A summary of trickle down economic theory:

[Arrian]

MtG, the wealthy simply get more benefits or they wouldn't be wealthy.

Woah, I missed this little gem before.

Oh, my. You can see the twisted logic here, can't you, folks? The rich are only rich because they have unfair benifits given to them, and this should be taken away. Hard work, ingenuity, risk-taking... these things have nothing to do with wealth. People don't get rich that way. Massive piles of money simply fall into their laps (I guess given to them by their parents, who also had heaps of money dropped on them, and so on and so forth).

And of course if this is true, it's easy to justify taking the rich folks money, isn't it? Yeah, real easy, 'cause they didn't earn it in the first place, so they don't deserve it.

What a load of ****e.

-Arrian

[Japher]

PLATO: at least your looking at the economy as a dynamic model, if more law makers did that the problem wouldn't be as big Maybe base even taxes off of inflation values, that would be kewl.

Note: Government actually produces 10 dollars for every 1 dollar based on FDIC financing... That is why sticking your money into a savings account is a bad idea...

. Hard work, ingenuity, risk-taking... these things have nothing to do with wealth. People don't get rich that way. Massive piles of money simply fall into their laps

Ouch, my side is hurting from laughing too hard, stop it

The straight up TRUTH. 5 % of the population already pay >70% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of population pay less than 5% of taxes. If you want to say the system is unfair, you get no argument here.

Damn skippy... I know that when I'm rich I want all the same "breaks" so that the gov. doesn't take everything that "feel into my lap"

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Government spending should grow at the inflation rate, not be cut.

The only problem is government spending grows at a rate MUCH larger than inflation. Inflation is low, 2-3%, government spending has been rising at an average of 8% since 1990 (IIRC).

Exactly. Taking into account the multiplier effects of government spending versus private spending, the present recession could have been avoided if government spending had remained at the inflation level.

[PLATO]

Woah, I missed this little gem before.

Arrian: I saw this one also. Just didn't know where to start.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Taking into account the multiplier effects of government spending versus private spending, the present recession could have been avoided if government spending had remained at the inflation level.

That would have meant a relative cut in spending since it was 8% the year before and would have to drop to 3%. So relatively the spending increase is less .

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Taking into account the multiplier effects of government spending versus private spending, the present recession could have been avoided if government spending had remained at the inflation level.

That would have meant a relative cut in spending since it was 8% the year before and would have to drop to 3%. So relatively the spending increase is less .

Don't tell me that there is a closet democrat in your family history...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious

MtG, the wealthy simply get more benefits or they wouldn't be wealthy. I don't know why you are complicating this with an argument about taxes. Some things are obvious.

Uh, because trickle down theory and most of the thread discussion relates to progressive vs. regressive tax policy, etc. So, Captain Obvious, what "benefits" do rich people get that make them that way and who hands them out, since "obviously" rich people only get that way if someone issues them a rich people benefits kit.

I've got no argument to counter that because your assumption that poor people have the same choices as rich people is just too absurd.

I used to make $3.00-$4.00 an hour with no benefits, working multiple part-time jobs because I couldn't get full time jobs. My first full time job had a whopping starting pay of $3.50 an hour, so sorry, your "rich people get all the benefits and poor people are just helpless victims" nonsense doesn't wash.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't tell me that there is a closet democrat in your family history

I 'ed, didn't I?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm in favor of a single flat wealth tax.

What, 100% of everything you consider proper working man's wages, party members exempt, of course?

[PLATO]

Mtg: My first job was at $2.90 per hour. I worked my way through college paying 100% of everything. Today, I am 6 figures. The argument that "poor" people don't have opportunity doesn't wash with me eithier.

[Japher]

"obviously" rich people only get that way if someone issues them a rich people benefits kit

There's a kit on this!!! Man, where have I been!

Actually, the poor get a lot of benefits too, but it is the form of aid not taxes. You can get your power, water, phone, and gas all comp'ed, you can buy utilities for less, you can get free food from the grocery stores, etc... Just who do ppl think is paying for all this?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Uh, because trickle down theory and most of the thread discussion relates to progressive vs. regressive tax policy, etc. So, Captain Obvious, what "benefits" do rich people get that make them that way and who hands them out, since "obviously" rich people only get that way if someone issues them a rich people benefits kit.

So, Captain cost-benefit analysis, what is wealth? Is that a benefit? Duh!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What, 100% of everything you consider proper working man's wages, party members exempt, of course?

It's got nothing to do with wages. That's the best part. You just tax all wealth at the same rate. People who inherit wealth will pay the most tax. The poor will pay none.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So rich people, which create wealth for themselves, are getting a benefit, which is wealth, which makes them rich? And this proves the system is unfair?

Or, rather, since you believe that wealth is a benefit, take a (altered) quote of yours:

the wealthy simply get more wealth (benefits) or they wouldn't be wealthy.

I've heard of circular logic, but this may be even beyond that .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
But how much value? Putting part "A" into part "B" does indeed add value. Designing part "A" or "B" adds more. Risking capital to produce and market it adds more.

If I show you how to produce something and sell it at market without risking anyones capital will you agree that it can't add value to the product? In fact, without it you can sell it for less.