A summary of trickle down economic theory:

[Kidlicious]

First of all the productive members of society are the workers, or maybe you didn't realize that when the unemployment rate goes up production decreases.

And second, just by giving rich people money you don't change the level of profit in the economy so they don't make additional investments in capital.

And last, even if they did invest the money in capital it would cause a market glut which would through the economy into decline.

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's the part where it's trickling down to the bottom.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
First of all the productive members of society are the workers, or maybe you didn't realize that when the unemployment rate goes up production decreases.

The shoprat who makes $15 an hour on the assembly line, or the kid who makes my Frappucinos, etc. etc., are highly interchangeable, low productive value workers. Throw a few million together and they can make something, assuming someone with some brains has invented something for them to make, and some other people with brains have actually organized a company, raised capital, and done all the prerequisite stuff to make the worker bees able to make honey. The low productivity people already pay lower income tax rates.

And second, just by giving rich people money you don't change the level of profit in the economy so they don't make additional investments in capital.

You're not "giving" rich people anything, by taking a little less of theirs than you usually take, in a system that's still "progressive."

And last, even if they did invest the money in capital it would cause a market glut which would through the economy into decline.

Can't let them manage their own money, then, eh? Better let the state take it from them and manage it for them.

[Kidlicious]

Damn, I want to argue with someone

[MichaeltheGreat]

I couldn't resist the blatant troll opportunity, but my heart's just not in it tonight.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The shoprat who makes $15 an hour on the assembly line, or the kid who makes my Frappucinos, etc. etc., are highly interchangeable, low productive value workers.

Those guys are productive. Just because you are 'unskilled' doesn't mean you are unproductive. They get more productive as they gain experience at their job. You're basing productivity by compensation. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You're not "giving" rich people anything, by taking a little less of theirs than you usually take, in a system that's still "progressive."

Can't let them manage their own money, then, eh? Better let the state take it from them and manage it for them.

It's all about overall compensation. Are you going to pay people for working or are you going to pay people just because they already have money. The overall compensation is not progressive. It's trickle down policy already. The Republicans just want to get their hands on more kick backs.

[Kidlicious]

This isn't a very good argument. I want another one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just because you are 'unskilled' doesn't mean you are unproductive.

Kidicious:

Define productivity as the ability to create wealth within a society. Unproductive workers may earn money, but they do not help others earn money. Productive workers help other people earn money, by hiring them, and by taking on risks.

Look at it this way. As an employee, the only stake you have in your company if it fails is your job. The owner has likely invested a substantial portion of his livelihood, oftentimes in a small business, their house.

Finally, the more educated the worker becomes, the more likely her or she is to become a more productive worker. This education represents an investment not needed for a less productive worker.

Now, it seems fair to me to compensate the productive workers for the risks that they have to take, in the business, in acquiring the training, and for the duty they provide to the public.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Those guys are productive. Just because you are 'unskilled' doesn't mean you are unproductive. They get more productive as they gain experience at their job. You're basing productivity by compensation. The two have nothing to do with each other.

In the marketplace, they track quite well* for most economic activities except those related to resource production. Until you get to things like Lay's and Fastow's stock options, but I digress.

* the value of the production, that is.

It's all about overall compensation. Are you going to pay people for working or are you going to pay people just because they already have money. The overall compensation is not progressive. It's trickle down policy already. The Republicans just want to get their hands on more kick backs.

The people who have money (at least wrt the Federal Income Tax crowd) get it by earning more of it, i.e. the market value of what they produce is greater than the market value of what the shoprat or Frappucino kid produces. As for paying people for working, that's their employer's problem, and I pay for it when I pay the employer for whatever I buy from it, whether Hummers or frappucinos with four shots of espresso.

The overall compensation is related to the marketable value of the job. Parking lot attendants are a little more easily obtained than, say, dentists or CFOs. If the peasants don't like the compensation, they can either work more hours (more units of production), or they can educate themselves to do something more marketable (more value per unit of production). Beyond a bit of noblesse oblige to take care of people who really can't make it in the marketplace (bona fide disability), it ain't my problem if the masses aren't content with their compensation. They need to get off their asses and better themselves, rather than expecting the IRS to play Robin Hood.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
This isn't a very good argument. I want another one.

The "benefits" of socialism just aren't good troll material, I agree.

******

Obiwan - I think we're just trolling each other out of boredom. It's sort of hot and humid upstairs here, and I've still got the giggles from watching DeNiro in "Analyze That" so sleep's out of the question, but I'm not motivated to do anything useful.

[HershOstropoler]

A more interesting question, how progressive is the tax system? Or is the US tax system regressive already?

Btw, is this correct about the current tax cut: "...the "Hummer deduction," which stayed in the bill: business owners may now deduct up to $100,000 for the cost of a vehicle, as long as it weighs at least 6,000 pounds.)"

?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Define productivity as the ability to create wealth within a society. Unproductive workers may earn money, but they do not help others earn money. Productive workers help other people earn money, by hiring them, and by taking on risks.

You don't create wealth by dumping $$$ in the stock market. You create wealth by making something (goods, services) and selling it.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Look at it this way. As an employee, the only stake you have in your company if it fails is your job. The owner has likely invested a substantial portion of his livelihood, oftentimes in a small business, their house.

You're talking about small enterprises. Trickle down hardly helps them, if at all.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Now, it seems fair to me to compensate the productive workers for the risks that they have to take, in the business, in acquiring the training, and for the duty they provide to the public.

What does that have to do with "trickling down?"

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
In the marketplace, they track quite well* for most economic activities except those related to resource production. Until you get to things like Lay's and Fastow's stock options, but I digress.

* the value of the production, that is.

You mean the price of production. Value can be determined many ways, but price can only mean one thing. The price of production has nothing to do with peoples compensation. The worker only recieves a portion of that price. The portion that he recieves has nothing to do with the price of the thing or service produced.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The people who have money (at least wrt the Federal Income Tax crowd) get it by earning more of it, i.e. the market value of what they produce is greater than the market value of what the shoprat or Frappucino kid produces.

No they didn't. That's what I'm talking about, compensating those who are doing the work. A regressive compenstion system taxes these people. I want people who work to be compensated.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
As for paying people for working, that's their employer's problem, and I pay for it when I pay the employer for whatever I buy from it, whether Hummers or frappucinos with four shots of espresso.

Well here's your attitude in a nutshell. You aren't talking about policy which benefits everyone. You're talking about policy that will benefit an elite class.

The thing is that you do have to care, because these are the people who buy things. They are the ones who make the profits. Without profits the whole system breaks.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Beyond a bit of noblesse oblige to take care of people who really can't make it in the marketplace (bona fide disability), it ain't my problem if the masses aren't content with their compensation. They need to get off their asses and better themselves, rather than expecting the IRS to play Robin Hood.

They need to 'better' themselves? Yuck! You really do think you're superior don't you?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
A more interesting question, how progressive is the tax system? Or is the US tax system regressive already?

The argument always breaks down on scope. If you're a whining socialist, er, um, liberal, you count every tax at every level to dilute the effect of the bracketing and income tax exemptions of the Federal Income Tax. If you're a right-wing despotic scum, er, um, Republican conservative, you ignore all taxes other than FIT to make your progressive argument. If you're a libertarian, you ignore the issue entirely and launch into a tirade about how all taxes are theft and immoral, and therefore, you're within your natural rights^TM to shoot government officials for attempting to steal your property.

Btw, is this correct about the current tax cut: "...the "Hummer deduction," which stayed in the bill: business owners may now deduct up to $100,000 for the cost of a vehicle, as long as it weighs at least 6,000 pounds.)"
?

I haven't heard about that one, but there's so much additional crap related to deducting vehicles it's ridiculous. There was a cap on value, but in addition to that, there's reasonableness tests, annual limits (so high value vehicles depreciate over a longer life), percentage of business use tests and limits, yadda yadda blah blah.

The Hummer deduction would be kind of meaningless except as a propaganda point, because in many businesses, you could always bury those sort of things away as some sort of utterly necessary specialty vehicle.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
A more interesting question, how progressive is the tax system? Or is the US tax system regressive already?

It goes like that:
15%
28%
31%
36%
39%

The current tax cut reduces the 39% to 36% and 36% to 34%(?).