc would be a much more direct and reliable way of insuring this is what is taking place with the money. It may be true that economic growth does flow from top to bottom, but it does not appear that the trickle-down inspired tactic of cutting bigger tax breaks for the rich stimulates a level of growth which would justify the amount of money being directed out of the government's budget and into the pockets of the rich, with no strings attached.The trickle-down theory is a gamble on what will happen with that money and since the evidence does not support the expected result, it should be adjusted or else discarded altogether.
While it's true that "Trickle-down economics" doesn't generally "work" the way it is defined, but i generally am in support of it. Ya it's true that the upper class are the main ones benefiting from it but in the long run, the reason we actually "have" an economy IS because of the wealthy people, the ones who actually want to take the risk of investing millions of dollars into somethin in order to make more money, the by product of that of course is extra jobs for people. while yes sometimes wealthy people do use alot of money on "personal gains", we can't argue that medium class or lower people would put the money to "better" use. talking logically, how are "we" going to help the economy grow and prosper? working at a mediocre job and getting tax breaks? the economy will become stagnant. while yes the trickle down effect isn't a perfect system, it does in fact help the economy grow.
Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish? Do we give money to men or do we give them the opportunity to make money? I believe most wealthy people have become wealthy because of their knowledge of their specialized business. What happens to someone who studies and graduates acquiring knowledge of the economy or how to run a business? They usually do run a business in the future or obtain a high position within a big company. What happens to those who do not study (because of any reason, lack of money for education etc) they usually become workers of the lower and middle class. The following makes sense to me: Who knows best how to spend, invest or save more money the rich or the poor? Clearly the rich; that is how they were able to make their money in the first place, because first they studied and became knowledgeable about it and they have made their money create more money once they had it. The richer become richer because they have the experience and knowledge of how to put their money to work to create more money. What can a rich man do with more money if is not to make it grow? How do you make your money grow? By making your company grow. And how does your company grow? By selling more products. And how do you do that if you don’t invest in more equipment, more knowledge and more labor? It is obvious that companies which have more income become bigger and do employ more people and do invest in the economy, if they didn’t there is no way their business will keep growing. To say that rich companies will not invest their money and instead save it and not spend it in the economy simply does not make sense because if it was like that then companies will not show any growth or their stock will not increase in value which is clearly not the case. Rich and big companies do get bigger and richer not because of tax cuts but because the money from those tax cuts is re-invested and used for creating more positions within the company to increase supply. This is the whole concept of owning a business, making it grow by employing more people and increasing production. Of course the profits for stock holders will increase with the growth of the company but this is only logical, if not what would be the purpose of creating your own business and making it grow if not to increase your personal gain. But business owners cannot increase their personal gain if they don’t increase the gains of the company and increasing the gains of the companies means more production which means more employees (high and low positions). This is basically the same concept as the invisible hand, of course one creates a company with their personal gain only in mind but unintentionally this logically follows into creating gains for the lower class since they are the ones who will work for the company being created. How would it work the other way around? Give the money to the poor, which are already poor because they didn’t not have the opportunity to study, gain knowledge about money or for whatever other reasons. Suppose the tax cuts are only for them and not for big companies as well, what would the poor do with the money? Spend it on cloths, trips, food, benefiting only themselves and creating more demand for products which companies are not producing since they are not being benefited by tax cuts. How will the poor trickle up the wealth? Will giving them more money will make them more knowledgeable of how to use money? Will having more money will teach them how to invest? No, money that comes easy goes easy and it is not well invested. Poor people will not invest their money and make it grow or benefit anyone else but their family, it is a way to use the money individualized and in a small picture, it is thinking individualistically and not as a whole. Poor people with more money will immediately satisfy they need of buying what they need and want, they will not make that money grow, therefore the economy as a whole will not grow.
(Continues from comment above)
The way I see it is, taxes should not be increased on any level of the economy, nor to the rich or the poor. The focus should be on another way for the government to generate income that is not from the taxes from anyone. The less government enrolment the more freedom for rich and poor people to prosper. The united states reached the number one spot in the world of economy not by putting obstacles on entrepreneurs and business owners but by providing them with the tools for growth. The 3rd world countries are not prosperous because they do not allow their people to create business and make them grow, there is no incentive because taxes on businesses are so high and the result is? More poor people, more “equality” and less wealth in the country as a whole. Countries like United States that have implemented trickle-down economics results in more wealth, less poor and more bright minds. Unless for some is a better option to live in a country where the poor stay poor and no one becomes rich… Try Cuba for example, over there, there is no trickle-down economics whatsoever and does it trickle-up? Not at all.
“Screw the Little Man!”Trickle-down economics is based on the notion that if the rich do better, then the benefits will trickle down to the rest. The notion rests on the fact that tax breaks will result in more jobs being created, higher wages paid to the average worker, and an overall upturn in the economy. Historically in the US, income taxes on the wealthy have always been high. To put things in perspective, they were 94% until JFK dropped them down to 70% in 1963 and remained so until 1982 when Regan dropped them down to 28% and then now to their 35% levels. If you compare read GDP growth (which indicates performance of the US economy as a whole) vs. the tax rates for the last 50-60 years, there is no close relationship between the two. So much for upper-class tax cuts boosting the economy. Also there is no correlation between income growth and tax cuts so no higher wages paid to average worker, nor is there a correlation between unemployment and tax cuts - so no overall upturn in the economy. We can therefore conclude, that cutting taxes for the wealthy will NOT lead to improved standard of living for the working class.
I do not believe that cutting taxes for wealthy citizens will stimulate the economy. I also do not believe that taxing them more and giving the money to poorer citizens will help the economy. To treat the wealthy more favorably than the poor will result in a society seperated by class. And Giving too much welfare to the poor results in a socialism where no one works. The United states is based theoretically on equality wherein every citizen should have equal opportunity - to be successful or to fail. So for someone to be penalized for making a lot of money honestly is not right. And giving someone free government handouts for doing nothing is also unfair to the rest of us. I agree with what Ruben said earlier. Everyone Needs to pay their fair share of taxes, say an even percentage no matter what tax bracket your in. In trickle down economics, it is thught that the poorer class depend on the wealthy to create jobs and to buy things. the same logic could be used to say that we depend on the wealthy to pay for our welfare checks. Both are incorrect as far as I am concerned.
Having heard the experts, there are some differences in what they feel and what would be best for the national economy. I personally feel the bush tax cuts should be eliminated, and also the taxes should increase for those that make more than 120,000. The reason why i feel this way is because having paying higher taxes allow the government to invest that money into infrastructure and create more jobs. Aside from that, people that pay higher taxes gets reimbursed approximately 23% of what they paid taxes on. So regardless, they are paying higher taxes, but when you factor in the reimbursement, it's not a significant difference in higher payments. Paying higher taxes is essential for balancing the deficit, and creating opportunities for those that are less fortunate. From my own experience in the business side, the tax bracket i pay doesn't affect me. And if the government want's to raise my taxes to provide with those that are jobless, i don't mind. Now what i do mind is when i have to pay for a higher tax bracket to feed those that have no interest or motivation in becoming a more respected individual.(looking for a job) A person that works hard and earns a living, earns respect and character. A person that feeds off of others hard efforts is to say the least shameful.
Leandro Toledo
The idea that “trickle down economics” works, came from the people who want the tax cut. Today’s economy is a perfect example of how big business and the wealthy do not have the middle and lower class in their interests. They only plan on making interest off of their backs. Making money off money and betting that poor people will default on loans they couldn’t afford in the first place is no way to “trickle down” the money raked in by banks and their executives. A recent poll was published that stated that the top 2% of our economic society, own 60-70% of our national wealth. That leaves the last 294 million of us to divide up the remaining 30% at most. Sound like the trickle down effect works? I think not. But they sell this dream that, you too can be wealthy and successful, so you don’t want to have those taxes burdened upon you, do you? It’s false hope designed to protect profits and wealth.
Allison Mendoza
Okay so who ever thought about the idea, lets give 1% of the population a lot of money, make them extremly rich so they could control the other 99%, didnt have that thought well organized, as a matter of fact didnt have it organized at all. Thats why i believe that Keynesian economics is right. Money should all be equally distribute. Not "oh lets take money out of here to give it to these class." If there shouldnt be discriminations on different races because we are all the same, then there shouldnt be a classification of what group we belong in. We should all be either poor, we should all be either middle, or we should all be rich!!
Daisy Gigantana says
I feel that the trickle down economics does not work considering we are having a high unemployment. I don't see companies invest in stimulating job market. Instead, the money they are saving goes toward to merger or perhaps keep it until they get a better investment that can yield higher return. The trickle down theory for me seems to promote greed to have and promote desperation on have not. When I saw how Wall Street had been bail out by the government but yet no help on people who lost all their stocks because of Wall Street negligence. How about to those people who needs help on their home because they are facing foreclosure. No help for them but the government bail out the bank because they are too big to fail. This is just upsetting, it seems that the rich folks get more and then the working class get shafted. So much for trickle down economics, yeah trickle the money to the rich and get it from the working class or poor.
Daisy Gigantana says
I just want to add that Bush Tax Cut create a deficit of about 2.74 trillion dollars revenue in about eight years. Imagine what we can do with this money. We can build our breaking bridges or improve highway or roads, maybe we can have money to fund our education system. And how about the healthcare. We can have enough money to take care of our social programs such us police, fire fighters, community hospital, and etc. Just a thought.
Daisy Gigantana says
I just want to add that Bush Tax Cut create a deficit of about 2.74 trillion dollars revenue in about eight years. Imagine what we can do with this money. We can build our breaking bridges or improve highway or roads, maybe we can have money to fund our education system. And how about the healthcare. We can have enough money to take care of our social programs such us police, fire fighters, community hospital, and etc. Just a thought.
The trickle down economic idea only works, if the wealthy actually consumed in our country. The reality is that the wealthy spent most of their money in international businesses, and they don’t invest their money back. Either that or they are very prudent, saving every penny, and keeping it all to themselves. And if there is no money tricking down how would we those of lower class be able to become consumers. The money has become clogged, there is no money going in or out. So no technique they try will help the economic situation. All we can do is just watch as both wealthy and poor go down the drain.
The idea of trickle down is that if society protects the wealth of the rich, and let’s them keep more of their money by cutting income tax for the rich and giving money to the government, it will eventually trickle down to the poor and middle class. The high income earners will see an increase in their income. They will increase their spending and this creates additional demand in the economy and in turn creating jobs, and higher wages for all workers. But if you want to talk of doubtful theories, this is surely it. The rich have a tendency to save and save a higher amount of any tax cut or reinvest it. The Government’s power and/or money doesn’t trickle down, it takes money and pours it into even more bureaucracy and gives it to the rich. Its power grows and keeps growing at the expense of society, which in effect does little to improve the welfare of the average citizen. Unfortunately, the new jobs created are likely to be where the rich or investors can get most for the least amount invested which is in China, Mexico, or India, so jobs and wealth will be shifted to other parts of the world. If you want to reduce poverty or stimulate the economy, it makes sense to target income tax cuts and benefits to the majority of the population who need it. The middle class and the poor will spend more than invest and will lead to money being spent primarily on goods and services. Cutting taxes for the rich, in the hope some may trickle down to the poorest is a very ineffective way of working.
Rebeca Furniss
Trickle down economics? HA! ...I have to agree with Allison, the people that want the tax cut are the people who made it. I’m starting to believe that our government treats us as if we are in a controlled form of communism. The people that make this country are the blue collared ones, people like us who are trying against all the odds that are put in out path to make something out of ourselves and make a better life all around, but what “breaks” are they getting? I also have to agree with the comment from James K. Galbraith. I think as much as we may have moved forward in economics, we have definitely gone back some.
I think that "Trickle-down economics" helps more than just the wealthy class. I do agree that a company does become richer, and that maybe not all companies will recycle those funds back into the economy. The companies that do use the tax return funds for business purposes are able to sustain current employment, and possibly create new opportunities for job seekers. However, the working class may not be getting richer by these tax breaks, but they are able to maintain a job rather than being unemployed. I also think tax breaks, and being eligible for tax exemption, helps not only the large corporations, but also benefits self employed individuals, and small businesses.
Based on the comments from the professionals I can come to the conclusion that cutting taxes for the wealthy has almost no positive benefit to the middle and lower class. Wealth is not just an income but a lifestyle as well. All the wealthy people I have ever met in my life seem more concerned with maintaining their lavish lifestyle, whether they have the founds or not, rather than expanding to offer more jobs for the poor. If anything the rich would probably use this money to upgrade their own families by expanding their homes or cars considering I see more and more cars on the road that could easily purchase the block that my apartment is on or homes that could easily be mistake for shopping malls.
Post a Comment