I really thought at first glance that the “trickle down” process doesn’t seem really bad to be honest. I somewhat still feel in a way like it benefits more than hurts the economy. The saying is true that the rich will keep getting richer, but the rich actually do contribute a lot to the economy. Small to mediate businesses do benefit from tax cuts and if so do help out their communities around them by not cutting jobs and growing revenue. As for the bigger corporations, cuts would help but in moderation. If taxing businesses higher is the other option, I think more jobs would be lost and the economy would suffer. I specially understand the point that Galbraith made by asking if supporting the private consumption of the wealthy is a path were willing to go while police officers and teachers get laid off. But sometimes for the economy to get better not everyone can be a winner at first. I do find this topic hard to just pick a side, whether a Republican or Democrat views are gonna be different but the outcome has to be a good one or else the whole economy will fail. I agree with many democratic views but on this one it just seems like this idea has the best outcome.
This is an issue that has been going on for a while now. If indeed the "trickle down" will help many businesses big or small to help build more jobs, then I am more than up for it. There are many people in the world today who are jobless, and this can be an advantage for many. I feel that this will help benefit small business in particular because this can help minimize the business from going out of business and therefore leading for employees to loose their jobs.
Targeting only the small companies only because they are less rich, I feel is a little unfair. The reason is because all businesses struggle at some point. They offer jobs and benefits, of which smaller businesses may not. “Trickle down” should be all across the board for all companies. They should have the opportunity to improve their businesses in all aspects. The rich offer a lot to our country and they should not be brushed off to the side.
This is an issue that has been going on for a while now. If indeed the "trickle down" will help many businesses big or small to help build more jobs, then I am more than up for it. There are many people in the world today who are jobless, and this can be an advantage for many. I feel that this will help benefit small business in particular because this can help minimize the business from going out of business and therefore leading for employees to loose their jobs.
Targeting only the small companies only because they are less rich, I feel is a little unfair. The reason is because all businesses struggle at some point. Bigger businesses may offer more jobs and benefits, of which smaller businesses may not. “Trickle down” should be all across the board for all companies. They should have the opportunity to improve their businesses in all aspects. The rich offer a lot to our country and they should not be brushed off to the side.
I believe the “trickle down effect” have its pros and cons on how it can help or harm our economic system. First of all, starting with the pros of raising taxes on the republicans “the rich” can bring a substantial amount of revenue if it works effectively by opening up more budgets to create more benefits for business owners. By opening up new jobs and markets for middle and lower class people to start helping our country by spending more. In addition, by cutting taxes on goods and services will help the financial system by cutting cost the spender will feel more content with spending. In my opinion “the trickle down effect” cons by raising taxes on “the rich” may effect our economy because they may cut back their expenses and that will directly effect our economy. Due to the fact of raising taxes it will create a wave of job loss and more budget cuts and the most poignant part about it is teachers and law enforcement are the ones that are being impacted. Futhermore the problem with are country’s economy has been a ongoing state of affairs that needs to be resolved in the best way imaginable. Latifha williams
I see Trick down economics as a viable option to improve our economy a bit. Taxing the rich a bit more could only be beneficial because although they may not be fond of it, the money they have will be saved anyway so it might as well go to help the country they are residing in. Not only this but with the cuts placed on small businesses, more people can attempt to make a living which in turn will also benefit the economy as people are selling and buying more. By increasing the business revenue within America, it may cause us to be much less dependent on China to which most of our debt has accumulated from. It is very important for a country to encourage spending amongst its inhabitants because when people are worried about spending or spend money unwisely, then the troubles accumulate. First everyone took out loans for more money than they could repay which left us in a situation of poverty,but now the same people are to afraid to spend money and are stuck in low situations which cause them to just be going through life day by day. So this trickle down effect may help the people in low income lifestyles while not taking to much from the rich. A balance needs to be reached because in the United states, there are many more poor than rich.
Jor-El Vasco PHI 2010 July 16th 2011 Discussion post # 3
Taxing the Rich
I feel that the path to a fruitful economy is indeed to tax the wealthy. I believe that it will benefit the most importantly of all government jobs. Teachers, Police Officers, City Workers, and even solid waste employees are seeing their paychecks get cut more and more since the fall of the economy. These are the same people who pick up the trash for the wealthy persons home in Coco Plum. These are the same police officers who respond to their homes when a burglary is reported. And for what? Because they like to risk their lives or pick up trash? No! They are trying to earn a living and provide for their families. We have all felt the foul stench of precipitation brought on to us by “Trickle-down Economics” or what I like to call “Tinkle-down Economics”. We know what it’s like to not have enough to stay afloat after pay day. Please understand that when I say we I mean the middle to lower class. I’m all for raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires. This would mean an additional 700 billion dollars goes into the national deficit just by raising taxes on the filthy rich. I am hopeful that the Chinese government doesn’t just get fed up with our irresponsible borrowing trends that we do face our economic challenges here on our soil, bring home overseas jobs, and lower our national deficit. Hope for now is all we have.
Rising up the bar a little notch isn’t so bad at all. I believe there are good and bad of the “Trickle down” to where it can either help built our economy to bring more opportunities and benefit people and business or it can just harm everything and or everyone. But I honestly believe that the “Trickle down” benefits more than it actually hurting the economy. However, taxing the wealth would definitely open avenues of government jobs for many people who are jobless.
I can see both sides of the arguments as one side points out that by not raising the taxes on the rich and their business will cause them to create lower prices on products and merchandise and invest in their businesses and create more jobs. In doing so having a “Trickle-down economic effect” which means by helping them with tax breaks, it may also help the working class, to overall improve the economy. The other side argues that this will not help the economy and that there isn’t proof that this will help the economy and that we should have another plan to help improve the economy. I would have to take sides with James K.Galbraith opinion; my opinion is of course the Republican Party would favor this idea of the “Trickle-down effect” as the Republican mentality is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I think this shows just that, business over all do not have the best interest of anyone but themselves and the owners. The reason that these businesses are in effect is to make money, how can we know for a fact that these businesses will in fact lower prices of their product or merchandise. Businesses buy these products at an amount of price and in order for them to get their money back and some; they have to make the price higher than what they bought it for in the first place, to make profit and more. So the Trickle-down effect may or may not work, we really don’t know for sure if this plan may work for our economy. Taneisha Rodriguez
What Does Trickle Down Theory really Mean? The question that I am asking myself is that does this theory is really going to help the population. I don’t think that big businesses and wealthy investors will pass down to profit smaller businesses and consumers. The thing is the rich will become wealthier and there is nothing we are going to do about that. What these people need to do is to create more jobs and lower prices of the goods, so people can have a better life. After lowering the prices then they can apply this theory. Even though I am not an economist, I don’t really think that “Trickle Down Theory” is going to help the economic. If this strategy is going to bring some changes to the economic I will be happy to see that. Cutting on the taxes is really a good idea; I think it will help the economic to go up. The most important thing to do is to lower the rate of unemployed and to keep it down by creating more jobs. I think this theory is going to be helpful for businessmen and investors, but not to lower total of unemployed. Sophia Augustin
I believe that the best economic model is a central model. In my opinion, neither the so called “trickle-down” theory of economics nor the Keynesian theory works. On one hand, giving tax breaks to the top businesses does stimulate economic growth. However, the rich get richer when this theory is applied. They tend to control much of where the money flows. On the other hand, directly targeting those with less income would be ideal. However, in practice a part of this theory is counter-productive. Giving money to those who do not work tends to create a welfare state where those receiving aid do not try to better themselves or their situation, but rather use the money to keep the status quo. What is needed is a more central approach – something that would stimulate the bottom, middle and top of the economy. A central model would create jobs for those in dire economic situations. This country needs to move away from a welfare state and into a production state. Our best economic periods have been during war-time because people were working, both government and businesses were creating jobs and everyone was focused on an ideal. This country needs to begin to create jobs and stop sending them overseas. We need to become a manufacturing nation again. We have stopped manufacturing in the United States. Many of our goods and labor are imported. If the government is going to step in and help, the best thing it can do is to stimulate all businesses. Help entrepreneurs start up a business. Give tax breaks to existing businesses. If we start increasing taxes on businesses, especially small or medium sized businesses, it will lead to their failure. The big businesses should continue to receive tax breaks, but only if they maintain the jobs in the United States or create more jobs if they plan to export production (another idea would be to punish those businesses that export production). We need to stop the progression in this country of consumption without production. We need to spend less and create more. Footnote: Contrary to the opinion of the article, the economic situation we face today was created mostly by greed. People were buying homes they could not afford. Banks were lending without checking credit ratings or doing simple background checks. The article criticizes Berthoud’s opinion on the economy in 2006 and labels it “out of whack.” However, a year ago the current administration also opined that we were heading out of the recession, and the economy was getting better within a year. It has not.
Trickle down economics is a policy that has been helping our economy yet it does come with strings attached. The money that is being poured into the top of the social class is allowing fortune 500 companies and big businesses room for new jobs and more revenue. This in turn allows people to spend more money on new products which goes back into the govts tax revenue. However, because of the way the government has handled their budget, the economy is still suffering due to the high debt it is sustaining. Borrowing money isn't a solution to anything because although it slightly helps the economy, it is still an illusion to an increasing revenue, and will lead to higher deficit. The laffer curve, by arthur laffer, demonstrates the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. Right now the tax rates are lower, increasing revenue, however due to our national debt the economy will not be recovering.
Trickle-down economics is a term that means to give tax breaks to businesses, big and small, in hopes that in doing so will make the businesses open more job positions and lower prices on goods and services which can help stimulate the economy. While this concept make logical sense, there is no guaranteed that this is a good solution. Giving tax breaks to businesses may help the unemployed, which in turn will lower the unemployment rate and make the US more productive. However, this theory is just assuming that businesses owners will open more jobs. They may not do so, and instead saved the extra money for themselves. This will harm the economy even more because the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer.
Another flaw in this theory is if there is a tax breaks on businesses, there is going to have to be a tax increase on something else to balance out the decrease in money flow. This may be a tax increase on poor and middle class, and on sales and food tax. However, I am not in favor of taxing the rich. While I do think the government will see an increase in money flow, the rich may raise prices on goods and services and lay off many workers because they can no longer afford them. What the country need is a plan that will not negatively affect a certain group of people, but the problem is that we do not know if such a plan exists.
Manoucheca Prevert July 21st, 2011 PHI 2010 From my point of view, Keynesian economics is better for the recovery of the economy. I think that the Trickle-down economics doesn’t really work. For instance, now, the Bush tax cut is not as effective as it should be. We need to try something new. It is time for the country to start doing something about its debt. If we don’t do something now, there is a great possibility that the debt will keep increasing. And the country will keep having future deficits. The country will have to pay its debt sooner or later. Like Matthew C. Weinzierl said: “Today, when the government has built up a large debt, these households rationally expect much of that debt to be repaid through increased taxes on them at some point.” If we keep saying that we are not going to increase taxes, then how are we going to pay our debt back? From my perspective the Bush tax cuts doesn’t really help on the recovery of the economy. I believe that if we let the Bush tax cut expire, it will not have a lot bad effects on the economy like some people believe. According to Laura Tyson, the trickle-down theory about the relationship between taxes rate and economic activity is not supported by evidence. She says that the economy grew faster and created more jobs in the 1990s when tax rates on top earners were considerably higher than it did after the Bush tax cuts. This evidence clearly shows that the Bush tax cut is not as effective as it should be. It is not something that we would like to keep if we want the economy to grow faster and to create more jobs I think that we will have more deficits if we keep extending the Bush tax cut than if we increase taxes on the top earners. I hope that the Congress will come with better solution that is more effective and that can stimulate the growth of the economy faster.
I’m not sure if I quite believe in “trickle-down” economics, and if it works for recovering our economy, I am not a professional. I do, however, believe it is wrong to put higher taxes on the rich. Sure some of them land on sums of money that are often times inherited, or the other ones who have made “easy” money. What about the other ones though? Most of them are people who have worked very hard their whole lives. There are certain doctors that go through 10 years or more of post secondary education, and businessmen who have dedicated most of their lives to building up their businesses to be successful. Why is it right that they should be taxed almost 50% in some states? The very rich people don’t just earn money, put it in the bank, and live poor lives. They spend it. Although it kills me to see someone driving by in a nice sports car, or have huge houses, they’re still pumping money into the economy. That car that they bought helps keep that salesman’s job, the men and women that work at the factories to build that car. If no one buys cars, there is no production, which leads to workers being laid off. I’m not sure what’s better or worse, the rich keeping their money, or the government taking their money.
Proponents of this theory believe that when government helps companies, they will produce more and thereby hire more people and raise salaries. The people, in turn, will have more money to spend in the economy. I’m not sure if I believe in this theory too much. Why should the government give the big companies more money than what they already have? If the government is going to give away money to companies, why not give it to the smaller companies who have more difficulties? To believe that this will raise the amounts of jobs and salaries, I’m a firm believer in that. I do, however, believe that something should happen in order to help our economy. Who is to blame for the demise of our middle class? We have a government that is more interested in creating jobs in foreign countries rather than creating jobs in America. The key to creating wealth is good paying jobs. Like the jobs that would be created by America harvesting our resources to become energy independent. If we were drilling and mining at the rate Canada is, we would have full employment. Full employment, not unions, raises wages. Our government does not want a strong middle class of independent thinkers who may vote for someone else or, heaven forbid, another political party. Obama is giving money to foreign countries to drill for oil, which he has committed to buy from Brazil. They will drill with our money, in the Gulf of Mexico where America is banned from drilling, and create jobs for Brazilians.
In my opinion I’m really on the fence about this theory. If the government decides to increase the taxes on big business maybe there might be a solution to the problem, but increase taxes on middle and lower class citizens are definitely not the right way to approach this, with employment at its highest and American families are cutting back essential just to survive is not good. The government really needs to cut down the lower class taxes and make the richer people pay more taxes. This might help by creating more jobs and lowering the rate of unemployment. If the trickle-down economics will help the middle and lower class maybe the rich won’t get richer and the poor won’t get poorer. This is a very serious issue that has touch people I know personally. The economy really needs a boost of help to get it on the right path of helping the American people. The trickle-down economics might help for awhile while we try to build the economy back to where it was. NERLINE THEODORICE
The "trickle down" process seems like a plan that has both highs and lows. Actually, It almost reminds me of the concept of Robin Hood (robbing the rich to feed the poor). Of course, instead of stealing it's taxing. No one is a fan of taxes, so the issue of raising them is probably my only real concern. However, since the goal is to raise the taxes of the rich in order to help raise the economy, than that could work. Although it may sound incorrect, the raising of taxes on the wealthy will not be a great affect towards them. Those who are jobless, and who unable to provided for their families are the one's that are affected, but in a positive way. What ever money comes from the rich will help them to establish a living. Also, It feels like a process that requires baby steps. It is not something that can be jumped into automatically, but one that is done carefully. However, to be perfectly honest, I've never been able to understand our economy completely, so voicing out my opinion for this topic is rather difficult. I want what is best for the economy and the state. If the "trickle down" process has potential (which I think it does), then I thick it is worth giving it a chance.
The trickle-down economics debate at the moment is a serious yet ridiculous one in my opinion. Raising the taxes by a couple of numbers will not seriously affect those wealthy that will be taxed. With the economy in such a bad position, this is something that needs to be done. What is the common sense in cutting taxes when our country is billions in debt? That they hope that the wealthy businesses will flourish and create more jobs and increase consumption? If the taxes are raised, it’s not that the wealthy will consume less, they will continue to consume as Laura Tyson puts it. When our country is billions in debt there needs to be change and action, if the tax cuts have not worked during the Bush administration they will most likely not significantly improve the economy. I feel very strongly against the republican tax cut plan because they want to cut the taxes on the wealthy and in order to obtain more money for the debt (which could be obtained by not cutting the taxes) they plan on reducing the money students get to go to college. Of course, increasing taxes a small amount on the wealthy is better for the whole country than allowing more children to have a future education… (*Sarcasm) Students began many online petitions on this matter but they are not strong enough to make a difference. My question is why are they so afraid of the taxes? The tax cuts obviously did not work during the Bush administration since that is when our debt grew drastically. In my opinion, it is not only that the wealthy may be influencing some politicians but also the government is currently using the fallacy “appeal to the person,” but except in this case it should be “Appeal to the [political] Party.” They don’t agree with certain things clearly because one party came up with it. If this is a democracy, the people of this country cannot allow the government to continue these childish games, they need to speak up more. "I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it," -Alexander Woollcott.
I agree to the Trickle-down economic politic, not only because its going to provide the income this economy needs to stay afloat but also because its going to benefit the lower and middle-class for once. This topic, of course, it’s a very problematic one, not only out in the streets but inside the White House as well. Republicans and Democrats don’t seem to agree. Republicans say that if we start taxing the rich instead of opening new jobs, we are going to provoke the destruction of existing ones because business will have to sacrifice some paychecks in order to pay the taxation. Another point is that this new taxation will stop new business from opening thus creating a completely opposite scenario of what we are aiming for. However, Democrats allege that this is already happening with no taxation, besides the extra money from the wealthy class is going to create a new influx in the economy, releasing the pressure off the poor and middle class’ shoulders. They say that the economy, now days, doesn’t depend on how many business are created but how much is people spending. Right now, people are trying to be very conservative about their spending because aside from the fact that many don’t have a job, the ones that still have, are trying to survive and save if some day they are put in lay off. My theory around this whole chaos is that if we start taxing the rich, the government will start having the money to support social jobs and programs, and a healthy government will be enough to stop the popular panic and people will be spending again, rehabilitating the country’s economy.
Trickled down economics can be a helpful option for the stimulus of our economy. But as a philosophical thought, I believe that this plan should be done in a balanced manner. When I agree with this option, I think it should be implemented to only those companies that have a certain growth level (whether it be in profit, stability, popularity in their market, etc), because it is important to give chances to other on-growing companies, that are struggling to get to the top of their market. My approach to implement the trickled down economics is also to target it locally. Like this, we can still see the growth and motivation of striving companies to get to a top, with the stimulus of local buyers. This will benefit our cities and states as a whole. Overall, the main reason for this strategy should be with a positive intention to the complete well being of the country. We cannot let our greed for money unbalance our economy. We should for once understand that thanks to this country, we have the opportunity to grow, but when the country needs our help, we should be there with the best intention.
It seems to me that this Trickle-Down theory is a dream waiting to come true. The government and many politicians hope that with the tax cuts it can better our economy. But in reality, it’s become an immense controversy. I am not sure if I can disagree or agree with this theory has there are pros and cons to it. Its pros are that with the boost in production it will be the key in escaping from recession and taxing the wealthy can be beneficial to the health of the economy. I have read that politicians that agree with this theory are wealthy themselves and this theory would be in their best favor, typical. It seems that these tax breaks are for the wealthy and not the poor, which makes the whole theory skeptic. At times these wealthy Americans look towards tax breaks for “self-served purposes” and not in the best interest for the nation. But yet, the wealthy American investors invest in paying workers first before they can actually make a profit, so it seems that “there are two sides to the story”. Even when Barack Obama was running for president he thought that this theory failed, and promised that he would tax the wealthy and ease taxes upon lower income people. Time has shown that there might be light at the end of the tunnel but it is still an on edge topic and very much controversial.
This is an issue that has been going on for a while now. If indeed the "trickle down" will help many businesses big or small to help build more jobs, then I am more than up for it. There are many people in the world today who are jobless, and this can be an advantage for many. I feel that this will help benefit small business in particular because this can help minimize the business from going out of business and therefore leading for employees to loose their jobs.
Targeting only the small companies only because they are less rich, I feel is a little unfair. The reason is because all businesses struggle at some point. They offer jobs and benefits, of which smaller businesses may not. “Trickle down” should be all across the board for all companies. They should have the opportunity to improve their businesses in all aspects. The rich offer a lot to our country and they should not be brushed off to the side.
This is an issue that has been going on for a while now. If indeed the "trickle down" will help many businesses big or small to help build more jobs, then I am more than up for it. There are many people in the world today who are jobless, and this can be an advantage for many. I feel that this will help benefit small business in particular because this can help minimize the business from going out of business and therefore leading for employees to loose their jobs.
Targeting only the small companies only because they are less rich, I feel is a little unfair. The reason is because all businesses struggle at some point. They offer jobs and benefits, of which smaller businesses may not. “Trickle down” should be all across the board for all companies. They should have the opportunity to improve their businesses in all aspects. The rich offer a lot to our country and they should not be brushed off to the side.
Whether it’s deciding if a trickledown economics system or not, this fact will remain the same-It will always seem right to those who will benefit from it and wrong to those who won’t benefit from it. My opinion is that if it’s going to mean a positive change for America, I am all for it. Too many people are unemployed, homeless, and miserable. The rich can afford a little more than what they are paying on the dollar to be taken from them. It may seem quite harsh, but those who have more should give more.
A "trickle down economy" may most like mean “more money in the pockets of those who didn’t have before”, meaning more money to spend, which means businesses are going to start doing well. New jobs will be created through this process. Of course there will be some strings attached as there is with everything in America. Companies may start increasing the price of their products to make increase profit and to make up for the extra taxes that they are being charged. This may lead to inflation-another big no-no for America. They may also pay their employees less which might deter the whole purpose of a trickled down economy, which is to improve our economy. Is a trickle down economy going to work? Maybe for those who will benefit from it, but we’ll just have to see.
Whether it’s deciding if a trickledown economics system or not, this fact will remain the same-It will always seem right to those who will benefit from it and wrong to those who won’t benefit from it. My opinion is that if it’s going to mean a positive change for America, I am all for it. Too many people are unemployed, homeless, and miserable. The rich can afford a little more than what they are paying on the dollar to be taken from them. It may seem quite harsh, but those who have more should give more.
A "trickle down economy" may most like mean “more money in the pockets of those who didn’t have before”, meaning more money to spend, which means businesses are going to start doing well. New jobs will be created through this process. Of course there will be some strings attached as there is with everything in America. Companies may start increasing the price of their products to make increase profit and to make up for the extra taxes that they are being charged. This may lead to inflation-another big no-no for America. They may also pay their employees less which might deter the whole purpose of a trickled down economy, which is to improve our economy. Is a trickle down economy going to work? Maybe for those who will benefit from it, but we’ll just have to see.
According to Newbury House Dictionary, the term "trickle down the economics" means to go from a higher to a lower economic class, which is also synonym of taking part of the wealth from the rich to the poor. In my opinion, it is not a good idea in society like America where the economy is fundamentally based on the free market, yet regulated by the government officials like it is in other countries whatever the economic model chosen.
We all know that the American society is founded on the basis of strength of characters, values and sacrifices. Howevever, over the past two years, the kind of economic discussions we've been watching in Washington is kind of heartbreaking and disgusting at the same time where our elites are not focussing anymore on what has always made America great, strong and unique country of its kind. Now, money is so more important than anything else that nobody wants to make a little sacrifice, to forget part of one's personal interest, which could be profitable to the majority. It seems that our elected officials in Washington and big CEOs of Wall Street have already fogotten what has conducted us to the 2008 financial crisis. We have noticed that the recovery is not complete yet; therefore, the market is still very sensitive and fragile. Having said that, I can subscribe to the idea that the "pro big business" must stop capitalizing to the principle of what is good for big bankers, corporations, CEOs,...ect is good for the middle and lower class families. Very often, big money is involved without taking taking in account 95% of the population. The idea that cutting taxes for big businesses would stimulate a comeback of the economy and consequently would facilitate job creations is not working until now. On the contrary, we've seen an employment rate disastrously high (9.2%).
In my view, I think the big corporations and the Republicans leaders have no intention to create a political atmosphere that would incite the economy growth where people who now are suffering enormously from jobs can expect to be hired again. Their intention is to block the Obama admisnistration from all the tentatives to create an economic environment that would be profitable for veryone (rich, middle and lower class families). They prefer to spend their money in lobbying in Washington, to keep the status quo, so they can make President Obama a one-term President, which the Republicans claim loudly. In this case, they would have been proud of their accomplishments in the presidential of November 2012. But who knows? Life is made of surprise.
Our economy has been a major issue for a while now. In my opinion, I think the “trickle-down economy” is a bad idea. First and foremost, I believe in the saying that history repeats itself. We’ve already had 2 World Wars and we’re currently still in a recession, making it the second recession in history. It’s good that the government wants to try and help our economy, but I don’t believe that the “trickle-down economy” is the way to go. Ronald Regan tried this theory of the “trickle-down economy” and in the end it didn’t work and the larger companies basically ended up receiving more money, so who’s to say that this won’t happen again, leading us into bigger issues with the economy? On top of that, it’s wrong to have the rich people pay more tax money after they worked so hard for it. Yes, some people may have inherited the money or gotten lucky, but a good amount of people actually work for their money, so why should we penalize them for it?
It is very unfortunate that the economy is doing very poorly, but we can't say it is the first time this has happened. The "trickle down" process has no gaurantees to better the economy what's so ever. The biggest problem is if they tax the "very rich" the process won't happen over night, and if the percentage labeled "very rich" is too low the goverment would have to expand the range of people being taxed. It doesn't matter what class anyone falls into, no one wants to be taxed but that can't be the case. It becomes a problem with the very rich, small buisnesses, and republicans. Obviously they may be effected because their incomes are greater or higher. Out of all the arguments I find the best argument to be the funding we will lack with the schools for the teachers. Teachers are the building block of our youth and of even myself. Police officers not so much, I feel like they aren't as useful as they should be. I'm not saying we don't need police but we probably don't need as much police as we have, but teachers are another story. Back to the main point, yes it isn't necessarily fair for the "very rich" to be taxed but it isn't necessarily fair for the majority to go to hell either. There arguments are good but when you think about people being jobless and unable to keep hold of families it's a touchy subject. Not everyone is going to win and it's not like the majority being the lower class can even mange to get out of their predicaments if they tried. What can they do?, so really there are tough decisions to be made. It doesn't make sense to beg a poor person but with a wealthier person it makes more sense. Their perdicament can't be that bad, their rich right?.
Increasing taxes on the wealthy to create more jobs for the middle and lower class I affirm is a great idea for the economy, and also isn’t that what we are looking for anyway in this economic crisis for more jobs? I believe increasing taxes on the wealthy a little wouldn’t hurt their deep pockets; furthermore, it would be beneficial for our most important workers in our society for instance, teachers, police officers, Sanitation workers etc. increasing on the wealthy would also allow the discontinuation of parks, and libraries from being shut down. In my opinion the congress should just increase the taxes of the upper class until the economy is back on track. On the other hand, I believe we should wait until the recession is a little more settled.
“America's wealthiest are paying a pittance in taxes, while the country is chipping away at its central foundations to meet budget shortfalls.”(Robert Reich) - James Etienne
The trickle-down theory has remained a highly controversial topic as it can clearly be observed. Do tax breaks on the wealthy supposedly benefit all others in the long run? The concept comes from an economist named Laffer who devised the Laffer curve - supposedly a proof that increasing tax rates in a graduated income-tax system actually results in a decrease in revenue to the government beyond a certain point, since those adversely affected spend an increasing portion of their time dodging taxes rather than engaging in productive work. From this came the idea that, if the rich were allowed to stay wealthy, the benefits from that would "trickle down" to the average Joe in the street in the form of, e.g., higher paying jobs..
All of this still assumes that what the rich want to do with their money actually is of more benefit to society than what government would do with the seized funds. And, of course, this totally ignores the moral problem, which is whether a society based on institutionalized robbery has any value, in the deepest sense, at all.
The foregoing analysis reveals an inherent weakness in economics to the extent it claims to be a science. Values may be objectified by reality (we all have to eat), but in the end, they are the product of individual subjective wills. Economics can trace the flow of goods and services and show how certain political choices reward certain parties and punish others. Economics cannot guide us in making the underlying value judgments, at least beyond the needs of basic survival.
Trickle-Down Economics is a theory that has failed before but is still being pushed on us. It did not work when Reagan tried it and he actually made the annual income of the top 10 percent increase by 80 percent ten years later; from 1980 to 1989. On paper it may sound nice; tax the richest Americans less so they can have more money and thus they can invest on things that affect everyone. This has definitely not been the case with either Reaganomics and the Bush tax cuts. They have both failed miserably and its time to stop it from happening again. Trickle-Down Economics create large wealth gaps and help the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. There is no proof that it helps the economy grow whatsoever. For me, personally, the idea of giving tax breaks to the richest Americans but still taxing the working class seems illogical and unfair. Furthermore, I find it very suspicious to why some republicans support this economic system while knowing that it doesn’t work. I mean they might be die hard republicans and they might do anything that the party expects them to do or say for the sake of the GOP but to me that’s no excuse to be willfully ignorant and uncooperative with the president and the other side.
Up to now, not many people would agree that trickledown economics really works for the economy of the country. The view of trickle down was considered as the best way to stimulate the economy by investing money companies and giving them tax breaks. The thought of the Republicans was to give tax cuts o the rich. Many republican did not see any sense of just a few percentage tax cut would lead rich people to use their own incomes to hire new people, which most of them will never do .As it was understood that cutting tax rates for the wealthiest Americans or upper income classes would be able to improve the standard of living for the working class. The main view of the Republican Party is that the wealth people have their right to keep whatever they earn; and now the trickle-down theory was come up in a way for them to get tax cuts for jobs can be created and the overall situation of everyone and specially the working classes of America would improve. To which many economists are against this theory that they consider as a failure. There will be a decrease on spending that will definitely hurt the economy specifically supermarkets, retailers, stores, and anywhere else you’d normally spend your money is damaged. Now, can we guess to what will happen to people who work for those companies? Nobody will have money to invest or spend their money because the economy is going down. That is like taking money away from those people. STEEVEN DIVERS MWF 10:25-12:40
33 comments:
I really thought at first glance that the “trickle down” process doesn’t seem really bad to be honest. I somewhat still feel in a way like it benefits more than hurts the economy. The saying is true that the rich will keep getting richer, but the rich actually do contribute a lot to the economy. Small to mediate businesses do benefit from tax cuts and if so do help out their communities around them by not cutting jobs and growing revenue. As for the bigger corporations, cuts would help but in moderation. If taxing businesses higher is the other option, I think more jobs would be lost and the economy would suffer. I specially understand the point that Galbraith made by asking if supporting the private consumption of the wealthy is a path were willing to go while police officers and teachers get laid off. But sometimes for the economy to get better not everyone can be a winner at first. I do find this topic hard to just pick a side, whether a Republican or Democrat views are gonna be different but the outcome has to be a good one or else the whole economy will fail. I agree with many democratic views but on this one it just seems like this idea has the best outcome.
This is an issue that has been going on for a while now. If indeed the "trickle down" will help many businesses big or small to help build more jobs, then I am more than up for it. There are many people in the world today who are jobless, and this can be an advantage for many. I feel that this will help benefit small business in particular because this can help minimize the business from going out of business and therefore leading for employees to loose their jobs.
Targeting only the small companies only because they are less rich, I feel is a little unfair. The reason is because all businesses struggle at some point. They offer jobs and benefits, of which smaller businesses may not. “Trickle down” should be all across the board for all companies. They should have the opportunity to improve their businesses in all aspects. The rich offer a lot to our country and they should not be brushed off to the side.
Yanelis Ventura
MWF 10:25
This is an issue that has been going on for a while now. If indeed the "trickle down" will help many businesses big or small to help build more jobs, then I am more than up for it. There are many people in the world today who are jobless, and this can be an advantage for many. I feel that this will help benefit small business in particular because this can help minimize the business from going out of business and therefore leading for employees to loose their jobs.
Targeting only the small companies only because they are less rich, I feel is a little unfair. The reason is because all businesses struggle at some point. Bigger businesses may offer more jobs and benefits, of which smaller businesses may not. “Trickle down” should be all across the board for all companies. They should have the opportunity to improve their businesses in all aspects. The rich offer a lot to our country and they should not be brushed off to the side.
Yanelis Ventura
MWF 10:25
I believe the “trickle down effect” have its pros and cons on how it can help or harm our economic system. First of all, starting with the pros of raising taxes on the republicans “the rich” can bring a substantial amount of revenue if it works effectively by opening up more budgets to create more benefits for business owners. By opening up new jobs and markets for middle and lower class people to start helping our country by spending more. In addition, by cutting taxes on goods and services will help the financial system by cutting cost the spender will feel more content with spending. In my opinion “the trickle down effect” cons by raising taxes on “the rich” may effect our economy because they may cut back their expenses and that will directly effect our economy. Due to the fact of raising taxes it will create a wave of job loss and more budget cuts and the most poignant part about it is teachers and law enforcement are the ones that are being impacted. Futhermore the problem with are country’s economy has been a ongoing state of affairs that needs to be resolved in the best way imaginable.
Latifha williams
I see Trick down economics as a viable option to improve our economy a bit. Taxing the rich a bit more could only be beneficial because although they may not be fond of it, the money they have will be saved anyway so it might as well go to help the country they are residing in. Not only this but with the cuts placed on small businesses, more people can attempt to make a living which in turn will also benefit the economy as people are selling and buying more. By increasing the business revenue within America, it may cause us to be much less dependent on China to which most of our debt has accumulated from.
It is very important for a country to encourage spending amongst its inhabitants because when people are worried about spending or spend money unwisely, then the troubles accumulate. First everyone took out loans for more money than they could repay which left us in a situation of poverty,but now the same people are to afraid to spend money and are stuck in low situations which cause them to just be going through life day by day. So this trickle down effect may help the people in low income lifestyles while not taking to much from the rich. A balance needs to be reached because in the United states, there are many more poor than rich.
Jor-El Vasco
PHI 2010
July 16th 2011
Discussion post # 3
Taxing the Rich
I feel that the path to a fruitful economy is indeed to tax the wealthy. I believe that it will benefit the most importantly of all government jobs. Teachers, Police Officers, City Workers, and even solid waste employees are seeing their paychecks get cut more and more since the fall of the economy. These are the same people who pick up the trash for the wealthy persons home in Coco Plum. These are the same police officers who respond to their homes when a burglary is reported. And for what? Because they like to risk their lives or pick up trash? No! They are trying to earn a living and provide for their families.
We have all felt the foul stench of precipitation brought on to us by “Trickle-down Economics” or what I like to call “Tinkle-down Economics”. We know what it’s like to not have enough to stay afloat after pay day.
Please understand that when I say we I mean the middle to lower class. I’m all for raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires. This would mean an additional 700 billion dollars goes into the national deficit just by raising taxes on the filthy rich. I am hopeful that the Chinese government doesn’t just get fed up with our irresponsible borrowing trends that we do face our economic challenges here on our soil, bring home overseas jobs, and lower our national deficit. Hope for now is all we have.
Rising up the bar a little notch isn’t so bad at all. I believe there are good and bad of the “Trickle down” to where it can either help built our economy to bring more opportunities and benefit people and business or it can just harm everything and or everyone. But I honestly believe that the “Trickle down” benefits more than it actually hurting the economy. However, taxing the wealth would definitely open avenues of government jobs for many people who are jobless.
Widny Lherisson
M,W,F 10:25am
I can see both sides of the arguments as one side points out that by not raising the taxes on the rich and their business will cause them to create lower prices on products and merchandise and invest in their businesses and create more jobs. In doing so having a “Trickle-down economic effect” which means by helping them with tax breaks, it may also help the working class, to overall improve the economy. The other side argues that this will not help the economy and that there isn’t proof that this will help the economy and that we should have another plan to help improve the economy. I would have to take sides with James K.Galbraith opinion; my opinion is of course the Republican Party would favor this idea of the “Trickle-down effect” as the Republican mentality is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I think this shows just that, business over all do not have the best interest of anyone but themselves and the owners. The reason that these businesses are in effect is to make money, how can we know for a fact that these businesses will in fact lower prices of their product or merchandise. Businesses buy these products at an amount of price and in order for them to get their money back and some; they have to make the price higher than what they bought it for in the first place, to make profit and more. So the Trickle-down effect may or may not work, we really don’t know for sure if this plan may work for our economy. Taneisha Rodriguez
What Does Trickle Down Theory really Mean?
The question that I am asking myself is that does this theory is really going to help the population. I don’t think that big businesses and wealthy investors will pass down to profit smaller businesses and consumers. The thing is the rich will become wealthier and there is nothing we are going to do about that. What these people need to do is to create more jobs and lower prices of the goods, so people can have a better life. After lowering the prices then they can apply this theory. Even though I am not an economist, I don’t really think that “Trickle Down Theory” is going to help the economic. If this strategy is going to bring some changes to the economic I will be happy to see that. Cutting on the taxes is really a good idea; I think it will help the economic to go up. The most important thing to do is to lower the rate of unemployed and to keep it down by creating more jobs. I think this theory is going to be helpful for businessmen and investors, but not to lower total of unemployed.
Sophia Augustin
I believe that the best economic model is a central model. In my opinion, neither the so called “trickle-down” theory of economics nor the Keynesian theory works. On one hand, giving tax breaks to the top businesses does stimulate economic growth. However, the rich get richer when this theory is applied. They tend to control much of where the money flows. On the other hand, directly targeting those with less income would be ideal. However, in practice a part of this theory is counter-productive. Giving money to those who do not work tends to create a welfare state where those receiving aid do not try to better themselves or their situation, but rather use the money to keep the status quo. What is needed is a more central approach – something that would stimulate the bottom, middle and top of the economy.
A central model would create jobs for those in dire economic situations. This country needs to move away from a welfare state and into a production state. Our best economic periods have been during war-time because people were working, both government and businesses were creating jobs and everyone was focused on an ideal. This country needs to begin to create jobs and stop sending them overseas. We need to become a manufacturing nation again. We have stopped manufacturing in the United States. Many of our goods and labor are imported.
If the government is going to step in and help, the best thing it can do is to stimulate all businesses. Help entrepreneurs start up a business. Give tax breaks to existing businesses. If we start increasing taxes on businesses, especially small or medium sized businesses, it will lead to their failure. The big businesses should continue to receive tax breaks, but only if they maintain the jobs in the United States or create more jobs if they plan to export production (another idea would be to punish those businesses that export production). We need to stop the progression in this country of consumption without production. We need to spend less and create more.
Footnote: Contrary to the opinion of the article, the economic situation we face today was created mostly by greed. People were buying homes they could not afford. Banks were lending without checking credit ratings or doing simple background checks. The article criticizes Berthoud’s opinion on the economy in 2006 and labels it “out of whack.” However, a year ago the current administration also opined that we were heading out of the recession, and the economy was getting better within a year. It has not.
-Yennis Leyva
Trickle down economics is a policy that has been helping our economy yet it does come with strings attached. The money that is being poured into the top of the social class is allowing fortune 500 companies and big businesses
room for new jobs and more revenue. This in turn allows people to spend more money on new products which goes back into
the govts tax revenue. However, because of the way the government has handled their budget, the economy is still suffering
due to the high debt it is sustaining. Borrowing money isn't a solution to anything because although it slightly helps the
economy, it is still an illusion to an increasing revenue, and will lead to higher deficit. The laffer curve, by arthur laffer, demonstrates the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. Right now the tax rates are lower, increasing revenue, however due to our national debt the economy will not be recovering.
Trickle-down economics is a term that means to give tax breaks to businesses, big and small, in hopes that in doing so will make the businesses open more job positions and lower prices on goods and services which can help stimulate the economy. While this concept make logical sense, there is no guaranteed that this is a good solution. Giving tax breaks to businesses may help the unemployed, which in turn will lower the unemployment rate and make the US more productive. However, this theory is just assuming that businesses owners will open more jobs. They may not do so, and instead saved the extra money for themselves. This will harm the economy even more because the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer.
Another flaw in this theory is if there is a tax breaks on businesses, there is going to have to be a tax increase on something else to balance out the decrease in money flow. This may be a tax increase on poor and middle class, and on sales and food tax. However, I am not in favor of taxing the rich. While I do think the government will see an increase in money flow, the rich may raise prices on goods and services and lay off many workers because they can no longer afford them. What the country need is a plan that will not negatively affect a certain group of people, but the problem is that we do not know if such a plan exists.
Manoucheca Prevert
July 21st, 2011
PHI 2010
From my point of view, Keynesian economics is better for the recovery of the economy. I think that the Trickle-down economics doesn’t really work. For instance, now, the Bush tax cut is not as effective as it should be. We need to try something new. It is time for the country to start doing something about its debt. If we don’t do something now, there is a great possibility that the debt will keep increasing. And the country will keep having future deficits. The country will have to pay its debt sooner or later. Like Matthew C. Weinzierl said: “Today, when the government has built up a large debt, these households rationally expect much of that debt to be repaid through increased taxes on them at some point.” If we keep saying that we are not going to increase taxes, then how are we going to pay our debt back? From my perspective the Bush tax cuts doesn’t really help on the recovery of the economy.
I believe that if we let the Bush tax cut expire, it will not have a lot bad effects on the economy like some people believe. According to Laura Tyson, the trickle-down theory about the relationship between taxes rate and economic activity is not supported by evidence. She says that the economy grew faster and created more jobs in the 1990s when tax rates on top earners were considerably higher than it did after the Bush tax cuts. This evidence clearly shows that the Bush tax cut is not as effective as it should be. It is not something that we would like to keep if we want the economy to grow faster and to create more jobs I think that we will have more deficits if we keep extending the Bush tax cut than if we increase taxes on the top earners. I hope that the Congress will come with better solution that is more effective and that can stimulate the growth of the economy faster.
I’m not sure if I quite believe in “trickle-down” economics, and if it works for recovering our economy, I am not a professional. I do, however, believe it is wrong to put higher taxes on the rich. Sure some of them land on sums of money that are often times inherited, or the other ones who have made “easy” money. What about the other ones though? Most of them are people who have worked very hard their whole lives. There are certain doctors that go through 10 years or more of post secondary education, and businessmen who have dedicated most of their lives to building up their businesses to be successful. Why is it right that they should be taxed almost 50% in some states? The very rich people don’t just earn money, put it in the bank, and live poor lives. They spend it. Although it kills me to see someone driving by in a nice sports car, or have huge houses, they’re still pumping money into the economy. That car that they bought helps keep that salesman’s job, the men and women that work at the factories to build that car. If no one buys cars, there is no production, which leads to workers being laid off. I’m not sure what’s better or worse, the rich keeping their money, or the government taking their money.
Proponents of this theory believe that when government helps companies, they will produce more and thereby hire more people and raise salaries. The people, in turn, will have more money to spend in the economy. I’m not sure if I believe in this theory too much. Why should the government give the big companies more money than what they already have? If the government is going to give away money to companies, why not give it to the smaller companies who have more difficulties?
To believe that this will raise the amounts of jobs and salaries, I’m a firm believer in that. I do, however, believe that something should happen in order to help our economy.
Who is to blame for the demise of our middle class? We have a government that is more interested in creating jobs in foreign countries rather than creating jobs in America. The key to creating wealth is good paying jobs. Like the jobs that would be created by America harvesting our resources to become energy independent. If we were drilling and mining at the rate Canada is, we would have full employment. Full employment, not unions, raises wages.
Our government does not want a strong middle class of independent thinkers who may vote for someone else or, heaven forbid, another political party. Obama is giving money to foreign countries to drill for oil, which he has committed to buy from Brazil. They will drill with our money, in the Gulf of Mexico where America is banned from drilling, and create jobs for Brazilians.
In my opinion I’m really on the fence about this theory. If the government decides to increase the taxes on big business maybe there might be a solution to the problem, but increase taxes on middle and lower class citizens are definitely not the right way to approach this, with employment at its highest and American families are cutting back essential just to survive is not good. The government really needs to cut down the lower class taxes and make the richer people pay more taxes. This might help by creating more jobs and lowering the rate of unemployment. If the trickle-down economics will help the middle and lower class maybe the rich won’t get richer and the poor won’t get poorer. This is a very serious issue that has touch people I know personally. The economy really needs a boost of help to get it on the right path of helping the American people. The trickle-down economics might help for awhile while we try to build the economy back to where it was.
NERLINE THEODORICE
Andrea Lopez
Phi 2010
The "trickle down" process seems like a plan that has both highs and lows. Actually, It almost reminds me of the concept of Robin Hood (robbing the rich to feed the poor). Of course, instead of stealing it's taxing. No one is a fan of taxes, so the issue of raising them is probably my only real concern. However, since the goal is to raise the taxes of the rich in order to help raise the economy, than that could work. Although it may sound incorrect, the raising of taxes on the wealthy will not be a great affect towards them. Those who are jobless, and who unable to provided for their families are the one's that are affected, but in a positive way. What ever money comes from the rich will help them to establish a living. Also, It feels like a process that requires baby steps. It is not something that can be jumped into automatically, but one that is done carefully. However, to be perfectly honest, I've never been able to understand our economy completely, so voicing out my opinion for this topic is rather difficult. I want what is best for the economy and the state. If the "trickle down" process has potential (which I think it does), then I thick it is worth giving it a chance.
The trickle-down economics debate at the moment is a serious yet ridiculous one in my opinion. Raising the taxes by a couple of numbers will not seriously affect those wealthy that will be taxed. With the economy in such a bad position, this is something that needs to be done. What is the common sense in cutting taxes when our country is billions in debt? That they hope that the wealthy businesses will flourish and create more jobs and increase consumption?
If the taxes are raised, it’s not that the wealthy will consume less, they will continue to consume as Laura Tyson puts it.
When our country is billions in debt there needs to be change and action, if the tax cuts have not worked during the Bush administration they will most likely not significantly improve the economy.
I feel very strongly against the republican tax cut plan because they want to cut the taxes on the wealthy and in order to obtain more money for the debt (which could be obtained by not cutting the taxes) they plan on reducing the money students get to go to college. Of course, increasing taxes a small amount on the wealthy is better for the whole country than allowing more children to have a future education… (*Sarcasm)
Students began many online petitions on this matter but they are not strong enough to make a difference.
My question is why are they so afraid of the taxes? The tax cuts obviously did not work during the Bush administration since that is when our debt grew drastically. In my opinion, it is not only that the wealthy may be influencing some politicians but also the government is currently using the fallacy “appeal to the person,” but except in this case it should be “Appeal to the [political] Party.” They don’t agree with certain things clearly because one party came up with it. If this is a democracy, the people of this country cannot allow the government to continue these childish games, they need to speak up more.
"I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it," -Alexander Woollcott.
I agree to the Trickle-down economic politic, not only because its going to provide the income this economy needs to stay afloat but also because its going to benefit the lower and middle-class for once. This topic, of course, it’s a very problematic one, not only out in the streets but inside the White House as well. Republicans and Democrats don’t seem to agree. Republicans say that if we start taxing the rich instead of opening new jobs, we are going to provoke the destruction of existing ones because business will have to sacrifice some paychecks in order to pay the taxation. Another point is that this new taxation will stop new business from opening thus creating a completely opposite scenario of what we are aiming for. However, Democrats allege that this is already happening with no taxation, besides the extra money from the wealthy class is going to create a new influx in the economy, releasing the pressure off the poor and middle class’ shoulders. They say that the economy, now days, doesn’t depend on how many business are created but how much is people spending. Right now, people are trying to be very conservative about their spending because aside from the fact that many don’t have a job, the ones that still have, are trying to survive and save if some day they are put in lay off. My theory around this whole chaos is that if we start taxing the rich, the government will start having the money to support social jobs and programs, and a healthy government will be enough to stop the popular panic and people will be spending again, rehabilitating the country’s economy.
Trickled down economics can be a helpful option for the stimulus of our economy. But as a philosophical thought, I believe that this plan should be done in a balanced manner. When I agree with this option, I think it should be implemented to only those companies that have a certain growth level (whether it be in profit, stability, popularity in their market, etc), because it is important to give chances to other on-growing companies, that are struggling to get to the top of their market. My approach to implement the trickled down economics is also to target it locally. Like this, we can still see the growth and motivation of striving companies to get to a top, with the stimulus of local buyers. This will benefit our cities and states as a whole. Overall, the main reason for this strategy should be with a positive intention to the complete well being of the country. We cannot let our greed for money unbalance our economy. We should for once understand that thanks to this country, we have the opportunity to grow, but when the country needs our help, we should be there with the best intention.
Carlos Andrade
It seems to me that this Trickle-Down theory is a dream waiting to come true. The government and many politicians hope that with the tax cuts it can better our economy. But in reality, it’s become an immense controversy. I am not sure if I can disagree or agree with this theory has there are pros and cons to it. Its pros are that with the boost in production it will be the key in escaping from recession and taxing the wealthy can be beneficial to the health of the economy. I have read that politicians that agree with this theory are wealthy themselves and this theory would be in their best favor, typical. It seems that these tax breaks are for the wealthy and not the poor, which makes the whole theory skeptic. At times these wealthy Americans look towards tax breaks for “self-served purposes” and not in the best interest for the nation. But yet, the wealthy American investors invest in paying workers first before they can actually make a profit, so it seems that “there are two sides to the story”. Even when Barack Obama was running for president he thought that this theory failed, and promised that he would tax the wealthy and ease taxes upon lower income people. Time has shown that there might be light at the end of the tunnel but it is still an on edge topic and very much controversial.
Angelica Martinez
MWF 10:25am-12:40pm
Anonymous said...
This is an issue that has been going on for a while now. If indeed the "trickle down" will help many businesses big or small to help build more jobs, then I am more than up for it. There are many people in the world today who are jobless, and this can be an advantage for many. I feel that this will help benefit small business in particular because this can help minimize the business from going out of business and therefore leading for employees to loose their jobs.
Targeting only the small companies only because they are less rich, I feel is a little unfair. The reason is because all businesses struggle at some point. They offer jobs and benefits, of which smaller businesses may not. “Trickle down” should be all across the board for all companies. They should have the opportunity to improve their businesses in all aspects. The rich offer a lot to our country and they should not be brushed off to the side.
Alexander Kachtchev
MWF 10:25
Anonymous said...
This is an issue that has been going on for a while now. If indeed the "trickle down" will help many businesses big or small to help build more jobs, then I am more than up for it. There are many people in the world today who are jobless, and this can be an advantage for many. I feel that this will help benefit small business in particular because this can help minimize the business from going out of business and therefore leading for employees to loose their jobs.
Targeting only the small companies only because they are less rich, I feel is a little unfair. The reason is because all businesses struggle at some point. They offer jobs and benefits, of which smaller businesses may not. “Trickle down” should be all across the board for all companies. They should have the opportunity to improve their businesses in all aspects. The rich offer a lot to our country and they should not be brushed off to the side.
Alexander Kachtchev
MWF 10:25
Whether it’s deciding if a trickledown economics system or not, this fact will remain the same-It will always seem right to those who will benefit from it and wrong to those who won’t benefit from it. My opinion is that if it’s going to mean a positive change for America, I am all for it. Too many people are unemployed, homeless, and miserable. The rich can afford a little more than what they are paying on the dollar to be taken from them. It may seem quite harsh, but those who have more should give more.
A "trickle down economy" may most like mean “more money in the pockets of those who didn’t have before”, meaning more money to spend, which means businesses are going to start doing well. New jobs will be created through this process. Of course there will be some strings attached as there is with everything in America. Companies may start increasing the price of their products to make increase profit and to make up for the extra taxes that they are being charged. This may lead to inflation-another big no-no for America. They may also pay their employees less which might deter the whole purpose of a trickled down economy, which is to improve our economy. Is a trickle down economy going to work? Maybe for those who will benefit from it, but we’ll just have to see.
Jessica Jean-Baptiste
Whether it’s deciding if a trickledown economics system or not, this fact will remain the same-It will always seem right to those who will benefit from it and wrong to those who won’t benefit from it. My opinion is that if it’s going to mean a positive change for America, I am all for it. Too many people are unemployed, homeless, and miserable. The rich can afford a little more than what they are paying on the dollar to be taken from them. It may seem quite harsh, but those who have more should give more.
A "trickle down economy" may most like mean “more money in the pockets of those who didn’t have before”, meaning more money to spend, which means businesses are going to start doing well. New jobs will be created through this process. Of course there will be some strings attached as there is with everything in America. Companies may start increasing the price of their products to make increase profit and to make up for the extra taxes that they are being charged. This may lead to inflation-another big no-no for America. They may also pay their employees less which might deter the whole purpose of a trickled down economy, which is to improve our economy. Is a trickle down economy going to work? Maybe for those who will benefit from it, but we’ll just have to see.
Jessica Jean-Baptiste
According to Newbury House Dictionary, the term "trickle down the economics" means to go from a higher to a lower economic class, which is also synonym of taking part of the wealth from the rich to the poor. In my opinion, it is not a good idea in society like America where the economy is fundamentally based on the free market, yet regulated by the government officials like it is in other countries whatever the economic model chosen.
We all know that the American society is founded on the basis of strength of characters, values and sacrifices. Howevever, over the past two years, the kind of economic discussions we've been watching in Washington is kind of heartbreaking and disgusting at the same time where our elites are not focussing anymore on what has always made America great, strong and unique country of its kind. Now, money is so more important than anything else that nobody wants to make a little sacrifice, to forget part of one's personal interest, which could be profitable to the majority. It seems that our elected officials in Washington and big CEOs of Wall Street have already fogotten what has conducted us to the 2008 financial crisis. We have noticed that the recovery is not complete yet; therefore, the market is still very sensitive and fragile. Having said that, I can subscribe to the idea that the "pro big business" must stop capitalizing to the principle of what is good for big bankers, corporations, CEOs,...ect is good for the middle and lower class families. Very often, big money is involved without taking taking in account 95% of the population. The idea that cutting taxes for big businesses would stimulate a comeback of the economy and consequently would facilitate job creations is not working until now. On the contrary, we've seen an employment rate disastrously high (9.2%).
In my view, I think the big corporations and the Republicans leaders have no intention to create a political atmosphere that would incite the economy growth where people who now are suffering enormously from jobs can expect to be hired again. Their intention is to block the Obama admisnistration from all the tentatives to create an economic environment that would be profitable for veryone (rich, middle and lower class families). They prefer to spend their money in lobbying in Washington, to keep the status quo, so they can make President Obama a one-term President, which the Republicans claim loudly. In this case, they would have been proud of their accomplishments in the presidential of November 2012. But who knows? Life is made of surprise.
Our economy has been a major issue for a while now. In my opinion, I think the “trickle-down economy” is a bad idea. First and foremost, I believe in the saying that history repeats itself. We’ve already had 2 World Wars and we’re currently still in a recession, making it the second recession in history. It’s good that the government wants to try and help our economy, but I don’t believe that the “trickle-down economy” is the way to go. Ronald Regan tried this theory of the “trickle-down economy” and in the end it didn’t work and the larger companies basically ended up receiving more money, so who’s to say that this won’t happen again, leading us into bigger issues with the economy? On top of that, it’s wrong to have the rich people pay more tax money after they worked so hard for it. Yes, some people may have inherited the money or gotten lucky, but a good amount of people actually work for their money, so why should we penalize them for it?
It is very unfortunate that the economy is doing very poorly, but we can't say it is the first time this has happened. The "trickle down" process has no gaurantees to better the economy what's so ever. The biggest problem is if they tax the "very rich" the process won't happen over night, and if the percentage labeled "very rich" is too low the goverment would have to expand the range of people being taxed. It doesn't matter what class anyone falls into, no one wants to be taxed but that can't be the case. It becomes a problem with the very rich, small buisnesses, and republicans. Obviously they may be effected because their incomes are greater or higher. Out of all the arguments I find the best argument to be the funding we will lack with the schools for the teachers. Teachers are the building block of our youth and of even myself. Police officers not so much, I feel like they aren't as useful as they should be. I'm not saying we don't need police but we probably don't need as much police as we have, but teachers are another story. Back to the main point, yes it isn't necessarily fair for the "very rich" to be taxed but it isn't necessarily fair for the majority to go to hell either. There arguments are good but when you think about people being jobless and unable to keep hold of families it's a touchy subject. Not everyone is going to win and it's not like the majority being the lower class can even mange to get out of their predicaments if they tried. What can they do?, so really there are tough decisions to be made. It doesn't make sense to beg a poor person but with a wealthier person it makes more sense. Their perdicament can't be that bad, their rich right?.
Increasing taxes on the wealthy to create more jobs for the middle and lower class I affirm is a great idea for the economy, and also isn’t that what we are looking for anyway in this economic crisis for more jobs? I believe increasing taxes on the wealthy a little wouldn’t hurt their deep pockets; furthermore, it would be beneficial for our most important workers in our society for instance, teachers, police officers, Sanitation workers etc. increasing on the wealthy would also allow the discontinuation of parks, and libraries from being shut down. In my opinion the congress should just increase the taxes of the upper class until the economy is back on track. On the other hand, I believe we should wait until the recession is a little more settled.
“America's wealthiest are paying a pittance in taxes, while the country is chipping away at its central foundations to meet budget shortfalls.”(Robert Reich)
- James Etienne
The trickle-down theory has remained a highly controversial topic as it can clearly be observed. Do tax breaks on the wealthy supposedly benefit all others in the long run? The concept comes from an economist named Laffer who devised the Laffer curve - supposedly a proof that increasing tax rates in a graduated income-tax system actually results in a decrease in revenue to the government beyond a certain point, since those adversely affected spend an increasing portion of their time dodging taxes rather than engaging in productive work. From this came the idea that, if the rich were allowed to stay wealthy, the benefits from that would "trickle down" to the average Joe in the street in the form of, e.g., higher paying jobs..
All of this still assumes that what the rich want to do with their money actually is of more benefit to society than what government would do with the seized funds. And, of course, this totally ignores the moral problem, which is whether a society based on institutionalized robbery has any value, in the deepest sense, at all.
The foregoing analysis reveals an inherent weakness in economics to the extent it claims to be a science. Values may be objectified by reality (we all have to eat), but in the end, they are the product of individual subjective wills. Economics can trace the flow of goods and services and show how certain political choices reward certain parties and punish others. Economics cannot guide us in making the underlying value judgments, at least beyond the needs of basic survival.
Trickle-Down Economics is a theory that has failed before but is still being pushed on us. It did not work when Reagan tried it and he actually made the annual income of the top 10 percent increase by 80 percent ten years later; from 1980 to 1989.
On paper it may sound nice; tax the richest Americans less so they can have more money and thus they can invest on things that affect everyone. This has definitely not been the case with either Reaganomics and the Bush tax cuts. They have both failed miserably and its time to stop it from happening again.
Trickle-Down Economics create large wealth gaps and help the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. There is no proof that it helps the economy grow whatsoever.
For me, personally, the idea of giving tax breaks to the richest Americans but still taxing the working class seems illogical and unfair. Furthermore, I find it very suspicious to why some republicans support this economic system while knowing that it doesn’t work. I mean they might be die hard republicans and they might do anything that the party expects them to do or say for the sake of the GOP but to me that’s no excuse to be willfully ignorant and uncooperative with the president and the other side.
Up to now, not many people would agree that trickledown economics really works for the economy of the country. The view of trickle down was considered as the best way to stimulate the economy by investing money companies and giving them tax breaks. The thought of the Republicans was to give tax cuts o the rich. Many republican did not see any sense of just a few percentage tax cut would lead rich people to use their own incomes to hire new people, which most of them will never do .As it was understood that cutting tax rates for the wealthiest Americans or upper income classes would be able to improve the standard of living for the working class. The main view of the Republican Party is that the wealth people have their right to keep whatever they earn; and now the trickle-down theory was come up in a way for them to get tax cuts for jobs can be created and the overall situation of everyone and specially the working classes of America would improve. To which many economists are against this theory that they consider as a failure. There will be a decrease on spending that will definitely hurt the economy specifically supermarkets, retailers, stores, and anywhere else you’d normally spend your money is damaged. Now, can we guess to what will happen to people who work for those companies? Nobody will have money to invest or spend their money because the economy is going down. That is like taking money away from those people.
STEEVEN DIVERS
MWF 10:25-12:40
Post a Comment