Trickle Down Theory

jasonc5432

'Trickle down theory' emerged from the concept that if governments intervene in economies with social and economic policies that make the rich richer, this wealth will eventually trickle down to make everyone richer.

Of course, there are arguments that surely government socio economic policy would be best served by actually STARTING with the concept of promoting equality in the first place, rather than promoting INEQUALITY at the beginning and blindly HOPING that SOMEHOW, eventually, there would be some run-off trickle down crumbs falling from the table of the richest, who are pandered to by socio economic policy, down to the poorest.

However, a version of trickle down theory is the general approach applied by most developed governments nowadays. Perfect examples are
-Ireland's tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest

-Gigantic multi billion euro bailouts of unsecured bondholders, claiming that it is what is best for the Irish people.... somehow!

-Huge bailouts for failed banks and financial institutions which have little or no effect on how these organizations operate or how many million they pay executives and board members in pay+pension+expenses+other remuneration

-NAMA



So, I have attached a picture that I think clearly sums up how effective this trickle down approach has actually been in the REAL world.

Bannasidhe

jasonc5432 wrote: »

'Trickle down theory' emerged from the concept that if governments intervene in economies with social and economic policies that make the rich richer, this wealth will eventually trickle down to make everyone richer.

Of course, there are arguments that surely government socio economic policy would be best served by actually STARTING with the concept of promoting equality in the first place, rather than promoting INEQUALITY at the beginning and blindly HOPING that SOMEHOW, eventually, there would be some run-off trickle down crumbs falling from the table of the richest, who are pandered to by socio economic policy, down to the poorest.

However, a version of trickle down theory is the general approach applied by most developed governments nowadays. Perfect examples are
-Ireland's tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest

-Gigantic multi billion euro bailouts of unsecured bondholders, claiming that it is what is best for the Irish people.... somehow!

-Huge bailouts for failed banks and financial institutions which have little or no effect on how these organizations operate or how many million they pay executives and board members in pay+pension+expenses+other remuneration

-NAMA



So, I have attached a picture that I think clearly sums up how effective this trickle down approach has actually been in the REAL world.

You'll get no argument from me.
*Fetches popcorn and awaits the Libertarian onslaught*

p1akuw47h5r3it

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You'll get no argument from me.
*Fetches popcorn and awaits the Libertarian onslaught*

Yes because all Libertarians want the Goverment to intervene in the economy to make sure a small rich minority of people benefit. Well done.

You need to read up on Libertarian beliefs.

p1akuw47h5r3it

jasonc5432 wrote: »

'Trickle down theory' emerged from the concept that if governments intervene in economies with social and economic policies that make the rich richer, this wealth will eventually trickle down to make everyone richer.

Of course, there are arguments that surely government socio economic policy would be best served by actually STARTING with the concept of promoting equality in the first place, rather than promoting INEQUALITY at the beginning and blindly HOPING that SOMEHOW, eventually, there would be some run-off trickle down crumbs falling from the table of the richest, who are pandered to by socio economic policy, down to the poorest.

However, a version of trickle down theory is the general approach applied by most developed governments nowadays. Perfect examples are
-Ireland's tax breaks and loopholes for the wealthiest

-Gigantic multi billion euro bailouts of unsecured bondholders, claiming that it is what is best for the Irish people.... somehow!

-Huge bailouts for failed banks and financial institutions which have little or no effect on how these organizations operate or how many million they pay executives and board members in pay+pension+expenses+other remuneration

-NAMA



So, I have attached a picture that I think clearly sums up how effective this trickle down approach has actually been in the REAL world.

What exactly are you arguing, or what is your point?

What do you want us to debate exactly?

Bannasidhe

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Yes because all Libertarians want the Goverment to intervene in the economy to make sure a small rich minority of people benefit. Well done.

You need to read up on Libertarian beliefs.

ROOT: Trickle Down Economics- Why Taxes Kill Everything They Touch

posted by Wayne Allyn Root on Jul 09, 2011

By Wayne Allyn Root, Former Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee

If my income is cut, or I lose my job, how will I react? Most people would dramatically slow down their shopping and spending. What is the result of that decreased spending? It clearly hurts the economy- retailers, supermarkets, department stores, and anywhere else you’d normally spend your money is damaged. What happens to the people who work for those companies? Millions of jobs are lost and the economy crumbles.

Let’s get more specific. What if I, and millions like me, cut out our restaurant visits each week? What if we cut out a vacation? What happens if we put off buying a new car or furniture? No big deal, right? Wrong. Millions of waiters, busboys, bellmen, hotel maids, hotel security, flight attendants, airplane mechanics, executives, secretaries, salesmen, and even janitors lose their jobs. And when those people lose their jobs, what happens to their spending and those whose jobs are dependent on it?

Even education suffers. Today my younger children are home tutored. They also take swimming, ballet, Kung Fu and lacrosse lessons. What if I decided to cut back on all that spending because I had less money coming in? What would happen to those tutors and sports coaches? What would all these people that depend on me do without the income? Jobs are lost. Businesses close.

http://www.lp.org/blogs/wayne-allyn-root/root-trickle-down-economics-why-taxes-kill-everything-they-touch

Looks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. But apparently its really the goose that laid the Golden egg.

No I do not need to read up on Libertarian beliefs. I have read up on Libertarian beliefs - some of which I happen to agree with. Trickle down economics as outlined by Root do not happen to be among those things I agree with.
Why? Because I am old enough to remember the Thatcher/Regan years when there was a lot of talk about money trickling down - and precious little of it actually trickling...

p1akuw47h5r3it

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://www.lp.org/blogs/wayne-allyn-root/root-trickle-down-economics-why-taxes-kill-everything-they-touch

Looks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. But apparently its really the goose that laid the Golden egg.

No I do not need to read up on Libertarian beliefs. I have read up on Libertarian beliefs - some of which I happen to agree with. Trickle down economics as outlined by Root do not happen to be among those things I agree with.
Why? Because I am old enough to remember the Thatcher/Regan years when there was a lot of talk about money trickling down - and precious little of it actually trickling...

That quoted text doesn't say anything about cutting taxes simply for the wealthy though. It just says (or the point being made is) that if taxes are raised, people will spend less. Which is true for just about everyone.

Bannasidhe

DanDan6592 wrote: »

That quoted text doesn't say anything about cutting taxes simply for the wealthy though. It just says (or the point being made is) that if taxes are raised, people will spend less. Which is true for just about everyone.

It's a blog entry on the official US Libertarian site written by a Libertarian nominee for the Vice Presidency where the titles contains the words 'Trickle Down Economics' which outline the ways in which money -allegedly- trickles from those who have to those who have not. How is that not trickle down theory?

Is this not Libertarians espousing trickle down theory?

jasonc5432

Thatcher and Reagan are excellent examples of trickle down approaches to economics. Effectively, citizens in the US and the UK still live with thatcherist and reaganist policies - literally.

Places like Ireland quite quickly adopted a very similar model.

Whether libertarians are in favour of the approach or not, it is what it is.

Personally, much of my experience of reading libertarian viewpoints points towards libertarians supporting trickle down theory as an economic approach.

Of course, not all libertarians will agree.

However trickle down is both very much a theory AND a reality in application. The outcome is unfortunately that there is little or NO trickling down, as Bannasidhe clearly points out.

A simple look at how in ireland there is now greater inequality than at anytime in the past 100 years and greater poverty than at anytime in the past 25 years shows the failure the approach has been.

It HAS enriched a tiny few though, of course, which is enough for many ideologues. They are welcome to their opinion of course

p1akuw47h5r3it

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's a blog entry on the official US Libertarian site written by a Libertarian nominee for the Vice Presidency where the titles contains the words 'Trickle Down Economics' which outline the ways in which money -allegedly- trickles from those who have to those who have not. How is that not trickle down theory?

Is this not Libertarians espousing trickle down theory?

Because it says nothing about the Goverment intervening in the economy solely to benefit the wealthy.

The article describes how taxes lowers people's discretionary income which in turn hurts business. This applies to everyone .

Edit: Just to clear up I don't support this theory either, I just felt the implication that all Libertarians do was wrong.

eire4

The trickle down theory has been a disaster in the US resulting not in a rasing of everyones boats but in the raising of only the wealthy's boats. The top 1% now control 40% of American wealth. 25 years ago the figure was 32%. The bottom 80% have actually seen their share of the nations wealthy fall over the same period.

Suryavarman

Trickle down economics has worked for over two hundred years and it will continue to work whenever and wherever it is tried.

andrew

I don't think bailouts, NAMA, loopholes (they're not there intentionally) have anything to do with trickle down theory. And what specific tax breaks 'for the wealthy' are you talking about? It's the tax thing which I think relates to trickle down theory the most, but I don't know what the results of such policies are in reality.

Finnbar01

eire4 wrote: »

The trickle down theory has been a disaster in the US resulting not in a rasing of everyones boats but in the raising of only the wealthy's boats. The top 1% now control 40% of American wealth. 25 years ago the figure was 32%. The bottom 80% have actually seen their share of the nations wealthy fall over the same period.

Where did you get your figures from?

jasonc5432

andrew wrote: »

(tax) loopholes

....PLUS....

andrew wrote: »

It's the tax thing which I think relates to trickle down theory the most

jasonc5432

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Where did you get your figures from?

Because you and the poster you are addressing are referring to United States figures, I'll provide the following.

Quotes from United States Economic Policy Institute

Wealth remains incredibly concentrated at the top of the income distribution, making a strong case for taxing
large estates. In 2009, the top 1% of the income distribution controlled 35% of wealth, while the top 5% controlled
64%. The bottom 80%, on the other hand, controlled just 13% of national wealth

Quote from Policy Memorandum #184:

http://www.epi.org/page/-/EPI_PolicyMemorandum_184.pdf?nocdn=1

Black Swan

jasonc5432 wrote: »

'Trickle down theory' emerged from the concept that if governments intervene in economies with social and economic policies that make the rich richer, this wealth will eventually trickle down to make everyone richer.

Trickle down theory has been problematic in that reduced taxation for the wealthy does not guarantee where they will invest their increased discretionary income.

jasonc5432 wrote: »

Thatcher and Reagan are excellent examples of trickle down approaches to economics. Effectively, citizens in the US and the UK still live with thatcherist and reaganist policies - literally.

Whereas Reaganomic trickle down may or may not have occurred in varying degrees when US investments in the PRC (People's Republic of China) were greatly restricted during the time of the Reagan Administration, today with PRC given most favoured nation status, the ROI on capital investments may be higher in PRC than in the domestic US; consequently there has been a strong likelihood that such monies would trickle down in PRC and create jobs there rather than in the US.

Diarmuid

Judging by how much tax I pay, in Ireland it's the flood down theory.

Bannasidhe

Diarmuid wrote: »

Judging by how much tax I pay, in Ireland it's the flood down theory.

More like flood up theory.

jasonc5432

Bannasidhe wrote: »

More like flood up theory.

This!

andrew

jasonc5432 wrote: »

....PLUS....

As in, it's the lower taxes which are part of trickle down, not the tax loopholes. Tax loopholes are by definition used to avoid the intent of a particular tax policy. A trickle down tax system explicitly sets lower taxes for a particular group, it doesn't create loopholes for them to use.

Icepick

Given that you can live very comfortably while contributing very little or nothing and that most gvt revenue comes from high earners, it's a pour down practice in Ireland as already mentioned.

eire4

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Where did you get your figures from?

From an article in Vanity Fair magazine last year. There are also good articles in Mother Jones and an interesting paper by a professor Domhoff at UC Santz Cruz.

The below article makes some interesting points as well.



The American dream is alive and well for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, but unfortunately, if you are in the other 99% the jury is still out.

"America is obviously a country where you can go from being middle class to upper class, but right now class mobility has sort of collapsed in the United States," says Zaid Jilani, senior reporter for the progressive think tank ThinkProgress.org. (See: America's Middle Class Crisis: The Sobering Facts)

This grim reality is in part the impetus for the Occupy Wall Street movement, which, now in its fourth week, will take to the streets of Manhattan's Upper East Side Tuesday in what it is calling the "Millionaire's March." Demonstrators will rally outside the homes of some of the city's wealthiest, including News Corp. (NWS) head Rupert Murdoch and JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon, to protest New York state's 2% millionaire tax set to expire at the end of the year.

As the Occupy Wall Street movement continues to grow, The Daily Ticker wanted to find out just how rich America's super-rich 1% really is. Jilani recently compiled the following research, entitled How Unequal We Are: The Top 5 Facts You Should Know About The Wealthiest One Percent of Americans.

As discussed in the accompanying interview, here's what Jilani outlined on his blog:

#1) The Top 1% Owns 40% of the Nation's Wealth:

Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz points out the richest 1% of Americans now own 40% of the nation's wealth. This disparity is much worse than it was in the past, as just 25 years ago the top 1% owned 33% of national wealth.

How much does the bottom 80% own? Only 7%.

#2) The Top 1% Take Home 24% of National Income:

While the richest 1% of Americans take home almost a quarter of national income today, in 1976 they took home just 9% -- meaning their share of the national income pool has nearly tripled in roughly three decades.

#3) The Top 1% Own Half of the Country's Stocks, Bonds and Mutual Funds: The Institute for Policy Studies illustrates this massive disparity in financial investment ownership, noting that the bottom 50% of Americans own only 0.5% of these investments.



#4) The Top 1% of Americans Have Only 5% of the Nation's Personal Debt:

Using 2007 figures, sociologist William Domhoff points out that the top 1% have 5% of the nation's personal debt while the bottom 90% have 73% of total debt.



#5) The Top 1% Are Taking In More off the Nation's Income Than at Any Other Time Since the 1920s: Not only are the wealthiest 1% of Americans taking home a tremendous portion of the national income, but their share of this income is greater than at any other time since the Great Depression, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities illustrates in this chart, using 2007 data.

Chucky the tree

A person in Ireland who has never worked can get free education, free health care, a free house and €188 per week to live on. All of this isn't paid for by the tooth fairy. Another point is that about 10% of people pay 60% of the total income tax, their high tax payments allow for the lower earns to taxed less. Sounds to me like a lot more then just a trickle.

Paarthurnax

Only one thing that "Trickles Down" in this country and it's not rain I'm talking about!

Icepick

Chucky the tree wrote: »

A person in Ireland who has never worked can get free education, free health care, a free house and €188 per week to live on. All of this isn't paid for by the tooth fairy. Another point is that about 10% of people pay 60% of the total income tax, their high tax payments allow for the lower earns to taxed less. Sounds to me like a lot more then just a trickle.

This, but they would still tell you that's not enough with a straight face.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

davoxx

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

what are you basing that on?

the rich are getting richer, increasing the gap between rich and poor. does this not negate the "working" trickle?

seems like the people starving in africa (the poorest) are no better off now than 10 years ago. i think that that is an indisputably fact ...

davoxx

Chucky the tree wrote: »

A person in Ireland who has never worked can get free education, free health care, a free house and €188 per week to live on. All of this isn't paid for by the tooth fairy. Another point is that about 10% of people pay 60% of the total income tax, their high tax payments allow for the lower earns to taxed less. Sounds to me like a lot more then just a trickle.

another missed point is how much of overall income does the 10% top earners make? 10% or 90%? that is very relevant to the fact that they are only paying 60% of the income tax.

i think the tooth fairy would like to point out to, that percentage wise of income, the rich pay less than the poor. seems like the trickle has dried up ...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

davoxx

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

i don't agree with the assumption that economy growth equates to the poorest people getting wealthier.
and i'm not sure if this consequence of first-world investment is a good thing, since first-world investment is designed to draw out the wealth to the first-world.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

that's fair enough, but it's fundamentally wrong (in my opinion). the definition of poor and rich relate to the total sum of wealth available. to assume that because the poor now have twice as much dollars as before, so therefore they are richer is incorrect as there could be 100 times more dollars in the system now. the data they've presented does not seem to be normalised and i'd be very skeptical of their claims.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

i think it's clearly incorrect. i think statistically, the minute variance is due to other causes that would have occurred anyway.
i also think that using a flawed report by a flawed organisation to back up their flawed thinking is misinformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals#Debate_surrounding_the_MDGs


but i guess maybe i'm misunderstanding the point. what is trickle down theory?

"Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms used in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.

i think it clearly has failed in this regard. i don't think hoarding can ever benefit the poorer members. i do think that the "trickle-down theory" is designed to make the rich richer, by allowing them to retain more of their wealth, and the poor poorer, by having them poor pay more tax.

i'm sure people can and will debate that if you give the rich more money, they'll spend it. here is the funny thing though, so will the poor.

ed2hands

Suryavarman wrote: »

Trickle down economics has worked for over two hundred years and it will continue to work whenever and wherever it is tried.

Not according to OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría it doesn't.:)
“The benefits of economic growth DO NOT trickle down,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/oecd-inequality-is-growing-almost-everywhere/2011/12/05/gIQAqSbqWO_blog.html

Valmont

davoxx wrote: »

i don't think hoarding can ever benefit the poorer members.

Hoarding is not the same as investment, though.

davoxx wrote: »

i'm sure people can and will debate that if you give the rich more money, they'll spend it. here is the funny thing though, so will the poor.

We're not talking about simple "spending", we're talking about investment in new companies, new industries, new directions; new directions that will hopefully create employment and add real value to the economy.

Giving the poor one thousand pounds to spend in the shops will not be as beneficial as letting a venture capitalist keep more of his profits; which we hope he will use to invest in more start ups than he was doing previously. Or maybe he'll buy a new jaguar; but hey, that's liberty.

Suryavarman

ed2hands wrote: »

Not according to OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría it doesn't.:)
“The benefits of economic growth DO NOT trickle down,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/oecd-inequality-is-growing-almost-everywhere/2011/12/05/gIQAqSbqWO_blog.html

1) That article does not provide any evidence to prove that trickle down economics does not work.

2) Are you ignoring 200 years of economic development and claiming that the crushing poverty that was common place at the beginning of the 19th century is still the norm in first world countries today?

Valmont

Suryavarman wrote: »

1) That article does not provide any evidence to prove that trickle down economics does not work.

No, but there is a political power figure saying so; don't underestimate their Sith-like influence!

davoxx

Valmont wrote: »

Hoarding is not the same as investment, though.

i dunno, hoarding of money/property/assets is the same as investments.

i hoard all the gold is equivalent to i invest in gold.

Valmont wrote: »

We're not talking about simple "spending", we're talking about investment in new companies, new industries, new directions; new directions that will hopefully create employment and add real value to the economy.

which will draw more money to the rich while keeping the poor poor. rather if the paid taxes, the government would also spend this money to create job/infrastructure for everyone.

Valmont wrote: »

Giving the poor one thousand pounds to spend in the shops will not be as beneficial as letting a venture capitalist keep more of his profits;

that is not true, 1000 spent in the shops will be 1000 quid of labour and materials.

not all of the rich are venture capitalists, and i doubt that letting them have 1000 is better of than it begin spent.

Valmont wrote: »

which we hope he will use to invest in more start ups than he was doing previously. Or maybe he'll buy a new jaguar; but hey, that's liberty.

well it's not liberty, its just a class based system disguised ...

davoxx

Suryavarman wrote: »

1) That article does not provide any evidence to prove that trickle down economics does not work.

well the people who push it sure as hell don't want the figures out there now do they?

but i'm sure that figures here are subjective, as, like i said, people are still starving when we have the technology to prevent them from starving, we just want it to trickle down to them that is all.

Suryavarman wrote: »

2) Are you ignoring 200 years of economic development and claiming that the crushing poverty that was common place at the beginning of the 19th century is still the norm in first world countries today?

no, i'm noting how much blood was spilled and the huge advancements that were made in technology, and those that were blocked, due to the idea of trickle down theory making the rich into super rich and changing the definition of poor.

i mean if i put in 10 euro and take it back, are you seriously going to say more "good" will come from that than me just putting 10 euro in and leaving it in there?

Valmont

davoxx wrote: »

i dunno, hoarding of money/property/assets is the same as investments.

The rich don't just stuff cash in their mattresses; they (can) invest in new start-ups, provide capital to companies floated on the stock market. All of this creates and, crucially, sustains employment, in that it is profitable.

davoxx wrote: »

which will draw more money to the rich while keeping the poor poor.

Could you explain how this process occurs? I was poor, then a company which received significant investment hired me and, for the first time in my life, I'm not earning the minimum wage; all because some rich consortium made an investment. I'm taking a certain portion of my wages every month and investing it in ETF funds, keeping the cycle going. It's perfect, don't you see? Presuming I work hard, and so do my employers, everyone benefits: the investors, my employers, myself, places I spend my money, and the companies floated on the exchange where my (very modest) investment is directed.

davoxx

Valmont wrote: »

The rich don't just stuff cash in their mattresses; they (can) invest in new start-ups, provide capital to companies floated on the stock market. All of this creates and, crucially, sustains employment, in that it is profitable.

they buy stock in companies which then go on to stifle competition and engage in anti-competitive practices ... all to keep the stock up.
also, they stuff it into banks, houses (which raise prices) etc etc.
yeah all of that creates jobs which is arguably why we know have so many people still working in the construction trade ...

Valmont wrote: »

Could you explain how this process occurs?

i'll try ...

Valmont wrote: »

I was poor, then a company which received significant investment hired me

from who? the government? banks? rich individuals?
where did this rich individuals get there wealth? from oil? from working all the way up from poor (in comparison to them now) beginning?
where did this money come from?

Valmont wrote: »

and, for the first time in my life, I'm not earning the minimum wage;

that's great, but what were you doing in said company? were you high up? was it a startup? was it an old company?

Valmont wrote: »

all because some rich consortium made an investment.

so the company had no other way of getting capital? does that not show the flaw in the current system? why could they not go to a bank and get a loan?

Valmont wrote: »

I'm taking a certain portion of my wages every month and investing it in ETF funds,

that's great. that's they way the system is designed.

Valmont wrote: »

keeping the cycle going.

see, it's the only way in this poniz scheme.

Valmont wrote: »

It's perfect, don't you see?

as long as we have more poor people step in on the bottom rung? sorry, but that is not perfect to me.

Valmont wrote: »

Presuming I work hard, and so do my employers, everyone benefits: the investors, my employers, myself, places I spend my money, and the companies floated on the exchange where my (very modest) investment is directed.

so what about people still on minimum wage? or people who can not work? they don't benefit right?

but you'll pay back the investors with interest forever right? so they are getting richer while you are getting richer? so they are increasing the gap (because they have other sources of income) between them and you? ergo the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.


now take the other way ... the rich are taxed fairly, the government has more cash to invest in grants, your company gets a grant, it makes profit, it reinvests all of this profit in the staff and growing the business, rather than giving chunks of it back to the investors (the can pay back the grant, with interest). the homeless person gets help from the government as well.

see now which is a better scenario for all involved?

if you are making 100% profit, how much of that is greed?
if i found a fiver it means someone lost it.

Suryavarman

davoxx wrote: »

well the people who push it sure as hell don't want the figures out there now do they?

There is figures and you don't even need the figures to see the successes. Just have a look around and see the massive improvements in the standard of living of every one in Ireland in the last 20 odd years. Just look at the transformation of countries that have allowed people to keep more of their money and created an investment friendly environment.

Trickle down economics is little more than common sense. When a business owner takes some of his money and invests it in new equipment to make his workers more productive it allows the amount of money they can earn to increase.

but i'm sure that figures here are subjective, as, like i said, people are still starving when we have the technology to prevent them from starving, we just want it to trickle down to them that is all.

Wherever you find starving people you will find a government blocking the investments necessary to improve their standard of living.

no, i'm noting how much blood was spilled and the huge advancements that were made in technology, and those that were blocked, due to the idea of trickle down theory making the rich into super rich and changing the definition of poor.

The huge advancements in technology were made because free markets allowed them to be made. What ones were blocked?

The reason the definition of poor is changed is because so few people qualify to be poor under the old definitions of the word.

i mean if i put in 10 euro and take it back, are you seriously going to say more "good" will come from that than me just putting 10 euro in and leaving it in there?

What the hell does this even mean? Put it where? Take it from where? Leave it where?

davoxx

Suryavarman wrote: »

There is figures and you don't even need the figures to see the successes.

i disagree. figures are helpful, but they need to be in the correct context.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Just have a look around and see the massive improvements in the standard of living of every one in Ireland in the last 20 odd years.

everyone? you do know that there are still people living rough on the streets while there are tons of empty houses?

and just because living standard has gone up, does not mean it is working. living standards will always go up as technology is improved. it's the rate of how they go up and the access that is the defining metric. you'll notice age expectancy differences are largely based on wealth. this shows that living standards while evolving, are not improvements when compared across the whole spectrum.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Just look at the transformation of countries that have allowed people to keep more of their money and created an investment friendly environment.

yeah, they are broke now. shall wee list them?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Trickle down economics is little more than common sense.

common sense is not nesscary based of fact and not always correct. common sense is nothing more than common, and common sense was that the world was flat, that women were witches and various other common sense facts.

argument by common sense is not a common sense argument.

Suryavarman wrote: »

When a business owner takes some of his money and invests it in new equipment to make his workers more productive it allows the amount of money they can earn to increase.

correct.
when he takes it home as a government approved 'bonus' he does not invest it, but rather takes it out of the company. the fact that he is not taxed on it means that the government loses out as well.

we agree here i hope.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Wherever you find starving people you will find a government blocking the investments necessary to improve their standard of living.

yeah, usually a western government which supports trickle down polices.

Suryavarman wrote: »

The huge advancements in technology were made because free markets allowed them to be made. What ones were blocked?

not, they were made due to sharing and research in colleges.

which ones were blocked? where do i start?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

Suryavarman wrote: »

The reason the definition of poor is changed is because so few people qualify to be poor under the old definitions of the word.

huh? what was the old definition? what is the new definition?
please stop, this is a really poor point ...

Suryavarman wrote: »

What the hell does this even mean? Put it where? Take it from where? Leave it where?

it means giving is better than a loan. where = society

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Finnbar01

Chucky the tree wrote: »

A person in Ireland who has never worked can get free education, free health care, a free house and €188 per week to live on. All of this isn't paid for by the tooth fairy. Another point is that about 10% of people pay 60% of the total income tax, their high tax payments allow for the lower earns to taxed less. Sounds to me like a lot more then just a trickle.

+1, which is why we are spending €20,800 million (2011) on social welfare.

The 'trickle' down theory is alive and well.

davoxx

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

depends by benefits, do you mean that we know have electricity for all? of do you mean that it now takes both parents to support a family compared to when one parent would be enough? what about the homeless in ireland? what about child labour in aisa?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

or we can work together to change that by making fair contributions, though maybe who should just work them to death so that their meager lives will be useful in the creation of more luxuries for the wealthy ...

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

i am, i am stating that their statistics is flawed and designed to suggest that they are succeeding in there poorly defined attempt at reducing poverty.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

it's not the last recourse, it's the factual one. i'm calling it misinformation as it gives a twisted view, as explained, and hence unreliable.
i'm sure if we ask the cops whether crime is going up or down, we'll get a different answer depending on if they are looking for money or trying to shift blame.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"their own money" was stolen from others. and yes let's be different and try to think fairly here for a change. but maybe we should just close this thread down and not question the wisdom of central planners ... that's an easier answer than addressing the issue.

Suryavarman

davoxx wrote: »

everyone? you do know that there are still people living rough on the streets while there are tons of empty houses?

Yes I am aware. Just because they are living on the street doesn't mean they haven't experienced an improvement in their standard of living. So what if there are empty houses?

and just because living standard has gone up, does not mean it is working. living standards will always go up as technology is improved. it's the rate of how they go up and the access that is the defining metric. you'll notice age expectancy differences are largely based on wealth. this shows that living standards while evolving, are not improvements when compared across the whole spectrum.

Living standards won't go up as technology is improved without a system that makes the most use out of those advances.

yeah, they are broke now. shall wee list them?

Go ahead.

common sense is not nesscary based of fact and not always correct. common sense is nothing more than common, and common sense was that the world was flat, that women were witches and various other common sense facts.

argument by common sense is not a common sense argument.

Sorry I should have said that anyone that can use logic or anyone with an IQ above 7 can understand it.

correct.
when he takes it home as a government approved 'bonus' he does not invest it, but rather takes it out of the company. the fact that he is not taxed on it means that the government loses out as well.

we agree here i hope.

Obviously they take it out of the company? Do you want everyone to work for free now? How do you know he doesn't invest it when he takes it home?

The government doesn't lose out because that person's wages do not belong to the government.

yeah, usually a western government which supports trickle down polices.

It's western governments that do not recognise private property throughout the third world?

not, they were made due to sharing and research in colleges.

Some were. Most of these colleges get money from people that became rich in the private sector.

which ones were blocked? where do i start?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

The Chrysler car wasn't blocked. It just wasn't produced on a large scale because it was a bad car with poor fuel efficiency. Also if it was such a good idea, somebody would have mass produced it over the last 50 years.

Care to try again?

huh? what was the old definition? what is the new definition?
please stop, this is a really poor point ...

Before someone was poor if they couldn't afford a meal everyday. Now somebody is poor if they can't afford broadband or digital TV. Ever notice that the poverty line is consistently increasing?

it means giving is better than a loan. where = society

Giving isn't always better than a loan. If that was so why make anybody work for anything when we can just hand them everything.

davoxx

Suryavarman wrote: »

The Chrysler car wasn't blocked. It just wasn't produced on a large scale because it was a bad car with poor fuel efficiency. Also if it was such a good idea, somebody would have mass produced it over the last 50 years.

Care to try again?

there is a little more to it than that ...

http://www.thenational.ae/lifestyle/motoring/chryslers-turbine-experiment-could-have-changed-the-car-industry

However, the company was in debt and, as a condition of its bailout loan, the US government demanded that the turbine programme be terminated. It is not known why it was so opposed, particularly as it had provided considerable funding over previous decades.

http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2009/03/chryslers-turbine-powered-car-auto-industryepa-conspiracy/

i actually meant this though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Tucker_Sedan
but it is the same story ... government interfered because of large corporates.

but this maybe incorrect to what we are debating here, that tech was blocked because of trickle down effect, this would be the protectionism in america with their low tech cars vs vastly superior Japaneses/European cars.
the Citroens were banned for their swivel head lights, safer suspension all because the american car companies did not have the tech.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

davoxx

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yes I am aware. Just because they are living on the street doesn't mean they haven't experienced an improvement in their standard of living. So what if there are empty houses?

well it kinda does, and those empty house should have trickled down right?
but this is missed from the figures that are not even needed according to you.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Living standards won't go up as technology is improved without a system that makes the most use out of those advances.

huh? what system is that? communism?
we are talking about how trickle effect as a theory is wrong. the fact that technology raises the quality of life, just by existing, if what i am drawing awareness too. the trickle effect did not create this technology solely nor would it not have been created with out trickle down theory.
it is natural evolution, and most technology ideas are derived from older ideas which come from education.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Go ahead.

uk/usa/ireland/spain/italy <most western first world countries>

Suryavarman wrote: »

Sorry I should have said that anyone that can use logic or anyone with an IQ above 7 can understand it.

is that a personal insult?
maybe people with an iq above 7 can understand it but people with a double digit iq can see why it does not work.
that is what logic is all about, seeing patterns.

it strikes me of the "just coz" that kids say when questioned further about something they don't understand.
and adult response would be to explain it, rather than say "well it's common sense".

hopefully by me showing you just how common sense can be wrong, you'll re-evaluate your opinion.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Obviously they take it out of the company? Do you want everyone to work for free now? How do you know he doesn't invest it when he takes it home?

then why did you mention the case when he invests in his own company?
i want him to be taxed like everyone, not be given a break because me makes more than most.

do you want only poor people to be taxed?

Suryavarman wrote: »

The government doesn't lose out because that person's wages do not belong to the government.

the tax part does.

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's western governments that do not recognise private property throughout the third world?

well they don't recognise sovereign nations to own it at times. but we digress. you said "Wherever you find starving people you will find a government blocking the investments necessary to improve their standard of living." this is false as where we find starving people we find loads of investment from western governments in to their oil infrastructure, weapons programs ... you know investments ...

Suryavarman wrote: »

Some were. Most of these colleges get money from people that became rich in the private sector.

huh? government funding? are you confusing private colleges with public ones?
the colleges get donations on the condition that they have first access to the new tech.

Suryavarman wrote: »

The Chrysler car wasn't blocked. <removed> Care to try again?

answered in seprate post

Suryavarman wrote: »

Before someone was poor if they couldn't afford a meal everyday.

no, that is the a symptom of poverty.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Now somebody is poor if they can't afford broadband or digital TV.

that is also a symptom of poverty.

"living on the street" is also poeverty

the definition has never changed, your interpretation of it has.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Ever notice that the poverty line is consistently increasing?

by line you mean the amount of poor people? well yes it is increasing, i thought you were arguing that it was decreasing ...

Suryavarman wrote: »

Giving isn't always better than a loan.

not for the person giving it, but it is for the person receiving it. common sense?

Suryavarman wrote: »

If that was so why make anybody work for anything when we can just hand them everything.

<face palm> i dunno, because they were bored and nothing was on tv ... do you know what we are debating in this thread?
i'm not saying give people everything, i'm saying tax the rich properly ... this is implied from the "stop the tax breaks" ... which is part of the incorrect trickle down theory ...

ed2hands

Suryavarman wrote: »

1) That article does not provide any evidence to prove that trickle down economics does not work.

The link provided in the article is more illuminating than the article itself.
http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3746,en_2649_33933_49147827_1_1_1_1,00.html

Although someone else's definition of 'does not work' may be different to mine.

Suryavarman wrote: »

2) Are you ignoring 200 years of economic development and claiming that the crushing poverty that was common place at the beginning of the 19th century is still the norm in first world countries today?

If you're implying that 'trickle-down theory' was responsible for dragging us from crushing poverty in the 19th century to relative wealth in present day developed countries, i fear you may be giving it far too much credit.
Economic development can and does thrive in the absence of huge tax breaks for the wealthy. Only the wealthy thrive by introducing 'trickle-down'. You only have to look at where it has been implemented at it's most extreme to see it's negative effects on poverty; Reagans administration for instance, or Pinochets Chile.

Finnbar01 wrote: »

+1, which is why we are spending €20,800 billion (2011) on social welfare.

The 'trickle' down theory is alive and well.

That's not 'trickle-down' though; just a functioning welfare state.
This is how Wiki describes it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

davoxx

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

so what about it?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

okay you win, everyone who has shoes is rich, otherwise they could do with out them ...
they must be rich because the were prepared to modestly not live in a house.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

they are rich since they have an income, they are very thankful from the trickle down effect of investments.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

the poor to the rich, can't have the rich being poor otherwise who'd be rich?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

the millions of people still starving while africa has billions of dollars worth of resources being exported.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

no, i obviously do not have access on the scale of the un.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

also no, as explained, the context of figures is vital to their meaning. are you just inhaling steam without understanding it?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

tell you what how about i show you were the oil tycoons got their money?

but bill gates is an easy one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft ... if you want you can dig into where his parents got their wealth ...
actually here it is http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Bill-Gates-Really-Made-His-Money---All-The-Lies-Exposed&id=862711
http://philip.greenspun.com/humor/bill-gates
http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/

warren buffet actually seems to be an honest chappy that plays a broken system (any evidence contra would be a welcome read for me). he wants the rich to pay more tax, so you're kinda shooting yourself in the foot you use him as an example ...

Suryavarman

davoxx wrote: »

there is a little more to it than that ...

http://www.thenational.ae/lifestyle/motoring/chryslers-turbine-experiment-could-have-changed-the-car-industry



http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2009/03/chryslers-turbine-powered-car-auto-industryepa-conspiracy/

i actually meant this though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Tucker_Sedan
but it is the same story ... government interfered because of large corporates.

but this maybe incorrect to what we are debating here, that tech was blocked because of trickle down effect, this would be the protectionism in america with their low tech cars vs vastly superior Japaneses/European cars.
the Citroens were banned for their swivel head lights, safer suspension all because the american car companies did not have the tech.

Government regulations holding up innovation is nothing new. That isn't trickle down economics it's just socialism/fascism at it's finest.

It still doesn't explain why these cars haven't been mass produced in the last fifty years if they were such good ideas.

well it kinda does, and those empty house should have trickled down right?
but this is missed from the figures that are not even needed according to you.

The theory suggests that when high income people are taxed less, the will invest more money which causes lower income people to earn more money. What they spend their money on is up to them. So no, houses don't necessarily have to trickle down.

huh? what system is that? communism?

Capitalism.

we are talking about how trickle effect as a theory is wrong. the fact that technology raises the quality of life, just by existing, if what i am drawing awareness too.

No it doesn't. If it is not utilised it cannot increase the quality of life.

the trickle effect did not create this technology solely nor would it not have been created with out trickle down theory.
it is natural evolution, and most technology ideas are derived from older ideas which come from education.

Technology will not improve without incentives to improve it. Capitalism maximises these incentives.

uk/usa/ireland/spain/italy <most western first world countries>

They are broke because they spend too much. Assuming they grow a pair and slash spending and cut taxes they will not be broke any longer.

is that a personal insult?

Not at all.

maybe people with an iq above 7 can understand it but people with a double digit iq can see why it does not work.
that is what logic is all about, seeing patterns.

it strikes me of the "just coz" that kids say when questioned further about something they don't understand.
and adult response would be to explain it, rather than say "well it's common sense".

Right then, show why it doesn't work.

hopefully by me showing you just how common sense can be wrong, you'll re-evaluate your opinion.

Why would I reevaluate a correct opinion?

then why did you mention the case when he invests in his own company?

I was trying to explain to you how the trickle down theory works. Then I was trying to show you that people that make investments need to make a living. Then some of the money he takes out he probably reinvests.

do you want only poor people to be taxed?

No. I don't want to tax anybodies income. I only want indirect taxation like VAT.

the tax part does.

No it doesn't.

well they don't recognise sovereign nations to own it at times. but we digress. you said "Wherever you find starving people you will find a government blocking the investments necessary to improve their standard of living." this is false as where we find starving people we find loads of investment from western governments in to their oil infrastructure, weapons programs ... you know investments ...

When government "invests" it is blocking investment. Because government has to steal that money from somewhere it blocks the private sector from making those investments.

How much investment do we find from private individuals? Barely any because private property rights aren't recognised and investment is discouraged.

huh? government funding? are you confusing private colleges with public ones?
the colleges get donations on the condition that they have first access to the new tech.

Where does the government get this money out of? By taxing the private sector maybe?

no, that is the a symptom of poverty.

No, it was a definition of a poor person.

that is also a symptom of poverty.

"living on the street" is also poeverty

the definition has never changed, your interpretation of it has.

So what you are saying is that everyone that was alive before the development of broadband or Sky Digital was living in poverty?

by line you mean the amount of poor people? well yes it is increasing, i thought you were arguing that it was decreasing ...

I find it hard to believe somebody can be this obtuse but I shall try to take my time to explain this in words that do not have too many letters.

By line, I mean the level of income one has to fall below before they are considered to be living in poverty. This line increases as the average person becomes richer. Therefore the definition of poor is constantly changing.

You will find that the amount of people living below that line is steadily decreasing over time.

not for the person giving it, but it is for the person receiving it. common sense?

The person receiving it doesn't necessarily benefit from it. If I just get handouts all the time, I lose the incentive to work for things.

<face palm> i dunno, because they were bored and nothing was on tv ... do you know what we are debating in this thread?
i'm not saying give people everything, i'm saying tax the rich properly ... this is implied from the "stop the tax breaks" ... which is part of the incorrect trickle down theory ...

What is your definition of properly? What is the correct rate of taxation?

ed2hands wrote: »

The link provided in the article is more illuminating than the article itself.
http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3746,en_2649_33933_49147827_1_1_1_1,00.html

Although someone else's definition of 'does not work' may be different to mine.

You do realise that your link gives reason to believe that it is working? Israel (in constant war) and Japan(using Keynesian economic policies and amassing a large national debt) are the only countries in the OECD were income for the bottom decile shrank.

If you're implying that 'trickle-down theory' was responsible for dragging us from crushing poverty in the 19th century to relative wealth in present day developed countries, i fear you may be giving it far too much credit.

What did it then?

Economic development can and does thrive in the absence of huge tax breaks for the wealthy. Only the wealthy thrive by introducing 'trickle-down'. You only have to look at where it has been implemented at it's most extreme to see it's negative effects on poverty; Reagans administration for instance, or Pinochets Chile.

There was lower taxes in 1980's Chile and America than in late 19th century America or England?

davoxx

Suryavarman wrote: »

Government regulations holding up innovation is nothing new. That isn't trickle down economics it's just socialism/fascism at it's finest.

i dunno how you got socialism from governments following corporate interests which would stop investing in american companies?
surely this is an example of the trickle down effect not working as people need to be forced to choose what to invest in.

Suryavarman wrote: »

It still doesn't explain why these cars haven't been mass produced in the last fifty years if they were such good ideas.

because of oil companies. but i think we are digressing.

Suryavarman wrote: »

The theory suggests that when high income people are taxed less, the will invest more money which causes lower income people to earn more money.

step one underpants
step two ????
step three profit!!!

i understand the theory, i'm just showing the reasons why it does not work.

Suryavarman wrote: »

What they spend their money on is up to them. So no, houses don't necessarily have to trickle down.

well what they spend their money on is directed by the tax breaks to be correct.
so they house that they would not have bought, as they had no need for them, were purchased to help let them kept their wealth.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Capitalism.

no the best system to best utilise technology is and always be communism.
a capitalist is the best way to make a profit from it and in doing so limits it's use.

Suryavarman wrote: »

No it doesn't. If it is not utilised it cannot increase the quality of life.

it is utilised not by trickle down policies, but by it's creation.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Technology will not improve without incentives to improve it. Capitalism maximises these incentives.

capitalism maximizes the incentives to improve it? capitalism maximizes profit, there is no incentive to be more efficient unless there is a profit from it.

we can see this in engine design where economic engines are only making a push recently because of people wanting to but more fuel efficient engines.
this is where the turbine engine comes into it. the turbine engine is efficient and can burn any fuel.

Suryavarman wrote: »

They are broke because they spend too much. Assuming they grow a pair and slash spending and cut taxes they will not be broke any longer.

well obviously, but don't they have the trickle down effect? how's slashing spending going to help? maybe if they did the correct thing and taxes the rich tax 'dodgers' they'd be sorted .. oh yeah and burn the bondholders

Suryavarman wrote: »

Not at all.

seemed like it.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Right then, show why it doesn't work.

i thought i did.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why would I reevaluate a correct opinion?

i dunno, why would you make an incorrect opinion in the first place?

maybe because communism scares you and you think that the trickle down theory not work implies communism?

Suryavarman wrote: »

I was trying to explain to you how the trickle down theory works.

with a single specific case? okay i concur, when it works, it works.
will you concur that when it doesn't, it doesn't?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Then I was trying to show you that people that make investments need to make a living.

or to make more money ...

Suryavarman wrote: »

Then some of the money he takes out he probably reinvests.

or doesn't ... what has this got to do with not paying more taxes? how does taxing him more stop him investing? does it not just reduce the amount of investment?

Suryavarman wrote: »

No. I don't want to tax anybodies income. I only want indirect taxation like VAT.

that sounds fair, but then surely you should be wanting the trickle down theory to be abolished? the theory favors the rich with tax breaks, having no tax on income sounds fair, but it is against the trickle down theory.

Suryavarman wrote: »

No it doesn't.

this is where we differ, you say no tax for everyone, i say fair tax, with the only benefits being aimed at the poor ...
i'll be honest i don't hate your idea. it would destroy tourism (i believe), but i can't dismiss it flatly.

Suryavarman wrote: »

When government "invests" it is blocking investment.

but also long as the company gets investment, does it matter?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Because government has to steal that money from somewhere it blocks the private sector from making those investments.

from taxes? i'm not sure what you mean here.

Suryavarman wrote: »

How much investment do we find from private individuals?

well they (wealthy first worlders) generally use an investment mechanism, you know to prevent it from being burned.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Barely any because private property rights aren't recognised and investment is discouraged.

that's not true. private property is recognized ... which country is it not recognized and is receiving foreign investments?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Where does the government get this money out of? By taxing the private sector maybe?

the same place it gets all it's tax from .. it's citizens, more specifically, from the rich people it gave tax benefits to on the assumption that they'd invest responsibly.

Suryavarman wrote: »

No, it was a definition of a poor person.

no it was not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Definitions

being poor is a complex concept, not defined merely by having possessions.

Suryavarman wrote: »

So what you are saying is that everyone that was alive before the development of broadband or Sky Digital was living in poverty?/QUOTE]
how did you figure that one out?

Suryavarman wrote: »

I find it hard to believe somebody can be this obtuse but I shall try to take my time to explain this in words that do not have too many letters./QUOTE]
that's perfect word that have too many letter might be used incorrectly and hence confuse me!!!

Suryavarman wrote: »

By line, I mean the level of income one has to fall below before they are considered to be living in poverty./QUOTE]
okay .. great we've established that things are now getting more expensive, so you need to have more dollars to buy thing, but just because yiou have more dollars, you are no richer.

Suryavarman wrote: »

This line increases as the average person becomes richer./QUOTE]
fact, hoarding drives prices up.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Therefore the definition of poor is constantly changing./QUOTE]
no, the symptoms are changing, the definition is in relation to arbitrary cost and wealth.

Suryavarman wrote: »

You will find that the amount of people living below that line is steadily decreasing over time.

no you won't. the line is increasing and the number of people are increasing, in fact the difference between rich an poor is at an all time high, do you agree?

Suryavarman wrote: »

The person receiving it doesn't necessarily benefit from it. If I just get handouts all the time, I lose the incentive to work for things.

sure they do, they receive it don't they? are you just being augmentative now? sure if i kept whipping them, they'd be more incentive to work harder ... don't push your assumptions that money is the only reason we all work, some of us have morals and would not do anything for money, and some of us like working and being a productive member of society, this is different to those that can't.



you know what, i'm out, your condescending view of poor people is disgusting.