Why is trickle-down economics still with us?

Into the Night said:
The free market is immortal. You can't kill it. See your local drug dealer for details.

You weren't alive in 1890 dumbass.

Socialism doesn't work.
Click to expand...

0EjRoKT.jpg
 
BidenPresident said:
Ever since Reagan and Thatcher first tried them, trickle-down policies have exploded budget deficits and widened inequality. At best, they’ve temporarily increased consumer demand (the opposite of what’s needed during high inflation that Britain and much of the world are experiencing).

Reagan’s tax cuts and deregulation at the start of the 1980s were not responsible for America’s rapid growth through the late 1980s. His exorbitant spending (mostly on national defense) fueled a temporary boom that ended in a fierce recession. The Donald Trump White House’s tax cut never trickled down.

Yet the US never restored the highest marginal tax rates before Reagan, and deregulation – especially of financial markets – is a continuing legacy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/09/why-is-trickle-down-economics-still-with-us
Click to expand...

And what 'highest marginal tax rate' do you want America to have (he asked - ready to roll his eyes at the response)?

toprate_historical_2.png
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
Individual income taxes account for 55% of federal revenues, but the other categories basically are paid by all consumers. You could not just raise taxes on the wealthy for excise taxes or customs duties. 31% of revenues come from Social Security and Medicare taxes and those come from dedicated taxes that go into a separate trustee account and not in the general fund.

If you use percent of all taxes paid the percentages change but the generalization I made earlier still stands. The upper income are the only group that pays their "fair share" in that they pay a higher percentage of taxes than their percentage of the income. All lower groups pay less in taxes than their percentage of income. Also, as income rises so does the percent of income paid in income taxes.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/fact-check-richest-1-dont-pay-40-of-the-taxes.html
Click to expand...

I see you decided to now just ignore the numbers and make up your own version of what they mean.
Individual income taxes made up 50.5% of revenues in 2021. SS and Medicare made up 32.5% of revenues.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables/ Table 2.1

Social Security and Medicare do not go into a trustee account. That money has been "loaned" to the general fund for decades. The only way to pay back that loan is with income taxes that contribute to the general fund. Instead, the government has paid back the loan by borrowing.

So which person pays the higher tax rate in this example I gave using the actual tax rates from 2021?
Someone with no wage income making $500,000 on income in Capital gains is paying $70,847 in federal income taxes.
Someone making $250,000 in wages is paying $83,387 in income tax and FICA taxes. ($96,300 if you include the employers FICA.)

While the quintiles with higher incomes pay more as a percentage of their income, it isn't nearly as progressive as you want to make it out to be. The biggest problem is the way the tax code allows the rich to obtain wealth and never have to pay any tax on it at all or very little depending on what the current estate tax is when they die if they haven't used some other tax avoidance scheme.

Then you have to understand that if you are using the numbers from the IRS you are only counting what has been reported to them as income. There are many ways to have money to spend but not have it be income.
If I had purchased $1,000 of Apple stock in 1983 and never sold it, that stock would be worth $1,505,000 today. I would not have paid a single dollar of income tax on that $1.5 million. I can bequeath that stock to my heirs and they won't have to pay a penny of income tax on it since it's value for calculating capital gains when they receive it would be the current value. The 1.5 million would also be well under any estate tax limit. I would be getting about $10,000 a year in income from dividends from that stock but I can easily borrow $50,000 a year against the stock and not have to pay income tax on the money I borrow. Essentially I would have an income of $60,000 per year and owe zero in income tax.

The argument that taxes are paid for by consumers is a lazy argument. One could argue that all taxes are paid by consumers since employees are paid out of what a company gets from consumers. But the consumers can only consume if they are employed and being paid. So it all becomes one big circle that is never ending. Arguing that one part pays for another part ignores that it is a complete circle.
 
Flash said:
You are not giving the working class less and upper class more. The upper classes earn more and they are taxed and much of that money is given to the working classes through Earned Income Tax Credit, other tax credits, educational grants, Medicaid, food stamps, housing programs, welfare (TANF), and hundreds of other programs.

If you favor these social programs, it is trickle down economics. Money from those make more is given to those who make less. If you took a much larger percentage of taxes from the wealthy to give to the working class, it is still trickle down economics because it goes from top to bottom.
Click to expand...

Trickle down economics is not social welfare. It is a theory of how an economy works.
 
Into the Night said:
Which one? No amendment authorizes uneven taxation.
Click to expand...

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Income is usually uneven.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
in a magical place called "history class". I'm sorry you didn't have one.
Click to expand...

And you lived in a nice place but then in the 1890's you had to live in slums? I don't think the living condition of American workers changed much from the 80's to the 90's. I don't think your history class taught you any different unless you were using the Harold Zinn text.
 
Flash said:
And you lived in a nice place but then in the 1890's you had to live in slums? I don't think the living condition of American workers changed much from the 80's to the 90's. I don't think your history class taught you any different unless you were using the Harold Zinn text.
Click to expand...

You don't sound like you would be fun to talk to. Stupidity is hardly an appealing feature. Might want to try to hide it in the future.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I see you decided to now just ignore the numbers and make up your own version of what they mean.
Individual income taxes made up 50.5% of revenues in 2021. SS and Medicare made up 32.5% of revenues.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables/ Table 2.1

Social Security and Medicare do not go into a trustee account. That money has been "loaned" to the general fund for decades. The only way to pay back that loan is with income taxes that contribute to the general fund. Instead, the government has paid back the loan by borrowing.

So which person pays the higher tax rate in this example I gave using the actual tax rates from 2021?
Someone with no wage income making $500,000 on income in Capital gains is paying $70,847 in federal income taxes.
Someone making $250,000 in wages is paying $83,387 in income tax and FICA taxes. ($96,300 if you include the employers FICA.)

While the quintiles with higher incomes pay more as a percentage of their income, it isn't nearly as progressive as you want to make it out to be. The biggest problem is the way the tax code allows the rich to obtain wealth and never have to pay any tax on it at all or very little depending on what the current estate tax is when they die if they haven't used some other tax avoidance scheme.

Then you have to understand that if you are using the numbers from the IRS you are only counting what has been reported to them as income. There are many ways to have money to spend but not have it be income.
If I had purchased $1,000 of Apple stock in 1983 and never sold it, that stock would be worth $1,505,000 today. I would not have paid a single dollar of income tax on that $1.5 million. I can bequeath that stock to my heirs and they won't have to pay a penny of income tax on it since it's value for calculating capital gains when they receive it would be the current value. The 1.5 million would also be well under any estate tax limit. I would be getting about $10,000 a year in income from dividends from that stock but I can easily borrow $50,000 a year against the stock and not have to pay income tax on the money I borrow. Essentially I would have an income of $60,000 per year and owe zero in income tax.

The argument that taxes are paid for by consumers is a lazy argument. One could argue that all taxes are paid by consumers since employees are paid out of what a company gets from consumers. But the consumers can only consume if they are employed and being paid. So it all becomes one big circle that is never ending. Arguing that one part pays for another part ignores that it is a complete circle.
Click to expand...

Communism doesn't work, dude. Raising taxes is not a solution.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
You don't sound like you would be fun to talk to. Stupidity is hardly an appealing feature. Might want to try to hide it in the future.
Click to expand...

Claiming the condition of American workers took a steep decline from the 1880's to the 1890's is certainly illustrating more stupidity than my claim that it didn't. Insults are a poor excuse for debate.
 
Flash said:
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Income is usually uneven.
Click to expand...

Wups. I thought you might try to use the 16th amendment to ignore the rest of the Constitution. It means EVEN taxing at the same tax bracket regardless of income. The same percentage of income. You are still trying to ignore the 14th amendment and Article I.

Multiple tax brackets are unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top