It is not a conservative fantasy. They never claimed it would "trickle down."
Do You Think The Rich Should Be Taxed More?
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
It is not a conservative fantasy. They never claimed it would "trickle down."
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hi Flash,
OK, first go back to before the latest tax cut for the rich and the big corporations.
I performed this math about a year ago:
***
I draw the raw numbers from usdebtclock.org/
The debt is currently $19,969 Billion.
The spending per year is $3,915 Billion.
The deficit is $591 Billion.
The revenue is $3,324 Billion.
But some of that is paid by corporations and employers. Personal income taxes account for only part of that. Let's take a figure from the PEW page below:
47.4% of revenue comes from individual taxes.
How much is it? Take 47.4% of $3,324B.
.474 * $3,324B = $1,576B
We hear that the rich pay most of the taxes. I found this from PEW:
"In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes,"
PEW Research Center
So the rich are paying 51.6% of $1,576B in taxes.
.516 * $1,576B = $813B.
The highest effective tax rate is 25% (after deductions.)
How much would the rich be paying if their rate was bumped up to 50% effective rate, (what was paid in the 1950's)?
2 * $813B = $1,626B.
Let's add that to what the non-rich pay. We'll take the total paid and subtract what the rich pay:
$1,576B - $813B = $763B.
The non-rich pay $763B in taxes.
Let's add how much the rich would be paying at 1950's levels:
$763B + $1,626B = $2,389B.
This is the new proposed figure of personal income taxes with the effective rate on the rich bumped up from 25% to 50%
Now we have to add in the taxes which are not personal income taxes:
If you recall, only 47.4% of revenue comes from personal income taxes.
100% - 47.4% = 52.6%
.526 * $3,324B total revenue = $1,748B
Now let's add the proposed personal income taxes to the existing non-personal revenue;
$2,389B + $1,748B = $4,137B This is the total revenue if the effective personal income tax rate for the rich is bumped from 25% to 50%.
Current US spending: $3,915B.
Now we can calculate the surplus created by subtracting the current spending of $3,915B from the total revenue of $4,137B:
$4,137 - $3,915B = $222B
That's $222 billion per year which could be applied to paying down the debt and funding the social projects our society needs.
***
The above is now out of date, and the rich are probably not paying the same percentage of the revenue, so the 51.6% figure would need to be adjusted, but I doubt any corresponding study has been done since the new tax law took effect. And, also, the deficit is going way up because Trump first cut the taxes for the rich and corporations, and went on a weapons spending spree. It can clearly be seen that at least it WAS possible to begin paying down the debt before President Trump and Republicans took over and decided to throw the national credit card at the Pentagon. And this shows that if we stop that nonsense and set the top tax rates at 50%, and reinstitute the old business tax rate, that the deficit could be eliminated.
OK, first go back to before the latest tax cut for the rich and the big corporations.
I performed this math about a year ago:
***
I draw the raw numbers from usdebtclock.org/
The debt is currently $19,969 Billion.
The spending per year is $3,915 Billion.
The deficit is $591 Billion.
The revenue is $3,324 Billion.
But some of that is paid by corporations and employers. Personal income taxes account for only part of that. Let's take a figure from the PEW page below:
47.4% of revenue comes from individual taxes.
How much is it? Take 47.4% of $3,324B.
.474 * $3,324B = $1,576B
We hear that the rich pay most of the taxes. I found this from PEW:
"In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes,"
PEW Research Center
So the rich are paying 51.6% of $1,576B in taxes.
.516 * $1,576B = $813B.
The highest effective tax rate is 25% (after deductions.)
How much would the rich be paying if their rate was bumped up to 50% effective rate, (what was paid in the 1950's)?
2 * $813B = $1,626B.
Let's add that to what the non-rich pay. We'll take the total paid and subtract what the rich pay:
$1,576B - $813B = $763B.
The non-rich pay $763B in taxes.
Let's add how much the rich would be paying at 1950's levels:
$763B + $1,626B = $2,389B.
This is the new proposed figure of personal income taxes with the effective rate on the rich bumped up from 25% to 50%
Now we have to add in the taxes which are not personal income taxes:
If you recall, only 47.4% of revenue comes from personal income taxes.
100% - 47.4% = 52.6%
.526 * $3,324B total revenue = $1,748B
Now let's add the proposed personal income taxes to the existing non-personal revenue;
$2,389B + $1,748B = $4,137B This is the total revenue if the effective personal income tax rate for the rich is bumped from 25% to 50%.
Current US spending: $3,915B.
Now we can calculate the surplus created by subtracting the current spending of $3,915B from the total revenue of $4,137B:
$4,137 - $3,915B = $222B
That's $222 billion per year which could be applied to paying down the debt and funding the social projects our society needs.
***
The above is now out of date, and the rich are probably not paying the same percentage of the revenue, so the 51.6% figure would need to be adjusted, but I doubt any corresponding study has been done since the new tax law took effect. And, also, the deficit is going way up because Trump first cut the taxes for the rich and corporations, and went on a weapons spending spree. It can clearly be seen that at least it WAS possible to begin paying down the debt before President Trump and Republicans took over and decided to throw the national credit card at the Pentagon. And this shows that if we stop that nonsense and set the top tax rates at 50%, and reinstitute the old business tax rate, that the deficit could be eliminated.
Who is that. It ahs been stated that way since before regan, while the term was coined by comedian Will Rogers. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp
Ir has been stated that way by critics, not by conservatives who were proposing the tax cuts.
One of the other fantasies of the American conservative crowd is that if they claim their absurd fantasies are not actually "conservative fantasies"...people who actually have functioning brains will buy into it.
Nice try, Flash. You might even convince some of the American conservatives here, but that's because...uhhh...ya know.
American conservatives proposing tax cuts HAVE said that large tax cuts on businesses, high-income earners, capital gains, and dividends...would "drive the economy" and those lower on the ladder would benefit.
Yeah, Flash...they were saying it would trickle down.
Your problem is not with what they said or what they meant. Your problem is with the fact that IT DOES NOT WORK...because the beneficiaries of this "largess" will find ways to keep as much of what they get for themselves as possible.
Hey, that is understandable. Their mantra...the one the American conservative base supports is:
I've got mine, screw you.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
They most certainly did. Reagan said it would work. He was spectacularly wrong:
They most certainly did. Reagan said it would work. He was spectacularly wrong:
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello and greetings EZExit,
You have failed to establish that there - is - a government spending problem.
The spending is legal. It was all voted for by representatives of the people.
Every individual has the right to have a say in that.
Advocates for cutting spending are too few. Representatives do not have to fear ignoring their pleas. What are the people going to do about it? Vote them out of office? The Tea Party tried that. And the Republicans won in 2016. They control all three branches. The only spending they want to cut is the spending which helps the poor try to build a life. It makes no sense. All while the richest are raking in cash hand over fist? That's no way to run a country. So go ahead. Vote these Republicans out of office and let the Dems get the budget nearly under control one more time. And as they do the Repubs will be loudly blaying about the spending problem as they push for yet more tax cuts for the rich. The audacity of them.
Audacity.
President Obama wrote a book called: 'The Audacity of Hope.'
That's a play on the word 'audacity.'
Because, what Republicans are doing to the USA?
That's audacious.
It is not inevitable that the USA will crash. Not at all. We actually still have the strongest economy in the world. There are many reasons it looks scary now, but nobody knows what's going to happen. There is ample prosperity in the USA. If you add up all the government wealth and assets, and all the private wealth and assets, it is greater than all the government debt plus all private debt as well. That is to say, the USA has a positive net worth. Not only that, the net worth of the USA is the largest of any nation. By far. There is much reason to have a positive outlook.
National wealth - wiki
(USA net worth = 93 trillion.)
You have failed to establish that there - is - a government spending problem.
The spending is legal. It was all voted for by representatives of the people.
Every individual has the right to have a say in that.
Advocates for cutting spending are too few. Representatives do not have to fear ignoring their pleas. What are the people going to do about it? Vote them out of office? The Tea Party tried that. And the Republicans won in 2016. They control all three branches. The only spending they want to cut is the spending which helps the poor try to build a life. It makes no sense. All while the richest are raking in cash hand over fist? That's no way to run a country. So go ahead. Vote these Republicans out of office and let the Dems get the budget nearly under control one more time. And as they do the Repubs will be loudly blaying about the spending problem as they push for yet more tax cuts for the rich. The audacity of them.
Audacity.
President Obama wrote a book called: 'The Audacity of Hope.'
That's a play on the word 'audacity.'
Because, what Republicans are doing to the USA?
That's audacious.
It is not inevitable that the USA will crash. Not at all. We actually still have the strongest economy in the world. There are many reasons it looks scary now, but nobody knows what's going to happen. There is ample prosperity in the USA. If you add up all the government wealth and assets, and all the private wealth and assets, it is greater than all the government debt plus all private debt as well. That is to say, the USA has a positive net worth. Not only that, the net worth of the USA is the largest of any nation. By far. There is much reason to have a positive outlook.
National wealth - wiki
(USA net worth = 93 trillion.)
...and the mantra of the American liberal is to hand it over, it was supposed to be mine.
You should have baked that a bit longer. It was lame.
You must be an American conservative.
My sympathies. I wouldn't wish that on an enemy.
Good morning PoliTalker!
Washington liberals and conservatives are exactly the same when it comes to spending, nobody cares about the spending, they only want their spending to go to their partisan respective agendas. When the money isn't being funneled in the manner that they want, it is only then the the other party whines about a "spending problem". Giving the reins of control to democrats to tighten spending is laughable at best. Obama did control some spending during his tenure, but it was due to forced sequestration, one of the few actions of his that I agreed with. Everyone thought of it as the end of the world as we knew it.
One more point, everyone looks like a rocket scientist with their fiscal management before the bankruptcy begins. There were many people buying up real estate in the early 2000's, all of these people living large and buying homes based upon stated income and interest only loans, living the life. It is only when a couple of cards became dislodged that the whole house of cards came collapsing down. We did the "too big to fail" fake propping of the foundations, but the damage was done. It led to a very long and painful recovery. Unfortunately, our government doesn't have a benefactor that sees them as "too big to fail", when they fail, they will fall big time, and take us all with it.
Our government thinks if they simply sit at the table and keep eating, they don't have to worry about the check when they get up to move on.
Washington liberals and conservatives are exactly the same when it comes to spending, nobody cares about the spending, they only want their spending to go to their partisan respective agendas. When the money isn't being funneled in the manner that they want, it is only then the the other party whines about a "spending problem". Giving the reins of control to democrats to tighten spending is laughable at best. Obama did control some spending during his tenure, but it was due to forced sequestration, one of the few actions of his that I agreed with. Everyone thought of it as the end of the world as we knew it.
One more point, everyone looks like a rocket scientist with their fiscal management before the bankruptcy begins. There were many people buying up real estate in the early 2000's, all of these people living large and buying homes based upon stated income and interest only loans, living the life. It is only when a couple of cards became dislodged that the whole house of cards came collapsing down. We did the "too big to fail" fake propping of the foundations, but the damage was done. It led to a very long and painful recovery. Unfortunately, our government doesn't have a benefactor that sees them as "too big to fail", when they fail, they will fall big time, and take us all with it.
Our government thinks if they simply sit at the table and keep eating, they don't have to worry about the check when they get up to move on.
The foundation of my "lame" response was based upon your own foundation, I worked with what I had.
Nothing wrong with what you started with.
These two pictures show structures built with the same materials.
Your post looks like the second.
Can you cite any economist or official who claimed tax cuts would trickle down? Or, it is a derisive term by opponents of such policies? It is a straw man.
http://www.aei.org/publication/thom...and-then-profits-flow-upward-later-if-at-all/
http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover Proof.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
Keeping taxes at the current rate or raising taxes are no more likely to trickle down to the workers than cutting taxes. The difference is that cutting taxes gives workers more to spend although at the expense of increasing the debt. Government keeping higher taxes does not trickle down, either, except to government employees.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello EZExit,
That's not true, and you have failed to show anything to support it. There are good liberals and bad, fiscally responsible ones and irresponsible ones. Stop spreading stereotypes like rumors.
That's not true, and you have failed to show anything to support it. There are good liberals and bad, fiscally responsible ones and irresponsible ones. Stop spreading stereotypes like rumors.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello and greetings ClassPreE,
Welcome to the discussion.
I disagree. Large rich corporations have plenty of money for expansion. They do not require any more. They have all the money they need for new hiring. What they don't have is new markets for product. That's because they don't pay enough, don't provide enough hours of work, and people can't afford to buy more things.
Taxes on the rich should be raised because we are not collecting enough revenue, and the deficit is too large.
Welcome to the discussion.
I disagree. Large rich corporations have plenty of money for expansion. They do not require any more. They have all the money they need for new hiring. What they don't have is new markets for product. That's because they don't pay enough, don't provide enough hours of work, and people can't afford to buy more things.
Taxes on the rich should be raised because we are not collecting enough revenue, and the deficit is too large.