TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

[vincejohnson]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Income distribution

{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year

{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

https://tinyurl.com/yaw8yy3g

TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing

TRICKLE UP
If the IRS gave tax bracket {2} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $68,292,856,000 to the economy because they will spend it, buying new things from houses to shoes to a new car which adds to the economy making more shoes, the car to a new house.

Now ask yourself; which is best for our economy

( ) Trickle down

( ) Trickle up

 

[Sola1517]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

You defy gravity!... I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I couldn't help it.

 

[redleghunter]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Income distribution

{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year

{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

https://tinyurl.com/yaw8yy3g

TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing

TRICKLE UP
If the IRS gave tax bracket {2} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $68,292,856,000 to the economy because they will spend it, buying new things from houses to shoes to a new car which adds to the economy making more shoes, the car to a new house.

Now ask yourself; which is best for our economy

( ) Trickle down

( ) Trickle up

Both. And the recent tax law accomplishes both.

 

[Halbhh]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Income distribution

{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year

{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

https://tinyurl.com/yaw8yy3g

TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing

TRICKLE UP
If the IRS gave tax bracket {2} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $68,292,856,000 to the economy because they will spend it, buying new things from houses to shoes to a new car which adds to the economy making more shoes, the car to a new house.

Now ask yourself; which is best for our economy

( ) Trickle down

( ) Trickle up

Good point.

Waaay back, when Reagan cut the top bracket from like 70% tax to 28% (which had to be raised some due to huge deficits not long after), that cut actually did result in more spending by the rich, thus more economic demand, thus more jobs.

Because it was from 70% downward.

That's long ago, when taxes were far higher....

Now...not much economic demand help from the top bracket cut from 39.6% downward.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Money moves everywhichaway, sorta like a cow let loose that everyone milks. It's hard to keep track of it.

 

[jgarden]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

We are assuming that the primary purpose of this tax legislation was to stimulate economic growth - financed with $1.5 trillion in borrowed money!

This tax package breaks all the rules -
********************************************************************************
(1) stimulating the economy when the DOW is already at record highs, running the risk of inflation
(2) running a $!.5 trillion deficit when the economy has already reached that point where the government should be seriously considering paying down the debt
(3) failure to follow regular order which provides for congressional committees to conduct hearings allowing the stakeholders to express their opinions
(4) failure to provide any independent cost/benefit analysis as to this bill's real economic impact
(5) rushing the bill through the House and Senate whereby most members of Congress voted on legislation that they never read and/or understood
(6) despite this Presidents campaign promises, tax cuts for the middle class are temporary, while those for the large corporations are permanent
(7) no provisions in the bill providing that those corporations receiving this financial windfall will be required to reinvest to generate new employment opportunities - its major "selling feature" as touted by Republican politicians

Given that only 1/3 of the nation supports this legislation, either the American public is incredibly uninfomed/stupid, or they understand that its primary purpose was never designed to benefit them, but to satisfy those demands of major Republican donors - "THE SWAMP!"

 

[Halbhh]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

We are assuming that the primary purpose of this tax legislation was to stimulate economic growth - financed with $1.5 trillion in borrowed money!

This tax package breaks all the rules -
********************************************************************************
(1) stimulating the economy when the DOW is already at record highs
(2) running a $!.5 trillion deficit when the government should be paying down the deficit
(3) failure to follow regular procedures requiring congressional committees to conduct hearings to hear the opinions of the stakeholders
(4) failure to provide independent economic forecasts as to the bills economic impact
(5) rushing the bill to the point that most congressman were voting on legislation that they didn't have time to read and/or understand
(6) despite the Presidents campaign promises, tax cuts for the middle class will be temporary while those for the large corporations are permanent

Given that only 1/3 of the nation supports this legislation, either the American public is incredibly stupid, or they understand that its primary purpose was meant to satisfy the demands of Republican donors - "THE SWAMP!"

Good post and agree with 1-5, but #6 actually helps level the playing field for American workers competing for manufacturing jobs against foreign sources.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

We are assuming that the primary purpose of this tax legislation was to stimulate economic growth - financed with $1.5 trillion in borrowed money!

This tax package breaks all the rules -
********************************************************************************
(1) stimulating the economy when the DOW is already at record highs, running the risk of inflation
(2) running a $!.5 trillion deficit when the economy has already reached that point where the government should be seriously considering paying down the debt
(3) failure to follow regular order which provides for congressional committees to conduct hearings allowing the stakeholders to express their opinions
(4) failure to provide any independent cost/benefit analysis as to this bill's real economic impact
(5) rushing the bill through the House and Senate whereby most members of Congress voted on legislation that they never read and/or understood
(6) despite this Presidents campaign promises, tax cuts for the middle class are temporary, while those for the large corporations are permanent
(7) no provisions in the bill that those corporations receiving this financial windfall will be required to reinvest it in providing new employment opportunities - its major "selling feature" as touted by Republican politicians

Given that only 1/3 of the nation supports this legislation, either the American public is incredibly uninfomed/stupid, or they understand that its primary purpose wasn't to benefit them, but meant to satisfy the demands of major Republican donors - "THE SWAMP!"

The American public is incredibly uniformed, but hardly stupid.

 

[jgarden]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Where is the moral outrage from our conservative friends that, despite the rhetoric, "The Donald" will profit substantially from this tax legislation?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

We are assuming that the primary purpose of this tax legislation was to stimulate economic growth - financed with $1.5 trillion in borrowed money!

We won't know the impact on the budget until the law goes into effect and the economic results are known. If the economy is sufficiently stimulated tax revenues should increase. However Congress doesn't have a very good track record of retiring debt with new tax revenue. So even if the tax plan is successful we may go into further debt.

 

[jgarden]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

The American public is incredibly uniformed, but hardly stupid.

How can the American public be informed when the Republicans in Congress are doing everything in their power to rush through legislation that even their own members in the House and Senate haven't had time to read and understand?

When you're in that much of a hurry to pass legislation, that's a sure signal that it contains items that the Republican leadership doesn't want the American public to know!

Good post and agree with 1-5, but #6 actually helps level the playing field for American workers competing for manufacturing jobs against foreign sources.

Given that the American public has been made responsible for another $1.5 trillion in debt, one would assume that at the very least this tax legislation would contain guarantees requiring corporations to direct those funds to provide employment!

The fact that it doesn't, speaks volumes as to whose best interests are being represented when it was written - the American public shouldn't be placed in a situation that they hope "big business" will actually do the right thing with the money that they so generously donated!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How can the American public be informed when the Republicans in Congress are doing everything in their power to rush through legislation that even their own members in the House and Senate haven't had time to read and understand?

When you're in that much of a hurry to pass legislation, that's a sure signal that it contains items that the Republican leadership doesn't want the American public to know!

Kinda like Obamacare.

Given that the American public has been made responsible for another $1.5 trillion in debt, one would assume that at the very least this tax legislation would contain guarantees requiring corporations to direct those funds to provide employment!

If those who receive a tax cut spend the money here employment will probably go up. Business isn't going to hire before production needs require it.

 

[jgarden]

Kinda like Obamacare

Any comparison equating the process employed to pass "Obamacare" with this Republican tax legislation is false!

(1) from June to September 2009, the Senate Finance Committee alone held 31 meetings to create a bipartisan healthcare bill with 60 hours devoted to the philosophical implications.

(2) Congressional Democrats consulted with leading health policy experts

(3) Democrats obtained support from former Senate majority leaders Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Tom Daschle and George Mitchell

(4) the House of Representatives waited until November 7th, 2009 to pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act on a 220–215 vote

(5) the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the Republican filibuster and then passed the bill, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it

(6) "Obamacare" had the endorsement of the AMA and AARP - something the Republicans failed to achieve

(7) the Tea Party and the Sunlight Foundation attempted to document ties between "the healthcare lobbyist complex" and those politicians who supported Obamacare - where is the corresponding interest in documenting the links between GOP politicians who supported tax reform legislation and lobbyists representing those special interests who stand to reap the benefits

If those who receive a tax cut spend the money here employment will probably go up. Business isn't going to hire before production needs require it.

The government shouldn't be in the business of writing a "blank check" for
$1.5 trillion without the provision for "ironclad" guarantees that the money will be spent on those programs for which it was intended.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia

 

[Halbhh]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY



How can the American public be informed when the Republicans in Congress are doing everything in their power to rush through legislation that even their own members in the House and Senate haven't had time to read and understand?

When you're in that much of a hurry to pass legislation, that's a sure signal that it contains items that the Republican leadership doesn't want the American public to know!



Given that the American public has been made responsible for another $1.5 trillion in debt, one would assume that at the very least this tax legislation would contain guarantees requiring corporations to direct those funds to provide employment!

The fact that it doesn't, speaks volumes as to whose best interests are being represented when it was written - the American public shouldn't be placed in a situation that they hope "big business" will actually do the right thing with the money that they so generously donated!

Make taxes smart and fair and good for workers:

Improve US workers price competitiveness by another 20%, and become equal footing with the rest of the world.

The full leveling the playing field for our workers vs foreign competitors is to have a national sales tax, new, of about 15% to 20%, gradually ramp up to, combined with lowering our tax rate on domestic production ,the part we just did most of the way, to the best overall rate of about 15%.

This would make imported goods pay tax just like domestic goods. They would pay the same taxes US workers are under for their production.

Level playing field, then better US employment and wages in future vs without the sales tax.

 

[jgarden]

Make taxes smart and fair and good for workers:

Improve US workers price competitiveness by another 20%, and become equal footing with the rest of the world.

The full leveling the playing field for our workers vs foreign competitors is to have a national sales tax, new, of about 15% to 20%, gradually ramp up to, combined with lowering our tax rate on domestic production ,the part we just did most of the way, to the best overall rate of about 15%.

This would make imported goods pay tax just like domestic goods. They would pay the same taxes US workers are under for their production.

Level playing field, then better US employment and wages in future vs without the sales tax.

All this is based on the optimistic, unsubstantiated claims from Republican sources - not independent studies!

As previously stated, where are those guarantees in the legislation that would require these corporations to reinvest this financial windfall in providing more jobs and increasing take home wages - what's to prevent them from just pocketing the money, spending it on executive bonuses, stock buy backs and/or large dividends for their stockholders?

 

[Halbhh]

All this is based on the optimistic, unsubstantiated claims from Republican sources - not independent studies!

As previously stated, where are those guarantees in the legislation that would require these corporations to reinvest this financial windfall in providing more jobs and increasing take home wages - what's to prevent them from just pocketing the money, spending it on executive bonuses, stock buy backs and/or large dividends for their stockholders?

Take it from someone that agreed with every other part you said in the other points. I figured this out about 10 years ago from reading in economics and articles from neutral sources. I've read perhaps 400 or 500 economics articles in a variety of sources.

Just think it through. Imported goods from Ireland had about a 20% advantage in tax rate so that those businesses could sell for significantly lower prices and still do okay profit wise.

And they know that, and now other countries are considering if they need to lower their rates to keep competitive advantage.

It's not complex. You don't need any complex math to understand. Businesses can build plants wherever they like. They consider many factors, including tax rates.

Don't use talking points, but consider each thing independently.

All of us that care about workers can be glad about this one part of the new tax plan.

 

[vincejohnson]

I read a lot of la, la, la but no one cares to vote on this issue.

VOTE.,.,.,.,.,,,, be heard

 

[Yarddog]

Good point.

Waaay back, when Reagan cut the top bracket from like 70% tax to 28% (which had to be raised some due to huge deficits not long after), that cut actually did result in more spending by the rich, thus more economic demand, thus more jobs.

Because it was from 70% downward.

That's long ago, when taxes were far higher....

Now...not much economic demand help from the top bracket cut from 39.6% downward.

The Reagan tax cuts did nothing for job creation. More jobs were created during the Carters first three years as President than any three year period under Reagan. Tax cuts for the wealthy rarely spur extra economic growth that proponents promise.

Usually, run away debt follows.

 

[Halbhh]

The Reagan tax cuts did nothing for job creation. More jobs were created during the Carters first three years as President than any three year period under Reagan. Tax cuts for the wealthy rarely spur extra economic growth that proponents promise.

Usually, run away debt follows.

Interesting statement re jobs under Carter. I will check that.
I think Carter was one of our best Presidents.

Because he was more meek.

It's basic also that factors Presidents do not control are more powerful than Presidents' actions typically during their term.

Usually.

Only the most drastic new changes can even rise near to the level of affecting the economy add much as simply big factors presidents don't control like oil prices.

For example the huge new spending early under Obama saved us from a Great Depression 2.

Job gains through Obama's Presidency were from that rescue of the economy, the FED actions, and low oil prices.

For instance, during Carter's term OPEC oil price rise inflation (playing out over time) continued.

People hated that inflation. It helped make him less popular.

Of course, Carter had no responsibility for that inflation.

 

[pat34lee]

The American public is incredibly uniformed, but hardly stupid.

I hate to disagree on something like this,
but have you ever watched Watters' World?