Trickle Down? Or Trickle Up? Which Economic Model is Better? - Page 4 - Jets Insider.com Forums

MachineGunFunk · 10-15-2008, 07:54 PM

Why is everyone so hung up on rich v poor debates?

The government needs money, we have run up huge deficits while fighting two wars.

There is only one place to get it: the rich.

Freeridelectric · 10-16-2008, 10:29 PM

I thought BO plan was not that bad. Taxes were going to go up three percent on those making 250,000 dollars and above. Small business gets a break.

Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary.

If the 250,000 dollar and above feel they are over taxed they will invest in income property or in there business. They can pay a tax adviser to deal with this. Still they will stimulate the economy. It's possible that there may still be some trickle down with OB. Didn't he say one of his economic advisers was Mr Buffet?

Don't make Mexico angry we need there oil. Put up a wall and no more oil for you or I mean US.

Senator Mcain mentioned last night that BO made some remarks about renegotiating NAFTA and that could cause Canada to choose to sell there oil to Japan instead of US. Don't make Canada mad we need there oil. Stay cool. :cool:

asuusa · 10-16-2008, 11:42 PM

[QUOTE=Tanginius;2804230]well trickle down clearly failed so we might as well try trickle up[/QUOTE]

How then do you explain that from '83-'03 Fed. receipts increased 73%, while only 40% the previous 20yrs? What caused the big jump? Trickle down clearly increased revenues big time!

From '03 (when Ws taxcuts kicked in)-'07 receipts are up 27.8%.

piney · 10-16-2008, 11:57 PM

[QUOTE=flushingjet;2805454]
Now if you dont understand why lower taxes for all means more tax revenues
and more jobs I cant help you

[/QUOTE]

this I get, I don't want anyone to pay taxes....but why can't they lower mine too!! Maybe I am wrong, but I always thought the middle-class and lower-middle class would pump that money back into the economy faster and more frequently than the upper-class/rich.

BushyTheBeaver · 10-17-2008, 12:10 AM

What exactly is "trickle up"? Don't think I've heard that one before. And (as a middle class taxpayer) I must ask why are the only starting positions "down" and "up"? Why are policies always based on the super rich and the super poor?

ganooch · 10-17-2008, 12:18 PM

Trickle Up? are you kidding me. Never realized that that was an economic plan. How does wealth trickle up?

CTM · 10-17-2008, 12:45 PM

[QUOTE=ganooch;2808639]Trickle Up? are you kidding me. Never realized that that was an economic plan. How does wealth trickle up?[/QUOTE]

Do you seriously not understand???

Poor people have more money to spend, the buy stuff from wealthier people, who use the profits to buy stuff from still wealthier people, etc etc etc

It's not very complicated.

asuusa · 10-17-2008, 11:19 PM

[QUOTE=CTM;2808684]Do you seriously not understand???

Poor people have more money to spend, the buy stuff from wealthier people, who use the profits to buy stuff from still wealthier people, etc etc etc

It's not very complicated.[/QUOTE]

Yup, but you have to take money by force from the wealthy to give to the poor; lousy system!!

Now I'd go for a leftist trickle up economy...all leftys pay the govt double what their tax bill is since they think taxes should be higher!

BushyTheBeaver · 10-17-2008, 11:42 PM

[QUOTE=asuusa;2809374]Yup, but you have to take money by force from the wealthy to give to the poor; lousy system!![/QUOTE]

Or just have them pay their fair share of taxes. When a billionaire like Warren Buffet says his tax rate is lower than his secretary's, there's obviously something screwed in the system. Does it make you feel good knowing that your tax rate is higher than the heads of Wall Street firms earning millions?

The middle class is the bedrock of this country--why are we always the ones getting screwed? The poor get their social programs compliments of the democrats. The rich get their tax loopholes compliments of the republicans. And we get our asses chewed from both ends.

Strickland · 10-17-2008, 11:59 PM

[QUOTE=asuusa;2808167]How then do you explain that from '83-'03 Fed. receipts increased 73%, while only 40% the previous 20yrs? What caused the big jump? Trickle down clearly increased revenues big time!

From '03 (when Ws taxcuts kicked in)-'07 receipts are up 27.8%.[/QUOTE]

Bragging about the amount of tax revenues the Government got from 2003 on is like saying, "My house was worth a ton a year ago!"

It's a moot point. The tax revenues, like most of the gains made over the past 5 years, were built on a house of cards. So not only do we not have a house, but now we've got to clean the cards up as well.

Look, like most things, I think we need a balance of the two. Pure democracy never works, the minority view gets trampled. Pure socialism doesn't work, people have individual wants and desires. Pure capitalism doesn't work, it leads to a small ruling class and a large group of slaves, essentially.

But, regardless of what anyone says, your taxes are going to go up no matter who you vote for. The budget is in shambles and needs to be rectified and fast. The idea that we could be in two wars, in a recession and NOT feel an economic pinch is foolish as hell. We need to stop listening to leaders who urge us to "spend" during a crisis and start saving some money.

The Republicans seem to think we can become a "service nation". That being where a top percent of people control most of the wealth and the rest of the country works to "serve" them. We're far too large for that. We need to actually get back to producing something other than debt, movies, corn and a giant army.

So the idea of, "spreading the wealth around" isn't a terribly unattractive one to me. I just have doubts about where the money is going to. If it gets invested in creating a renewable energy sector, than great. That'll lead to a ton of jobs. Plus, we could sell any excess energy to other countries.

I just don't understand this mindset of, "Redistribution of wealth is bad!" Really? Was it when we did it for the GI's after WWII? When we guaranteed them a house and a college education and healthcare (not as crappy as we're led to believe)? The government paid for all of that. Sure, they eventually got repaid, for the most part, but they paid for it. They've done it a number of times in our history (Reconstruction, the aforementioned GI Bill) and it's worked for the most part.

Is this a different government? It's possible it is, that this current government isn't capable of doing much. But one thing is clear, we can't continue on the path we've been on.

Anyway, the point of this rambling rant is (besides being a lesson against writing at midnight) that ANY move towards the center economically is going to be perceived as a move towards socialism. In a way, that's correct, but that doesn't make it wrong. The center isn't socialism, it's just closer than the abusive form of capitalism we've had for the better part of a decade.

CTM · 10-17-2008, 11:59 PM

[QUOTE=asuusa;2809374]Yup, but you have to take money by force from the wealthy to give to the poor; lousy system!!

Now I'd go for a leftist trickle up economy...all leftys pay the govt double what their tax bill is since they think taxes should be higher![/QUOTE]

Hey, I'm not saying I agree with it, just explaining how it works..

Strickland · 10-18-2008, 12:07 AM

[QUOTE=asuusa;2809374]Yup, but you have to take money by force from the wealthy to give to the poor; lousy system!![/QUOTE]

Congratulations, you've just described ANY form of taxes. They're all non-negotiable. You're already getting robbed, now we're just haggling over prices.

asuusa · 10-19-2008, 03:40 PM

[QUOTE=piney;2808182]Maybe I am wrong, but I always thought the middle-class and lower-middle class would pump that money back into the economy faster and more frequently than the upper-class/rich.[/QUOTE]

That would [b]only[/b] be true if the upper-class/rich stashed their money in bags in their houses! What do the rich do with their money? They either spend it or invest it....either way it goes into the economy. Where would people who build luxury cars, or yachts, etc. work if there were no rich people buying these high dollar items? How many jobs are provided when some rich dude builds a multi-million dollar house?

We have two cars...a '98 and '00! Rich folks buy new stuff far more often than I do...if everyone bought cars like I do, what would the auto industry be?

I always laugh when I hear a politician say he/she will create jobs. Jobs are only created when there's demand for goods or services! How many folks are assembling IBM Selectric typewriters or 8-track stereo systems?

Obumble says he'll create 5 million "green jobs" over 10 years in the alternative energy sector! Oh, yeah? Maybe, maybe not! Actually it'll only happen if people will buy what those green jobs produce! If not, no new jobs! Simple econ 101!

Strickland · 10-19-2008, 09:00 PM

[QUOTE=asuusa;2810800]
Obumble says he'll create 5 million "green jobs" over 10 years in the alternative energy sector! Oh, yeah? Maybe, maybe not! Actually it'll only happen if people will buy what those green jobs produce! If not, no new jobs! Simple econ 101![/QUOTE]

Right, but if those green jobs produce cheap, clean and reusable sources of energy, people will buy.

It's the future. Both parties see that. But the Republicans are also beholden to the oil companies and their idiotic mantra, "Drill, baby, drill" is nothing more than an excuse to prevent the oncoming diminishing of their market share.

asuusa · 10-19-2008, 11:11 PM

[QUOTE=Strickland;2812869]Right, but if those green jobs produce cheap, clean and reusable sources of energy, people will buy. [/quote]

But that's a big [SIZE="7"]if[/SIZE]
[quote]
It's the future. Both parties see that. But the Republicans are also beholden to the oil companies and their idiotic mantra, "Drill, baby, drill" is nothing more than an excuse to prevent the oncoming diminishing of their market share.[/QUOTE]

"Drill, baby, drill" is what we should have been doing all along...but now we're stuck with what we got (thanks to the 'rats) and "cheap, clean and reusable sources of energy" are still a dream, (ethanol production proved that)!

SONNY WERBLIN · 10-20-2008, 03:58 PM

I've been a "trickle-down" guy for a long time, and recently I have wondered why not "trickle-up". In theory, I can think of no good reason that "trickle-up" would not work. It still ultimately sends the extra money to the capitalist that keep the engine of our economy running. Unless, of course, americans start to do something they have not done in a long, long time. That is, save money and use it to pay down debt, rather then spend it on services and goods. Oddly, we are at a point in time where this might occurr. This is one reason I do think it is the right time to "trickle-up". While I'm not anti-trickle-up, I do believe there is a danger that no money will actually be available to trickle up after people start saving and paying down debt.

Another reason I do not like Obama's tax policy is because it gives more money to people who do not actually pay any money in to the system than any tax system we have ever had. I just do not like this amount of social welfare throught the tax system.

10-17-2008, 11:42 PM	#69
BushyTheBeaver size matters All League Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,922	[QUOTE=asuusa;2809374]Yup, but you have to take money by force from the wealthy to give to the poor; lousy system!![/QUOTE] Or just have them pay their fair share of taxes. When a billionaire like Warren Buffet says his tax rate is lower than his secretary's, there's obviously something screwed in the system. Does it make you feel good knowing that your tax rate is higher than the heads of Wall Street firms earning millions? The middle class is the bedrock of this country--why are we always the ones getting screwed? The poor get their social programs compliments of the democrats. The rich get their tax loopholes compliments of the republicans. And we get our asses chewed from both ends. Last edited by BushyTheBeaver; 10-17-2008 at 11:53 PM.

10-15-2008, 07:54 PM	#61
MachineGunFunk All Pro Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,176	Why is everyone so hung up on rich v poor debates? The government needs money, we have run up huge deficits while fighting two wars. There is only one place to get it: the rich.

10-16-2008, 10:29 PM	#62
Freeridelectric Veteran Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 104	I thought BO plan was not that bad. Taxes were going to go up three percent on those making 250,000 dollars and above. Small business gets a break. Warren Buffet says he pays less taxes than his secretary. If the 250,000 dollar and above feel they are over taxed they will invest in income property or in there business. They can pay a tax adviser to deal with this. Still they will stimulate the economy. It's possible that there may still be some trickle down with OB. Didn't he say one of his economic advisers was Mr Buffet? Don't make Mexico angry we need there oil. Put up a wall and no more oil for you or I mean US. Senator Mcain mentioned last night that BO made some remarks about renegotiating NAFTA and that could cause Canada to choose to sell there oil to Japan instead of US. Don't make Canada mad we need there oil. Stay cool. :cool:

10-16-2008, 11:42 PM	#63
asuusa All Pro Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,171	[QUOTE=Tanginius;2804230]well trickle down clearly failed so we might as well try trickle up[/QUOTE] How then do you explain that from '83-'03 Fed. receipts increased 73%, while only 40% the previous 20yrs? What caused the big jump? Trickle down clearly increased revenues big time! From '03 (when Ws taxcuts kicked in)-'07 receipts are up 27.8%.

10-16-2008, 11:57 PM	#64
piney hip deep in dirty diapers All League Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 3,618	[QUOTE=flushingjet;2805454] Now if you dont understand why lower taxes for all means more tax revenues and more jobs I cant help you [/QUOTE] this I get, I don't want anyone to pay taxes....but why can't they lower mine too!! Maybe I am wrong, but I always thought the middle-class and lower-middle class would pump that money back into the economy faster and more frequently than the upper-class/rich.

10-17-2008, 12:10 AM	#65
BushyTheBeaver size matters All League Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,922	What exactly is "trickle up"? Don't think I've heard that one before. And (as a middle class taxpayer) I must ask why are the only starting positions "down" and "up"? Why are policies always based on the super rich and the super poor?

10-17-2008, 12:18 PM	#66
ganooch Veteran Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Lynbrook, NY Posts: 307	Trickle Up? are you kidding me. Never realized that that was an economic plan. How does wealth trickle up?

10-17-2008, 12:45 PM	#67
CTM Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Not bababooey and I resent the implication Posts: 21,029	[QUOTE=ganooch;2808639]Trickle Up? are you kidding me. Never realized that that was an economic plan. How does wealth trickle up?[/QUOTE] Do you seriously not understand??? Poor people have more money to spend, the buy stuff from wealthier people, who use the profits to buy stuff from still wealthier people, etc etc etc It's not very complicated.

10-17-2008, 11:19 PM	#68
asuusa All Pro Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,171	[QUOTE=CTM;2808684]Do you seriously not understand??? Poor people have more money to spend, the buy stuff from wealthier people, who use the profits to buy stuff from still wealthier people, etc etc etc It's not very complicated.[/QUOTE] Yup, but you have to take money by force from the wealthy to give to the poor; lousy system!! Now I'd go for a leftist trickle up economy...all leftys pay the govt double what their tax bill is since they think taxes should be higher!

10-17-2008, 11:59 PM	#70
Strickland Veteran Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 170	[QUOTE=asuusa;2808167]How then do you explain that from '83-'03 Fed. receipts increased 73%, while only 40% the previous 20yrs? What caused the big jump? Trickle down clearly increased revenues big time! From '03 (when Ws taxcuts kicked in)-'07 receipts are up 27.8%.[/QUOTE] Bragging about the amount of tax revenues the Government got from 2003 on is like saying, "My house was worth a ton a year ago!" It's a moot point. The tax revenues, like most of the gains made over the past 5 years, were built on a house of cards. So not only do we not have a house, but now we've got to clean the cards up as well. Look, like most things, I think we need a balance of the two. Pure democracy never works, the minority view gets trampled. Pure socialism doesn't work, people have individual wants and desires. Pure capitalism doesn't work, it leads to a small ruling class and a large group of slaves, essentially. But, regardless of what anyone says, your taxes are going to go up no matter who you vote for. The budget is in shambles and needs to be rectified and fast. The idea that we could be in two wars, in a recession and NOT feel an economic pinch is foolish as hell. We need to stop listening to leaders who urge us to "spend" during a crisis and start saving some money. The Republicans seem to think we can become a "service nation". That being where a top percent of people control most of the wealth and the rest of the country works to "serve" them. We're far too large for that. We need to actually get back to producing something other than debt, movies, corn and a giant army. So the idea of, "spreading the wealth around" isn't a terribly unattractive one to me. I just have doubts about where the money is going to. If it gets invested in creating a renewable energy sector, than great. That'll lead to a ton of jobs. Plus, we could sell any excess energy to other countries. I just don't understand this mindset of, "Redistribution of wealth is bad!" Really? Was it when we did it for the GI's after WWII? When we guaranteed them a house and a college education and healthcare (not as crappy as we're led to believe)? The government paid for all of that. Sure, they eventually got repaid, for the most part, but they paid for it. They've done it a number of times in our history (Reconstruction, the aforementioned GI Bill) and it's worked for the most part. Is this a different government? It's possible it is, that this current government isn't capable of doing much. But one thing is clear, we can't continue on the path we've been on. Anyway, the point of this rambling rant is (besides being a lesson against writing at midnight) that ANY move towards the center economically is going to be perceived as a move towards socialism. In a way, that's correct, but that doesn't make it wrong. The center isn't socialism, it's just closer than the abusive form of capitalism we've had for the better part of a decade.

10-18-2008, 12:07 AM	#72
Strickland Veteran Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 170	[QUOTE=asuusa;2809374]Yup, but you have to take money by force from the wealthy to give to the poor; lousy system!![/QUOTE] Congratulations, you've just described ANY form of taxes. They're all non-negotiable. You're already getting robbed, now we're just haggling over prices.

10-19-2008, 03:40 PM	#73
asuusa All Pro Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,171	[QUOTE=piney;2808182]Maybe I am wrong, but I always thought the middle-class and lower-middle class would pump that money back into the economy faster and more frequently than the upper-class/rich.[/QUOTE] That would [b]only[/b] be true if the upper-class/rich stashed their money in bags in their houses! What do the rich do with their money? They either spend it or invest it....either way it goes into the economy. Where would people who build luxury cars, or yachts, etc. work if there were no rich people buying these high dollar items? How many jobs are provided when some rich dude builds a multi-million dollar house? We have two cars...a '98 and '00! Rich folks buy new stuff far more often than I do...if everyone bought cars like I do, what would the auto industry be? I always laugh when I hear a politician say he/she will create jobs. Jobs are only created when there's demand for goods or services! How many folks are assembling IBM Selectric typewriters or 8-track stereo systems? Obumble says he'll create 5 million "green jobs" over 10 years in the alternative energy sector! Oh, yeah? Maybe, maybe not! Actually it'll only happen if people will buy what those green jobs produce! If not, no new jobs! Simple econ 101!

10-19-2008, 09:00 PM	#74
Strickland Veteran Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 170	[QUOTE=asuusa;2810800] Obumble says he'll create 5 million "green jobs" over 10 years in the alternative energy sector! Oh, yeah? Maybe, maybe not! Actually it'll only happen if people will buy what those green jobs produce! If not, no new jobs! Simple econ 101![/QUOTE] Right, but if those green jobs produce cheap, clean and reusable sources of energy, people will buy. It's the future. Both parties see that. But the Republicans are also beholden to the oil companies and their idiotic mantra, "Drill, baby, drill" is nothing more than an excuse to prevent the oncoming diminishing of their market share.

10-19-2008, 11:11 PM	#75
asuusa All Pro Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,171	[QUOTE=Strickland;2812869]Right, but if those green jobs produce cheap, clean and reusable sources of energy, people will buy. [/quote] But that's a big [SIZE="7"]if[/SIZE] [quote] It's the future. Both parties see that. But the Republicans are also beholden to the oil companies and their idiotic mantra, "Drill, baby, drill" is nothing more than an excuse to prevent the oncoming diminishing of their market share.[/QUOTE] "Drill, baby, drill" is what we should have been doing all along...but now we're stuck with what we got (thanks to the 'rats) and "cheap, clean and reusable sources of energy" are still a dream, (ethanol production proved that)!

10-20-2008, 03:58 PM	#76
SONNY WERBLIN Veteran Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,356	I've been a "trickle-down" guy for a long time, and recently I have wondered why not "trickle-up". In theory, I can think of no good reason that "trickle-up" would not work. It still ultimately sends the extra money to the capitalist that keep the engine of our economy running. Unless, of course, americans start to do something they have not done in a long, long time. That is, save money and use it to pay down debt, rather then spend it on services and goods. Oddly, we are at a point in time where this might occurr. This is one reason I do think it is the right time to "trickle-up". While I'm not anti-trickle-up, I do believe there is a danger that no money will actually be available to trickle up after people start saving and paying down debt. Another reason I do not like Obama's tax policy is because it gives more money to people who do not actually pay any money in to the system than any tax system we have ever had. I just do not like this amount of social welfare throught the tax system.