Why do conservatives still support the trickle down theory?

[Im Still Ballin]

Cutting taxes on the rich, businesses and 1%ers does nothing but fill their pockets with more money...

It's basic economics -- something guys like patrick chewing, phong, fultznationrise, long duck dong, dude77 fail to understand.


It's been proven time and time again, that you spur economic growth by giving the little guys a break


THAT'S how you create a growth environment for the economy

It's also how you address income inequality. You close the gap.


But it's almost like certain people don't want to tackle the growing drift between the rich, middle class and poor...


Yet we still got Donald giving out major tax breaks to fortune 500 companies.


Shit ain't right man.

[Shogon]

The better question is why ISH users dignify OP with responses. Of course, I know the answer... it's a rhetorical question.

[FultzNationRISE]

OP ill give you the answer

IF

you post a mean side angle.

[Doomsday Dallas]

Trickle Down works... but Gentrification is a side effect.

Trickle Down is how it's suppose to work... slightly regulated so nobody gets f*cked over too bad.

Some of you guys are wanting over-regulated Trickle Up UBI Yang nonsense. Government just gives everyone a thousand bucks a month and nobody has to pay for school or healthcare.

Healthcare & Education are suppose to be private businesses, again, slightly regulated so nobody gets screwed over.


America has something like 17 million millionaires. Those people create jobs. It trickles down. Creates Opportunity for all by producing jobs.

If you spread out the money, and "flatten the curve".... No jobs will be created.

The more money the top 10% has.... the more opportunity I have.

[Im Still Ballin]

Trickle Down works... but Gentrification is a side effect.

Trickle Down is how it's suppose to work... slightly regulated so nobody gets f*cked over too bad.

Some of you guys are wanting over-regulated Trickle Up UBI Yang nonsense. Government just gives everyone a thousand bucks a month and nobody has to pay for school or healthcare.

Healthcare & Education are suppose to be private businesses, again, slightly regulated so nobody gets screwed over.


America has something like 17 million millionaires. Those people create jobs. It trickles down. Creates Opportunity for all by producing jobs.

If you spread out the money, and "flatten the curve".... No jobs will be created.

The more money the top 10% has.... the more opportunity I have.

No.

2015 Research paper (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global-Perspective-42986).


We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down.

[Patrick Chewing]

My stuff always trickles down. It never comes flying out like you see in the movies.

[Cleverness]

Trickle-down economics in 3 steps:

1. Taxpayers give money to politicians

2. Politicians give that money to their friends (lobbyists/donors) & keep some for themselves

3. The rest of the money "trickles down" to wasteful gov't programs than generally incentivize poor behaviors


Conservatives generally don't support it

[falc39]

Most conservatives shouldn't even be considered conservatives these days (at least from an economic standpoint)

[SATAN]

Trickle-down economics in 3 steps:

1. Taxpayers give money to politicians

2. Politicians give that money to their friends (lobbyists/donors) & keep some for themselves

3. The rest of the money "trickles down" to wasteful gov't programs than generally incentivize poor behaviors


Conservatives generally don't support it

:facepalm

[Doomsday Dallas]

No.

2015 Research paper (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/Issues/2016/12/31/Causes-and-Consequences-of-Income-Inequality-A-Global-Perspective-42986).


We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down.

when the rich don't get richer... most of us are out of a job.

It trickles down with you having a decent job... If the rich don't get richer... you are jobless with no opportunities.

Can the rich get richer and the poor get richer simultaneously? Not really. That would be a perfect world and we don't live in that world.

You can only get so broke before you are living off the land completely homeless... the rich just need to do a better job with homeless shelters but they never will...

We spend $2 trillion on Covid... How many homeless shelters could that money have paid for that provide food & water.

seems like we could've ended homelessness for 10 years assuming the poor we help are drug free (but they never are)

The only thing causing a wealth gap is inflation even if it's at a steady 2 - 3%... some of it is greed, but it's more about that slow never ending inflation rate that gives the dollar's purchasing power less and less value each year.... and like I said: Gentrification is a side effect.

The current system recycle's it's self every 100 years or so, a game of musical chairs about every 7 years where somebody gets the financial shaft.... then every hundred years a massive collapse happens, we rebuild a new system where every 7 to 10 years a small percentage of people get ****ed over and taken advantage of financially until the next big collapse happens a century later. Small bubbles continuously pop until the Big One pops. Happens about once a century. It almost has to be this way due to our human nature. Somebody has to get f*cked over or there are no jobs to service the people that got f*cked over.

If regulated properly by the Government, trickle down economics is the way it should be... Unfortunately we need the upper class to have steady success. As long as they succeed... you have an opportunity. The alternative: you're on your own or employed by the government.

[~primetime~]

trickle down has basically been proven not to work. Most Republicans won't even use that term.

The rich get richer and then... thats it... it never trickle down. Wealth gap goes out of control.

Give some money to the poor and that money will trickle straight up to a wealthy CEO in no time... and in the process something gets created.

Everyone wins, including the rich

[Doomsday Dallas]

The rich get richer and then... thats it... it never trickle down.


How do they get rich to begin with? By creating thousands of jobs.

You want to make a $Billion your probably going to have to create a few thousand jobs along the way... if they want to get richer... they have to create more jobs.

The trickle down is low unemployment numbers.

besides, it's not like the rich keep their net worth completely liquid likes it's hoarded up in some vault that nobody has access to... it's mostly invested in the business they own.

Jerry Jones net worth is basically the value of the Dallas Cowboys. He doesn't have Billions in the bank just sitting there collecting dust.

I'm not saying the current system is flawless... but it's much better than what some leftists are proposing, policies proven over and over not to work.



Give some money to the poor and that money will trickle straight up to a wealthy CEO in no time... and in the process something gets created.

no, almost nothing gets created in the process... no jobs created, only money spent back up to the top where it's supposedly hoarded once again by the rich...

Billions of dollars in stimulus checks and UBI would create nothing.

[Hawker]

trickle down has basically been proven not to work. Most Republicans won't even use that term.

The rich get richer and then... thats it... it never trickle down. Wealth gap goes out of control.

Give some money to the poor and that money will trickle straight up to a wealthy CEO in no time... and in the process something gets created.

Everyone wins, including the rich

Republicans never used that term to begin with.

The company I'm with now was/is funded by investors - millionaires.

I'm making money now and building wealth thanks to them.

Having a job is trickle down. We've been able to expand recently and hired on additional people whose previous jobs didn't pay as well...that's trickle down.

[~primetime~]

This last stimulus check we all got is basically in the hands of grocery store CEOs right now. But in the process of it getting there we all got groceries and they had to hire people.

DEMAND is what creates jobs...it doesnt matter how wealthy people are, they wont make jobs if there is no one to buy shit.

[Thorpesaurous]

I kind of fall all over the place on the political spectrum depending on the topic, but generally believe in trickle down economics. Much of this I agree with.


Trickle Down works... but Gentrification is a side effect.

Trickle Down is how it's suppose to work... slightly regulated so nobody gets f*cked over too bad.

Some of you guys are wanting over-regulated Trickle Up UBI Yang nonsense. Government just gives everyone a thousand bucks a month and nobody has to pay for school or healthcare.

Healthcare & Education are suppose to be private businesses, again, slightly regulated so nobody gets screwed over.


America has something like 17 million millionaires. Those people create jobs. It trickles down. Creates Opportunity for all by producing jobs.

If you spread out the money, and "flatten the curve".... No jobs will be created.

The more money the top 10% has.... the more opportunity I have.

The few things I don't are that I don't believe healthcare should be a private business. At least not as it's structured now. Not with the insurance companies sucking off of it. Education is largely not private, everyone can get a free education through High School, which probably isn't worth what it once was, which probably speaks more to the over regulation of those programs ... teaching to the test and such. Beyond that specialized education I do agree should be privatized, as it is, and it can be extremely affordable. People need to abandon the old college BA system though for most things, and that can be done, and frankly the BA can be gotten relatively affordably at many colleges.

The thing I'd add to the pro's list of Trickle Down is that it breeds ingenuity and inventiveness. It gives people something to strive for that isn't common in every country. It does put a ladder to climb in place. The whole thing is a spectrum, and while it's not entirely true that socialism can be described "we pretend to work ... they pretend to pay us", it's equally untrue that Trickle Down discription of "The upper class is literally pissing on us".

It also hasn't worked as well in the last twenty years, maybe because the technology is more available to the masses to innovate without being put in a position to access it, and being pushed to develop it by an employer. But I also think a HUGE part of the problem is the fact that this country has tied healthcare to a persons employment, which to me is ****ing up a multitude of things. Those tax breaks are frequently going to subsudize a wildly out of control insurance business. Especially for smaller businesses who are still providing healthcare. Real socialized healthcare takes that enormous expense out of the hands of the employer, which allows the employer to pay a more livable wage, which drives the economy from the bottom up. But that only works if the government can cost control the healthcare industry, which is really driven out of control by the insurance companies.

Just for disclosure of my perspective. I'm a very small owner in a small business that employs about forty people, and worked in college for an insurance company.

[Hawker]

This last stimulus check we all got is basically in the hands of grocery store CEOs right now. But in the process of it getting there we all got groceries and they had to hire people.

DEMAND is what creates jobs...it doesnt matter how wealthy people are, they wont make jobs if there is no one to buy shit.

The supply chain has been massively disrupted during this crisis. If there’s no supply, nobody will buy shit.

Stimulus is fake money creating fake demand. I just got my check in the mail. I know it’s fake money.

[~primetime~]

When you want to stimulate the economy, you have to start from the bottom to get all the wheels turning

The population has money to buy, then the rich hire to meet their demands.

It's the demand that drives it all

[Norcaliblunt]

People are correct it does create jobs, but jobs that are detrimental to fcking everything. Shitty unhealthy food, shitty unhealthy energy, shitty unhealthy entertainment, shitty transportation, shitty healthcare, shitty service, straight up fcking junk we don’t need, the list goes on and on. All the people who work these jobs then become little foot soldier mouthpieces for these industries because they make a little money and think they’re cool. All the while corporations still buy the government through lobbyists and create regulations in their favor. The average person is an idiot though for spending their money on the crap these fcked up companies sell.

[bladefd]

Republicans never used that term to begin with.

The company I'm with now was/is funded by investors - millionaires.

I'm making money now and building wealth thanks to them.

Having a job is trickle down. We've been able to expand recently and hired on additional people whose previous jobs didn't pay as well...that's trickle down.

Having a job by itself is not trickle down because you're doing something in return for that work that is in demand. If you get paid as much as your work is worth or get bonuses that add up then it would be trickle down economics. If your work contribution is much greater than what you are being paid while accounting for inflation (and you are not getting consistent pay raises) then I would not consider that trickle down economics.

Imagine being paid $30k for work that nets your employer about $80k of revenue. That's 50k pure profit to the employer. Holding that job by itself is not trickle down economics unless if you are being paid much more than 30k. I don't expect profit to equal 0 or to be in the red, but I would expect it to be somewhat close. I don't expect that sort of business model to be realistic, but that's the scenario when I would consider it trickle down economics.

[Hawker]

You "demand makes jobs" people only account for already existing products.

Not new products.

Buying groceries doesn't stimulate the economy.

[Hawker]

When you want to stimulate the economy, you have to start from the bottom to get all the wheels turning

The population has money to buy, then the rich hire to meet their demands.

It's the demand that drives it all

That money is all short term though - it's fake demand.

[Hawker]

Having a job by itself is not trickle down because you're doing something in return for that work that is in demand. If you get paid as much as your work is worth or get bonuses that add up then it would be trickle down economics. If your work contribution is much greater than what you are being paid while accounting for inflation (and you are not getting consistent pay raises) then I would not consider that trickle down economics.

Imagine being paid $30k for work that nets your employer about $80k of revenue. That's 50k pure profit to the employer. Holding that job by itself is not trickle down economics unless if you are being paid much more than 30k. I don't expect profit to equal 0 or to be in the red, but I would expect it to be somewhat close. I don't expect that sort of business model to be realistic, but that's the scenario when I would consider it trickle down economics.

That's everyone that's employed. Your example is completely arbitrary. So if you got paid $31k then all of a sudden it's trickle down economics but not if it's $30k?

[bladefd]

That's everyone that's employed. Your example is completely arbitrary. So if you got paid $31k then all of a sudden it's trickle down economics but not if it's $30k?

You are asking me what it should be in that example?

If the difference between profit to employer and income to employee is that big, I would expect to see a big jump in income to consider it trickle down economics in that example.. I guess for that example, I would expect a $70,000 income..

Try this:
$80k revenue generation
$70k income to employee
$10k profit to employer

That's close to trickle down economics. You don't want employer profit to be muuuuch greater than what the employee makes in income.

[Hawker]

You are asking me what it should be in that example?

If the difference between profit to employer and income to employee is that big, I would expect to see a big jump in income to consider it trickle down economics in that example.. I guess for that example, I would expect a $70,000 income..

Try this:
$80k revenue generation
$70k income to employee
$10k profit to employer

That's close to trickle down economics. You don't want employer profit to be muuuuch greater than what the employee makes in income.

Then how does the employer expand his/her business so more employees can be hired?

You're just arbitrarily picking numbers out of your ass. "This should be this much because I said so."

What is considered a big "gap"

The money you make from the employer doesn't just go to cash. You save it and then spend it other things that enrich you, put into a retirement fund or save for a house. That makes you richer. That's trickle down.

I don't see my employer as my enemy like you guys do. Your revenue doesn't even account for overheads.

Are you suggesting companies should run at a 12.5% profit margin?

[~primetime~]

That money is all short term though - it's fake demand.

But it illustrates that starting with the poor, not the rich, is what stimulates the economy.

If trickle down is what works best, Trump would have just dumped the entire stimulus on the top and let it trickle down to the rest of us. But that doesn't actually stimulate the economy. Putting the money at the bottom is what makes it run on all cylinders becauae they immediately spend it, forcing the rich to hire to keep up with the demand.

[bladefd]

Then how does the employer expand his/her business so more employees can be hired?

You're just arbitrarily picking numbers out of your ass. "This should be this much because I said so."

What is considered a big "gap"

The money you make from the employer doesn't just go to cash. You save it and then spend it other things that enrich you, put into a retirement fund or save for a house. That makes you richer. That's trickle down.

I don't see my employer as my enemy like you guys do. Your revenue doesn't even account for overheads.

Are you suggesting companies should run at a 12.5% profit margin?

Having a job alone isn't trickle down economics because the employer is getting something in return, which you have to account for in any economic equation. It is not just the employer giving you money, but you as employee are providing something in return so it is a 2-way road. That much should be obvious.

You asked me what I would consider complete trickle down economics in action. I gave you a simple example. That example would be trickle down economics if it were to be in place because the benefits are passed on to the employee.

Perhaps in that example, too much of benefits are passed on to employee that the employer has not enough remaining to grow on. Unfortunately by asking how does employer expand the business, you are moving on to a whole different new argument that doesn't have anything to do with my point.

What would I consider a big gap? I don't know. Just not the extreme dissonance we see nowadays is the best answer I can give you. CEOs collecting $15mill bonuses and massive stock buybacks by corporations is not helping that dissonance. Put some of that money into the pockets of your employees instead as bonuses. Is it too much to ask for to not have one extreme? Why do I need specific numbers? Just be reasonable & pragmatic as an employer to your employees.

[Hawker]

Having a job alone isn't trickle down economics because the employer is getting something in return, which you have to account for in any economic equation. It is not just the employer giving you money, but you as employee are providing something in return so it is a 2-way road. That much should be obvious.

You asked me what I would consider complete trickle down economics in action. I gave you a simple example. That example would be trickle down economics if it were to be in place because the benefits are passed on to the employee.

Perhaps in that example, too much of benefits are passed on to employee that the employer has not enough remaining to grow on. Unfortunately by asking how does employer expand the business, you are moving on to a whole different new argument that doesn't have anything to do with my point.

What would I consider a big gap? I don't know. Just not the extreme dissonance we see nowadays is the best answer I can give you. CEOs collecting $15mill bonuses and massive stock buybacks by corporations is not helping that dissonance. Put some of that money into the pockets of your employees instead as bonuses. Is it too much to ask for to not have one extreme? Why do I need specific numbers? Just be reasonable & pragmatic as an employer to your employees.

The business was the one that created the job. Generally, if you get a new job, it's because it's paying more than it was before. You are gaining income. You are gaining wealth. That is trickle down economics. That person is now better off than what they were before.

The benefits are definitely there you just don't see it since you want a simplified example when business is not that way.

Lowering taxes and increasing freedom allows business as much room as possible to go after opportunities and this in turn will create business and jobs.

That's what it was always marketed as - democrats try to market it differently for simpletons like yourself that all of a sudden money magically comes into your pocket after a tax cut.

That's why you dismiss my point about expanding the business because you're a simpleton. I don't disagree with your last point but wealth "trickling down" absolutely does exist. Too many arguments about inequality are rooted in jealousy, envy and anger.

[999Guy]

Trickle-down economics in 3 steps:

1. Taxpayers give money to politicians

2. Politicians give that money to their friends (lobbyists/donors) & keep some for themselves

3. The rest of the money "trickles down" to wasteful gov't programs than generally incentivize poor behaviors


Conservatives generally don't support it
Yeah they just worship the politicians that do. Let’s be serious here conservatives are willing to bring this country’s economy to Brazil levels of unequal just to win these culture wars of petty nonsense and keep a ridiculous worldview(everyone for themselves) they don’t even truly live by afloat.

[Norcaliblunt]

What about when they out source and create jobs for Chinese people too? Is that still trickle down?

[bladefd]

The business was the one that created the job. Generally, if you get a new job, it's because it's paying more than it was before. You are gaining income. You are gaining wealth. That is trickle down economics. That person is now better off than what they were before.

The benefits are definitely there you just don't see it since you want a simplified example when business is not that way.

Lowering taxes and increasing freedom allows business as much room as possible to go after opportunities and this in turn will create business and jobs.

That's what it was always marketed as - democrats try to market it differently for simpletons like yourself that all of a sudden money magically comes into your pocket after a tax cut.

That's why you dismiss my point about expanding the business because you're a simpleton. I don't disagree with your last point but wealth "trickling down" absolutely does exist. Too many arguments about inequality are rooted in jealousy, envy and anger.

So just move all jobs overseas for dollars per day. Boom, jobs created. You would wholeheartedly support that, wouldn't you?

[Thorpesaurous]

But it illustrates that starting with the poor, not the rich, is what stimulates the economy.

If trickle down is what works best, Trump would have just dumped the entire stimulus on the top and let it trickle down to the rest of us. But that doesn't actually stimulate the economy. Putting the money at the bottom is what makes it run on all cylinders becauae they immediately spend it, forcing the rich to hire to keep up with the demand.

That's pretty much what he did. The amount of money that went to big business dwarfs the 1200 bucks much of the population got. And that's what the PPP loan was about. The problem was some of these bigger business don't have a product that's sellable during the pandemic. Aerospace companies got 3 Trillion to keep them afloat because no one is flying. And while people are complaining about it, the gimmick there is that they employ a ton of people, and that money was intended to keep those people on payroll, because their health insurance is tied to the employment, which just seems more and more ridiculous. That's why they passed the tax break for employers to give two weeks extra vacation to any employee who can produce a doctor's note regarding Covid. What they were doing was flattening the curve, just like they did with the hospitals, but this time because they knew the gov't systems like unemployment and Cobra insurance couldn't handle the massive influx that was coming, so they were basically begging companies to keep people on their programs and we'll get you back. Boeing and GE responded by then laying off about 50k people between them, because they're scummy companies that can't get out of their own way. If they could've shut down payments on things for this stretch it would've worked, but that would've completely shut down the flow of the economy, and then I'm not sure how much of the population would've been able to swing the essentials.

It's such a complicated issue. Politically I was really fascinated by it, because the left really went after Trump hard about it, but I'm not sure how much real solution there was. I really think it was poised to blow up in their face, but once the protest/riot stuff started, I feel like it's all moot at this point.

[Rocket]

lol, everyone got a tax cut under the Trump plan unless someone happens to be uber rich in a blue state where they lost the ability to deduct high SALT taxes.

[rawimpact]

lol, everyone got a tax cut under the Trump plan unless someone happens to be uber rich in a blue state where they lost the ability to deduct high SALT taxes.

75k income for a single person is uber rich?

[Shogon]

75k income for a single person is uber rich?

It depends on your definition of 'uber rich.'

Compared to the rest of the world? Oh, yes, it very, very much is. Compared to the highest earners in the U.S.? Not even close.

edit:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-in-the-richest-10-percent-worldwide.html

[Norcaliblunt]

But it illustrates that starting with the poor, not the rich, is what stimulates the economy.

If trickle down is what works best, Trump would have just dumped the entire stimulus on the top and let it trickle down to the rest of us. But that doesn't actually stimulate the economy. Putting the money at the bottom is what makes it run on all cylinders becauae they immediately spend it, forcing the rich to hire to keep up with the demand.

Obama bailed out the banks and big business he didn’t bail out the people.

[~primetime~]

^^^ yeah it's a good point

I guess recovery stimulus is a poor comparison here...big biz does require a bailout in those times to prevent a full and total collapse...but keeping them afloat doesn't mean consumers or demand will increase.

[~primetime~]

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/08/web_taxes-520x320.jpg?quality=80&strip=all


^^^ breakdown of the Obama stimulus

funny $800m seems small time now

[Rocket]

75k income for a single person is uber rich?
I am not sure what you are asking? I am pro Trump tax cut. I said EVERYONE got a tax cut except the ones that paid high SALT taxes meaning the Federal government quit giving tax deductions for the high SALT taxes.

[Hawker]

So just move all jobs overseas for dollars per day. Boom, jobs created. You would wholeheartedly support that, wouldn't you?

You already do support that due to your support for increased regulations and higher taxes in America.

[Hawker]

I am not sure what you are asking? I am pro Trump tax cut. I said EVERYONE got a tax cut except the ones that paid high SALT taxes meaning the Federal government quit giving tax deductions for the high SALT taxes.

He got confused with the stimulus bill.

[bladefd]

It depends on your definition of 'uber rich.'

Compared to the rest of the world? Oh, yes, it very, very much is. Compared to the highest earners in the U.S.? Not even close.

edit:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-in-the-richest-10-percent-worldwide.html



As Credit Suisse puts it, “While the bottom half of adults collectively owns less than 1 percent of total wealth, the richest decile (top 10 percent of adults) owns 85 percent of global wealth, and the top percentile alone accounts for almost half of all household wealth (47 percent).”


Holy crap.

[bladefd]

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/08/web_taxes-520x320.jpg?quality=80&strip=all


^^^ breakdown of the Obama stimulus

funny $800m seems small time now

Only reason why Republicans/Trump pushed a stimulus as big as they did this year and to people directly is because it's election year. I highly doubt they would have ever agreed or pushed a stimulus package this big in any other year or directly to the people in a non-election year.

[bladefd]

You already do support that due to your support for increased regulations and higher taxes in America.

I didn't think taxes under Obama were high. Maybe corporate tax rate was on the high end, but most corporations don't pay anywhere near those rates once we consider the loopholes. If you want high taxes, go look at Eisenhower. In fact, IIRC Reagan had higher taxes than Obama. You going to sit there raging and ranting about Reagan now?? :rolleyes:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/sep/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-taxes-are-lower-today-under-reag/