http://useconomy.about.com/od/Politics/p/Trickle-Down-Economics-Does-It-Work.htm

I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else. but can't seen to find anything that shows trickle down works so why do some republicans keep pushing for it.

In theory - yes it works. In practical applications - not so much. You have to look at the overall health of the economy, rates and who's in office as risk factors. If companies are not comfortable with those factors, wallets tighten. This can be seen with Cash on Hand statements. Right now, companies and leaders are sitting on piles of cash. Until they are comfortable with the eco-political climate, said wallets will remain shut.

What I do know 100% for absolute certain is that the Bush era tax cuts are now gone and that extra $1K is gone from my return as well. That money was planned to go straight back into the economy and now it can't. I'm one of the "little people" however, so my opinion and $0.99 might buy you a cup of coffee.

Trickle down is a Republican code word for "golden shower" for the masses, or peons. Trickle on comes closer to the true meaning of the concept. Saw an old bumper sticker yesterday that reminded me of the difference between the two parties. It read, "Democrats care about people AFTER they're born." Republicans who push trickle down economics don't, unless those people are ten-percenters.

"Democrats care about people AFTER they're born" is code for welfare state which isn't working either. Regardless of the means, the common man will always get chit on. And so it goes until we remove money from politics; fix the tax code and demand representation. Good luck with that.

Codes and political affiliations aside...it has been proven to be exactly the opposite of what it proposes to be...it is a windfall to those at the top, and fuckks the other 90% of us. Economics is simple math, and it's all out there...though I would suggest reading the studies done by economists rather than watching the TV personalities opine about it if you actually have an interest in the facts.

Most don't, unfortunately.

Fish on...

Todd

On the contrary, trickle down works precisely as designed for those who designed it. I think they got the name wrong (probably should have been syphon up or something), but that was probably no accident, since if they would have named it for what it is, it would sound much less appealing, even to those who still believe the lie.

Here's a quote from the article posted above:

"If trickle-down economics worked, then lower tax rates during the Reagan Revolution should have increased the lowest income levels. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred. Income inequality has worsened. Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6% for the bottom fifth of income earners. That sounds great, until you see what happened for the top fifth -- an 80% increase in income. The top 1% saw their income triple. Instead trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickled up!"

What more needs to be said?

Trickle down does not work.
If it did Depends would be out of business.

The sad part continues to be that a full 50% of the America nd getting completely screwed by supply side economics are utterly convinced that it works for them and vote in direct contradiction to their own economic well being.

There are a bunch of them who actually argue in favor of getting screwed, they know it is happening, and still can't help themselves.

Fish on...

Todd

That is a true statement.

I'd also say it shows that trickle down doesn't work (at least not as it is/was sold) since the trickle is capable of drying from the top down.

The original question was whether TD economics works. As I see it, if it did, all classes of society would be seeing relatively equal benefits. That does not mean income equality. Rather, it means that if the income of the upper class rises, say 10%, then the income of the folks in the lower income brackets rises at about the same rate. So, as an economic theory, TD is worthless. But, as a means of moving economic gains from one sector of society to another, it has been a gold mine for the 1%. Literally.

Equality of opportunity does not exist. We do not reset "opportunity" with each passing generation. Those born with more, have more opportunity to get more. Those born with less, struggle to maintain what they have. That's just reality.

FP - I won't reply to all your views. They speak for themselves. However, I will make one point.

The following is etched in granite on the side of the Department of the Treasury Building in Washington, DC:

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society - Oliver Wendell Holmes"

If you are concerned about income taxes, nobody would argue. There are lots of ways to pay our taxes. Perhaps there is a better way. But if you are arguing that we should not be required to pay taxes, Mr. Holmes quote above seems appropriate......

Most americans seem to think that making more money equates to paying more taxes. When you deal with reality, you see this is far from the truth. How many of you are paying on your 401k's when they go up. Theoretically you are wealthier, but you will not pay taxes on it. But, I would guarantee that if they reduced the penalty and made the tax burden of taking it out very low, say 5%, many people would cash out their 401k'st and spend the money. They would be paying more taxes while, in reality, becoming less wealthier. The economy could go up while the masses were becoming poorer. This was pretty much the definition of what happened in the USA. Interest rates dropped, people borrowed more against their homes spent the money on garbage, and while the economy appeared to soar, the middle class just got further in debt.

In trickle down economy theory, the rich also accumulate wealth with out taxation. By lowering the rate, you get more spending. I know for a fact that this works in many different ways.

For example, investors I have worked with will consider buying something through a tax deferred exchange. This provides me with work and income and for the government excise tax and other fees. It also helps the wealthier get richer by reinvesting their money into better and more profitable ventures. The alternative, is for the money to stay where it is. Sure there may be some taxation through any active income associated with the project, but the passive growth income grows fully intact and the economy lacks the movement of this capital. In the same way, when taxes are 40% or higher, it becomes a lot more sensible to allow passive income to grow and collect the lower taxable returns on investment than investing in projects with higher returns. As the rates of taxation goes up, alternative means of compensation will also go way up, there by lowering taxes. For example, going back to the 401k, it becomes a bigger incentive to invest in one if taxes on the money are 40% then if the taxes are 5%.
Imagine then, if the taxes were 80 or 90%. How many of you would invest in your tax free investments if the alternative was $100 growing or $10 now. For the rich, the ways of hiding the income are all over. From foreign investments, to buying corporate retreats, providing company cars or vacations, remodeling the offices, more lavish pensions, stock options, and much, much more.

The only real question, is when and where different effects occur and how best to maximize on these. By no means do I think the system works as is, but raising taxes in general will only hurt the masses.

Taking a true right wing stance, I think reducing government action will have a much greater impact than almost anything else. Most people think that regulations hurt the companies in which they are put on, but in reality they usually help the most established. Take Todd's business. Lets say tomorrow the goverment requires 100% lead free lures and a guarantee on each product. Suddenly, it becomes harder for the little guy to meet these requirements. The big guys will yell too, but in the end since I know I will not stop fishing, what will happen is the big guys will have the sources to adapt, while small guys like Todd get pushed out of the business. Over and over it is happening. When I started doing what I am now, I took a 30 hour class over 4 days and on that Saturday took a class and was certified. Now it takes a test that I doubt I could pass, 90 hours of classes, and 1 year of supervision. For me, this is great, why not make it a fully 4 year degree.

Liberals don't get it because most live in a fantasy world. Like the car I say a few years back said along with all its pro-obama bumper stickers--"I believe in fairies"

I agree. And article points also out that the income of the upper 1% went up by 300% (i.e., income tripled). So, the rich getter richer and fatter (300%) while everyone else gets the crumbs (6%). Thanks for making my exact point.

The question if framed too loosely. Only an imbecile would say that that supply side economics does not work. The real question being posed and answered here is how efficient is it at transferring wealth in our economy. The statist argue that it is not as efficient as the outright theft that they propose in the form of taxes. Warren buffet is a hero today because he merged two companies and will over see 1000's of jobs lost. He should be pilloried by public opinion for such gluttony . There should be an unacceptable amount of shame in the community for such piggish actions. people talk out of both sides of thier mouth on the matter because they invest their retirement and net worth by betting on such behavior . Not hard for greedy types to take advantage of these peoples inconsistencies in life.

At one point, this was an interesting discussion about a relatively important topic. Sadly, it has sunk well past that point.

Count me out. Bye.

Coho angler wants to redefine an economic theory by inserting a full of crap statement requiring it to be equal across all classes . If it's not then it must be unfair. Apparently it's not an important enough of a discussion to him to understand the theory before he enters the discussion.

10% of the fisherman catch 90% of the fish. So let's limit that 10% to fishing 1% of the time to make it fair to the 90%

In a perfect world, yes, but in the real world fairness has nothing to do with it.

Trickle up, trickle down or trickle sideways.....the method doesn't really matter. Someone will figure out how to game the system, and then they'll screw others out of what they should be getting.