Trickle Down Economics & Tax Cuts for the Rich?

Black Swan

The so called "Bush tax cuts for the rich" enacted in 2001 and 2003 are to expire, if Congress does nothing in 2010 to extend them. Bush and his Republican majority in both Houses contended back then that if the rich were to benefit from this income and capital gains percentage reduction in taxes, more domestic jobs would be created and the economy would improve when the money trickled down through business investment from the richer rich.

But the economy did not improve under GW Bush, rather it appears to have declined after his two terms of office (from end of Clinton 2000 to end of Bush in 2008): the national debt almost doubled from $5.7 trillion to $10.0 trillion, unemployment increased from 4.0 to 7.2 percent, the DJIA fell from 10,788 to 8,776, millions of home mortgage foreclosures occurred, the largest investment banks failed in US history, and the nation suffered from one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression.

It makes me wonder if the additional monies gained by the reduced taxes for the rich starting in 2001 trickled down more in China and India, where the labour and cost of doing business was cheaper, and investment profits could be greater than in America?

Now the Republicans, and such Republican leaders as US Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, want Congress to extend the old "Bush tax cuts for the rich," claiming that the economy will suffer when these monies are not available to trickle down in domestic investment.

Furthermore... "The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt will balloon to 87 per cent of gross domestic product by 2020 and 185 per cent by 2035 if the tax cuts are extended and discretionary spending grows in line with the economy."

If these tax cuts are extended by Congress in 2010, how do you think the rich will spend most of their (continued) increased wealth? Where do you think it will trickle down, if it does? Or is this a form of wealthfare for the rich?

***It is noted that these tax cuts affected other income groups in varying degrees, but let's focus on the trickle down economics argument (from the rich) for the tax cut extension in this thread***

Sources:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/laus_nr.htm
http://www.nyse.tv/dow-jones-industrial-average-history-djia.htm
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1cd58e8c-9130-11df-b297-00144feab49a.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kev9100

There is not a hope in hellof those tax cuts being extended. They did nothing for the economy and were a main reason for the Bush deficit. Even if the GOP takes the House in November (which I doubt), Obama will veto any Bush Tax cut extension.

silverharp

OP, i'd be careful of taking a particular tax cutting policy and say it had x effect on the economy.


Have a look at the graph below, the US economy has been going the wrong way since the 1950's , zooming in the microscope to a particular administration doesnt tell you alot. Bush made a hash of it but in most cases it was the same train going down the same tracks

Black Swan

silverharp wrote: »

OP, i'd be careful of taking a particular tax cutting policy and say it had x effect on the economy.

You are introducing the multivariate complexity of the Big Picture, and how it seems to be trending overall in the wrong direction since 1950, irrespective of whom is minding the store, be they Republicans or Democrats? As an Independent, this makes me want to vote for Mickey Mouse as a write-in candidate in 2012 (maybe with Goofy as his running mate).

Denerick

They shouldn't be extended under any circumstances. While the tax cuts benefited everyone in terms of their extra income, it is simply irresponsible to cut taxes when the government is in debt. In this sense the tax cut is a tax hike on grandchildren.

stretchtex

As a middle class American, I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who are in the top 25% of income earners for paying 86% of federal income taxes. It's not necessarily a popular subject amongst some but I would like to thank you just the same.
On a similar note, the death tax will soon be enacted, allowing the govt. to seize 55% of your estate upon your passing to spend as they see appropriate.

Denerick

stretchtex wrote: »

As a middle class American, I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who are in the top 25% of income earners for paying 86% of federal income taxes. It's not necessarily a popular subject amongst some but I would like to thank you just the same.
On a similar note, the death tax will soon be enacted, allowing the govt. to seize 55% of your estate upon your passing to spend as they see appropriate.

Where are you getting 55% out of?

Besides, the inheritance tax is scandalously benign. Instead of targeting the mass affluent it chases the ultra rich.

I can understand the Libertarian argument that those who work hard and accrue capital all of their lives shouldn't be punished during their life. But to say that an heiress is equally entitled to the hard won wealth of their parents is absurd.

silverharp

Denerick wrote: »

Besides, the inheritance tax is scandalously benign. Instead of targeting the mass affluent it chases the ultra rich.
I can understand the Libertarian argument that those who work hard and accrue capital all of their lives shouldn't be punished during their life. But to say that an heiress is equally entitled to the hard won wealth of their parents is absurd.

Its hardly absurd, if you accept property rights as a principle then the right to pass on that wealth to ones children is a very natural concept. In a way its also partly a motivator in not being a spend thrift during ones life. If anything the rich have it easier as most of their wealth will be tied up in business assets where is possible to avoid or defer death taxes.

stretchtex

The death tax does not exist in 2010. At the stroke of midnight those with an estate valued at $1 million or more will be taxed at rate not to exceed 55%.
The following items all count towards the death tax:
1. Family owned farms and small businesses
2. Primary residences and second homes
3. IRA's and 401k balances
4. Stocks and bonds held in taxable brokerage accounts
5. Jewelry, artwork, family heirlooms and other personal possessions

Hardly sounds like the super rich to me.
http://www.atr.org/index.php?content=deathtaxfacts#

Overheal

kev9100 wrote: »

There is not a hope in hellof those tax cuts being extended. They did nothing for the economy and were a main reason for the Bush deficit.

Only 14% of the debt is attributed to the debt - or so Kudlow tried to mention on one of his interviews. Love the lad, he did his best to downplay it "So... so really it amounts to a little over a tenth"

Overheal

3. IRA's and 401k balances

Whats this Bull****.

Does that apply to a Roth??

Amerika

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

***It is noted that these tax cuts affected other income groups in varying degrees, but let's focus on the trickle down economics argument (from the rich) for the tax cut extension in this thread***

Funny, if you wanted to concentrate on the trickle down effect on the rich… why all the GW Bush and Republican bashing? Remember when Time Magazine (never a friend to Bush or Republicans) rated those responsible for the financial crisis? Remember GW Bush at number 13, and Bill Clinton at 12? Let's refresh everyone's selective memory:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1877351,00.html

Regardless, I don’t think you can answer the question the way you put it.

If these tax cuts are extended by Congress in 2010, how do you think the rich will spend most of their (continued) increased wealth?

Growth is now stymied by uncertainty. If businesses knew the rules they could play. IMO If most other factors remained the same, extending the tax cuts would create invenstment by the rich and create jobs. If the rich knew what the Obama administration and Congress will get over the next 2.5 years, they could plan accordingly. Herein lies the problem. Currently, the rich for the most part, are not investing or creating jobs, because they don’t know what the final cost to them will be from a lot of factors, like Obama’s health care. They don’t know what additional taxes Obama will add to them from his prior and future “stimulus” spending. They don’t know if cap and trade, card check, immigration and other matters will come about. which are huge game changers. I hear it time and time again in business. “We aren’t investing or expanding until we have better knowledge of the ramifications to our business of the democratic controlled executive and legislative agenda” (to paraphrase). The thought of what a Democratic controlled Lame Duck congress could do should have everyone shaking in their boots.

Where do you think it will trickle down, if it does? Or is this a form of wealthfare for the rich?

IMO If the Bush tax cuts are let expire, there will be very little extra money coming into the goverments coffers from the rich. Most of the blood money (or trickle down) in that case will come from the middle class. The rich will find ways to shield and protect their money from the government… they always have. (See what the Kennedy’s have done, primarily through the use of trust funds, to shield their money from the government... as a guideline.) The middle class aren’t rich enough, or have the resources to shield their income, as many of the assets the government will tax are wrapped up in property. As an example, a farmer dies leaving 200 acres of farmland to his sons. Lets say that the farm, house and equipment is valued at $2 million. But the farm has been pretty much a break even business. Now the government wants 50% of the value. They have no option but to sell the farm and get out of the business. How is that helping middle class America?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Whats this Bull****.

Does that apply to a Roth??

Sorry, the only thing I could advise you is when investing, to always remember the Democrat motto: “If it succeeds destroy it. If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. And if it stops moving subsidize it."

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Sorry, the only thing I could advise you is when investing, to always remember the Democrat motto: “If it succeeds destroy it. If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. And if it stops moving subsidize it."

Or you could just answer my question in an objective and informative manner. I thought you would have learned I'm not the least bit interested in your partisan tripe.

Remember GW Bush at number 13, and Bill Clinton at 12? Let's refresh everyone's selective memory:

Were you not just bitching a few days ago because I tried to reference George Bush despite him leaving office?

Just want to be sure we're done with the "They blame it on bush" canned agenda.

edanto

Ah, the trickle down theory. Illustrated memorably by Polyp:



We would have to accept Amerika's point that the rich will do all they can to legally avoid tax - it's up to the government to ensure that tax reliefs are focussed on projects that will create and sustain jobs and innovation.

If the tax cuts are extended, I'd imagine that the wealthy will continue to spend their money on financial products, just they'd have more money to spend on those products.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I thought you would have learned I'm not the least bit interested in your partisan tripe.

Yeah, I've noticed it's pretty much just my "partisan tripe" you're not interested in.

Just want to be sure we're done with the "They blame it on bush" canned agenda.

The majority here will never be done with "blame it on bush." Sometimes the truth and balance needs to be maintained.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

The majority here will never be done with "blame it on bush." Sometimes the truth and balance needs to be maintained.

I just want to be clear that you're clear that that's the way its always been. I gave you a compilation of clips the other day from the Bush years with a number of references/blames on the clinton administration; which included the post-election recession, 9/11, and the Iraq War.

So fair is fair. Quit whining. People will blame **** on Bush. The dumbass earned it.

back on topic: did you actually know whether the 55% inheritance tax applied to Roth IRA's or not?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

back on topic: did you actually know whether the 55% inheritance tax applied to Roth IRA's or not?

Hope this helps regarding the Roth IRA’s.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6068539_roth-ira-inheritance-rules.html
But remember to always consider state, in addition to federal inheritance taxes. In the state I live in, it would be charged at a level of 4.5% of the total value if not left to a spouse.

IMO. Not to be a smartass and just trying to help, but listen to Glenn Beck and buy gold is what I have been telling people since 2008. Forms of gold ownership can be structured into an IRA. Think about what happens to the value of Dollar when we start to just go ahead and print money for our massive spending. Have you seen a better investment?

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

IMO. Not to be a smartass and just trying to help, but listen to Glenn Beck and buy gold is what I have been telling people since 2008. Forms of gold ownership can be structured into an IRA. Think about what happens to the value of Dollar when we start to just go ahead and print money for our massive spending. Have you seen a better investment?

Don't buy Gold. The price is artificially high and is so solely because of insane speculation following the banking crises. It has little useful application outside of jewellery and dentistry - hence demand is heavily oversubscribed and used for hoarding purposes. Sooner or later the price will collapse screwing over the many who invested in it, while simultaneously highlighting how absurd the speculative system is.

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

Don't buy Gold. The price is artificially high and is so solely because of insane speculation following the banking crises. It has little useful application outside of jewellery and dentistry - hence demand is heavily oversubscribed and used for hoarding purposes. Sooner or later the price will collapse screwing over the many who invested in it, while simultaneously highlighting how absurd the speculative system is.

History has shown it has done pretty good, even during the current economic crisis.

Overheal

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul319.html

tl;dr buy gold if you think the dollar is going to collapse

Hope this helps regarding the Roth IRA’s.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6068539_rot...nce-rules.html
But remember to always consider state, in addition to federal inheritance taxes. In the state I live in, it would be charged at a level of 4.5% of the total value if not left to a spouse.

So nothing about a whopping 55% inheritance tax. This makes sense and relief.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

tl;dr buy gold if you think the dollar is going to collapse

Or perhaps you have an inkling about what the value of the dollar will be when the interest payments start coming due of the US government for all that stimulus spending, and we have no funds because of the economic crisis. Or what will happen when we try to get foreign investors to buy in on another round of stimulus spending. $1,500 to $1,600 an ounce by February 2011 is my estimate. I don't see countries rushing out to trade in their gold because it's apparently a commodity of no real value.

Overheal

thats why i would avoid gold tbh. Especially the way its been skyrocketing. Have people learned nothing from the housing bubble? Or for that matter any other economic bubble in history?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

thats why i would avoid gold tbh. Especially the way its been skyrocketing. Have people learned nothing from the housing bubble? Or for that matter any other economic bubble in history?

If you don’t have confidence in gold, then stay away from it. If you feel the Dollar will suddenly and amazingly become strong, then the demand for gold will become lower which will probably cause the price of gold to drop. By and large history has proven this. Unfortunately, one of the few things I agree with our president about is that this will be a long and hard trip to economic recovery. I agree with him that realistically it will get much worse before it gets better. That is why I advance the purchase of gold at the current time. I tend to look at gold and the Dollar as generally being polar opposites. Maybe next year at this time I might change my tune, but that will be after realizing a 25% growth on investment in a short 6 months .

Overheal

but really that just argue's blues point: the tax break would not trickle down. If anything, it will just go into gold and other junk funds. Whereas a low income tax break is much more likely to get injected directly into consumerism. And thus trickle up. A trickle down tax break - pardon my amateur grasp on the subject, but isnt that only most effective in a boom economy? In a recessionary economy it seems as though the oppossite approach would have more of an effect.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

but really that just argue's blues point: the tax break would not trickle down. If anything, it will just go into gold and other junk funds. Whereas a low income tax break is much more likely to get injected directly into consumerism. And thus trickle up. A trickle down tax break - pardon my amateur grasp on the subject, but isnt that only most effective in a boom economy? In a recessionary economy it seems as though the oppossite approach would have more of an effect.

I think you might be confused by that original mash of convoluted thinking. Think of it this way... if you were rich, would you:

Tax cuts means:
More money to keep and invest
Invest in infrastructure with knowledge that success will bring you wealth
Investment in infrastructure creates new jobs
New jobs creates greater spending resulting in even more jobs
More taxes to government

No tax cuts means:
Hoard money and invest in such things in gold, gold-backed IRA’s, and tax free gov't bonds (gold has never gone to $0, can you say the same for the likes of Circut City, Lehman Brothers, or Vivitar?)
Pay no taxes until a gain or loss of investment is realized (which will be held until a Rep president lowers taxes)
Less taxes to government

Or are you are one of those individuals who thinks it is just wonderful to take all the risks in starting a business, where if it fails you experience the total loss, and if it does succeed you are taxed at a level where you make very little money after taxes. I think there might be about 6 of these types of people left.

Sure you could just hoard your money and not invest it in creating new businesses, but your potential earnings will be far less. Risk should bring wealth if realized, not confiscated and redistributed for the sake of the common good.

Let me ask you this, if Democrats are so fond of taxes, why don't they just voluntarily pay more stating... "Here you go IRS, I know you will spend it much more wisely than I would?"

Denerick

Overheal wrote: »

but really that just argue's blues point: the tax break would not trickle down. If anything, it will just go into gold and other junk funds. Whereas a low income tax break is much more likely to get injected directly into consumerism. And thus trickle up. A trickle down tax break - pardon my amateur grasp on the subject, but isnt that only most effective in a boom economy? In a recessionary economy it seems as though the oppossite approach would have more of an effect.

Its bad politics to cut taxes for the low paid. For the most part they are out of the tax bracket already and are not as reliable voters as the middle classes. They pay the vast bulk of the taxes, and to be fair, if anyone deserves a wee break its those in the 50k per annum category.

Though you are right, give the cash to those earning less than 25k and you'll really see how far an extra 100 dollars per month can go...

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

They pay the vast bulk of the taxes,...

How or where did you come up with that bit of wisdom?

Black Swan

If the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended in 2010, where does the (continued) increased wealth for the rich trickle down? Why wouldn't this increased cash trickle down in places where labour and the costs of doing business are markedly below America, and the returns on investment would be much greater? For example...

Amerika wrote: »

I think you might be confused by that original mash of convoluted thinking. Think of it this way... if you were rich, would you:

Tax cuts means:

• More money to keep (in gold and tax shelters) and invest (in China & India)
• Invest in infrastructure (of China & India) with knowledge that success will bring you wealth
• Investment in (Chinese & Indian) infrastructure creates new jobs (in China & India)
• New jobs creates greater spending resulting in even more jobs (in China & India)

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

How or where did you come up with that bit of wisdom?

I'm saying the middle classes and upper pay the vast bulk of the taxes. Do you disagree with that?

Overheal

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Tax cuts means:

• More money to keep (in gold and tax shelters) and invest (in China & India)
• Invest in infrastructure (of China & India) with knowledge that success will bring you wealth
• Investment in (Chinese & Indian) infrastructure creates new jobs (in China & India)
• New jobs creates greater spending resulting in even more jobs (in China & India)

Im afraid I agree with this; Intel, Walmart and McDonalds all being prime examples.

Black Swan

Denerick wrote: »

I'm saying the middle classes and upper pay the vast bulk of the taxes. Do you disagree with that?

Who owns America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VHNXTBwj80&NR=1

Amerika

Denerick wrote: »

I'm saying the middle classes and upper pay the vast bulk of the taxes. Do you disagree with that?

No.

Sorry, but I understood your post to mean that the middle class (by the $50k remark) paid the bulk of taxes. Thanks for clearing that up.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Im afraid I agree with this; Intel, Walmart and McDonalds all being prime examples.

So I have to go to China or India for a Big Mac now?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

So I have to go to China or India for a Big Mac now?

Using US Tax breaks McDonalds has been able to expand big into China.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kev9100

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, if the tax cuts weren't extended, it would help reduce the deficit without having to take an axe to social benefits. Surely thats better than giving the rich some extra money, no?

stretchtex

As far as tax cuts go, your not giving the "rich" anything, your simply allowing them to keep more of what they earned. I have no beef with an individual who in the early stages could not rub two nickels together, but through thrift and perseverance attained a lifestyle that is comfortable by most standards. They do not owe me anything simply because I have not achieved the same level of success.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Still banging that drum?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kev9100

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Surely you don't believe inoome taxes are the same as theft, do you?

As for the rise in taxes, obviously 94% is too high. But I have no problekm with a 55% rate for very high earners.

Black Swan

kev9100 wrote: »

As for the rise in taxes, obviously 94% is too high. But I have no problekm with a 55% rate for very high earners.

Does anyone really believe that the ultra rich in America actually pays either of these rates on their real incomes? What are high priced tax attorney firms and financial advisors for, or tax shelters, or write-offs, or tax credits, or trust funds, or, or, or, or? Get real!

I was once a date (not escort! ) of a very well-to-do older lad in NY that took me to dinner with a large party of associates at Per Se in Time Warner Center. Before we started with "Oysters and Pearls," my date, who was hosting the very informal get together asked everyone to repeat after him the word: "Business." Everyone did, laughed knowingly, then no business was discussed the entire night. Sitting next to my date when everyone was getting ready to leave, I gaped with mouth open at the 4-digit tab he signed off on his card.

This reminds me of the other perks (e.g., wealthfare) that the American rich enjoy, often as the result of taxpayer monies that kept their corporations from failing in 2008. Remember the $400,000 Santa Barbara party, with over $20,000 in massages, thrown by AIG executives after they received their bailout monies from taxpayers? "It's Good to be King!" (Shakespeare?)

Denerick

Why aren't you still with him? With that kind of money you could buy your own boards.ie

Black Swan

Denerick wrote: »

Why aren't you still with him? With that kind of money you could buy your own boards.ie

His proposed executive benefit package far exceeded my return on investment if our merger were to occur.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kev9100

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really? Well, fair enough I guess. At least your consistent with your views.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Isn't the bulk of US federal taxes going towards military stuff?

I don't think the US military manufacture anything bar soldiers, so that money must be pouring into the coffers of Boeing and other private companies that make War Toys.

Overheal

Honk if you vote Flat Tax