re: Trickle Down Economics Explained

quote:

---

Service based economies only work well when they are based on a strong production economy. Production comes first...then we can have the services. Always.

---

Production is created through services. shite doesn't build itself.

quote:

---

Trickle Down Economics Explained

---

"Feed the horse oats and the sparrows too shall feast."

^ People used to be far more honest about the whole "trickle-down" approach.

quote:

---

Isn't this what Wall Street does to average Americans.

---

"Wall Street" is looking out for its self interest. For example they want companies like Disney to take advantage of H1B visa programs to reduce the cost of labor. That helps Wall Street. They want open borders to bring in cheap labor to pick the crops of big ag. Wall Street loves these profitable and labor exploitation tactics.

quote:

---

the middle class in 2017 pay virtually no income tax.

---

This is true.

Since the upper 10% of wage earners pay 85% of all income taxes.

The upper 1% pays 56% of all income taxes.

quote:

---

This is true.

Since the upper 10% of wage earners pay 85% of all income taxes.

The upper 1% pays 56% of all income taxes.

---

and its still lower than those "good ole days" of the 50's conservatives long for

quote:

---

Production is created through services. shite doesn't build itself.

---

If you are making stuff like O&G, cars, phones you are not in the service economy.

A doctor treating a worker at a cabinet factory is providing a service. That worker would not be able to afford the doctor's services without making cabinets first.

quote:

---

This is true. Since the upper 10% of wage earners pay 85% of all income taxes. The upper 1% pays 56% of all income taxes.

---

quote:

---

and its still lower than those "good ole days" of the 50's conservatives long for

---

Actually it isn't.

Sure if you look at the 1950s and see things like the upper 1% having a tax rate of 90% it looks like on the surface that you would be correct.

The problem is no one actually paid those rates.
The % that the rich paid then in actual receipts paid was lower than today.

Just watched the video in OP. That guy is a no-name total hack.

"True, wealthy people invest tax savings in the economy, but that doesn't directly benefit society." Wow, talk about cutting edge!

Then he uses a percentage breakdown of disposable income spent by lower class vs. the upper class on goods and services, as if that is supposed to be some absolute measure of economic stimulus.

Some of the things he said in the video (about lowering taxes) are flat out rejected by mainstream economists, both supply-side and demand-side. It's an uncontroversial axiom of Econ 102 that lowering taxes = stimulus.

I feel sorry for whoever has this hack running their money.

It worked a whole lot better than Lil' Hussein Obama's Poverty Up Economics work.

This is a true story that I know myself to be true.

Person A received a $50,000 bonus from the company he was working for and opened a restaurant with the funds. He deferred paying the taxes to be able to afford opening his own business. He probably deferred the taxes illegally but did not verify with an accountant or the IRS because he was determined to open the restaurant. He did pay the taxes eventually.

After opening the restaurant one of his employees asked him if he could ever vote for a woman for president. He said yes but knowing what was really being asked added it would never be a woman like Hillary Clinton. The employee asked why.

The answer was simple. Among many reasons, he answered with this. Last night I saw Hillary on the O'Reilly Factor. On the show she admitted that in her mind the government was entitled to 70% of the wealthy's income. The employee actually thought that was fair.

So the restaurant owner compared that one time proposed tax of $35,000 to what he did. By possibly skirting the law and delaying paying the taxes on the $50,000 he was still just barely able to open the restaurant. He surely could not have opened the restaurant if he had only netted $15,000. As a result he was able to open the restaurant and generated over $800,000 of revenue his first year. His first year in business he generated through sales taxes, employment taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc over $180,000 in tax revenue and was on pace to do more his second year.

So I ask you as he asked his employee, which should the government want, the annual and repetitive taxes of over $180,000 or the one time theft of $35,000? He should not have had to skirt the law to pull this off. It really is an easy answer; so who has been brainwashed?