The latest trickle-down theory: cut corporate taxes to create jobs.

This was your claim that you provided with no proof.

The burden is on you.

 

If you dispute this please show us on what basis you do that

 

You certainly are entitled to your opinion. But the facts clearly demonstrate that trickle down {sic} economics remains federal law and policy. The continuation of corporate welfarism and overseas tax shelters is all the proof you need.

 

Not so. Washington DC has been largely under Republican control since Reagan. When President Obama asked to have all foreign tax shelters ended, the Republicans in Congress balked and stifled his initiatives. Blame Republicans, not Democrats.

 

further proof that trickle down {sic} corporate welfare remains the rule of the day:

 

Prices are only lowered by competition. They are inevitably raised by tax hikes.

 

Please don't try to revise history with a 52 year old guy like me who's hobby is news and politics since I could read my first newspaper at the age of 7 years old, it won't turn out good

The Democrats held Congress for 40 years till 1995 ...

 

I have asked this numerous times without satisfaction. If trickle down is a lie (presumably doesn't work) could you explain the economic actual process and steps how the only alternative -- trickle up -- works?

 

Exactly, the left critize trickle down non stop saying it didn't work so what was the alternative? From the 1980s today we live in a different world of computers , automation the world finnaly rebuilt after WWII and caught up with the United States.

 

I laugh at the people who think they can tax the rich but are so afraid of putting any protectionist policies because it will "ruin the economy"

news flash: If you increase taxes on the rich then they just move the money off shore. Unless you combine it with some incentive to keep the money in the US but democrats are to afraid to do that.

 

In a country where the top 30% of taxpayers pay 97% of federal income taxes, and will CONTINUE to despite minor tweaks to brackets, or removal of taxes like the death tax that don't generate significant revenue in relation to enforcement costs, claiming that the made up term "trickle down economics" describes the status quo is a double falsehood. 1. The term is made up, so false in that way, and 2.the underlying claim behind it is false.

 

As others point out, the above is counter to fact. Why are you claiming something that one minute of googling instantly proves false:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_control_of_Congress

 

`````````
It boils down to liberalism and that it has hijacked the Democrat party. Their platform is, we'll give you entitlements and you keep us in power. More entitlements means more and bigger government. Liberalism is all about fake news and control. They lie because their policies don't work. They want big government to control everyone's lives. Liberal parasites are the problem. People will in general take the path of least resistance and can be easily mesmerized and manipulated by a charismatic speaker like Obama. So many of those low information people don't care that open borders and health care for everyone is unsustainable. They don't care, they have their hands out... they want their health care paid by their neighbors. It's all about image to the fools on the left and not about substance. Liberalism is the most gutless choice one can make.

 

So you weren't aware. Take a quick look here and here.

If it is spent, it is a write-off. Otherwise, it's taxed.

The concept of a sole proprietorship provides no separate business taxation. If a person wants such a distinction, there are several different corporate forms that can be used.

Due to propaganda, there may have been some support.

No, I'm very clear that there was significant opposition to the Iraq War because I was against it before it began. I saw Bush driving UN inspectors out and moving troops in just prior to an anticipated, scheduled UN report that leaks said would announce that they found no WMD because he didn't want that report to come out. He and Cheney wanted that war.

It has been pretty well established that the 2004 election was stolen. I personally watched the votes get hacked. But no matter, using Bush's second term as confirmation that people wanted that war is not valid.

And the government doesn't listen to us very well. A majority is calling for action to mitigate global warming and nothing happens. A majority is calling for alternative energy and infrastructure projects and UHC and nothing happens. It is true that ultimately the people hold the political power and the government greatly fears that we may realize or discover that we hold such power, and so the government works to keep us out of political action. I'm sensitive to that and so I'm very aware of it. I see and recognize the maneuvers and manipulations. And to realize and use our political power, we need to unite and be willing to be clubbed, pepper sprayed, attacked by dogs, and be shot for showing up by the hundreds of thousands and speaking the truth. You were a cop. You know the drill.

Cheers.

 

Sure. The alternative is to tax the excessive incomes that have been realized by the top 5% over the last 35 years while the middle class's wages were flat, and then spend that revenue to fund huge and numerous infrastructure projects. It puts money in the pockets of people who need it and will immediately spend it on needs. That spending creates demand for that which is bought. Businesses then will step up to the plate to take advantage of a profit opportunity by increasing production to meet the increased demand. That will require hiring workers who will be paid and will spend that income on needs. And it snowballs from there with increasing demand followed by increasing production creating increased demand requiring increasing production, etc, etc, etc.

You never heard this before?

 

The first part takes money from the rich and distributes it to the less rich. By definition this is trickle down albeit by fiat instead of natural economics.
The second part makes the gross unrealistic assumption that after you take all of the excess funds from the rich they nonetheless will really want to invest whatever they have left to build a business so the government can take even more of their money. This is a nirvana pipe dream.

 

Does all the anti corporation left wingers know that JFK believe in this principle and acted on it???

 

They would prefer not to be reminded......

 

That would be an incorrect spin. The first part takes revenue from those who can afford it most, and uses it to fund badly needed projects. Our current level of taxation is historically low, and historically the nation has done better when taxation is higher.

"All" eh? You aren't interested in exaggerating at all, are you? But show me one time in history, even when the top tax brackets were set to a range spanning 72% all the way up to 94% as they were in 1945, when the rich refused to invest in their businesses.

But you do almost approach a valid and important fact associated with high tax brackets, although you fall short of it. When tax brackets are that high, it is not business capital that is being taxed though you conflate that point. It is personal income that is being so highly taxed. And that, historically, was an effective incentive to motivate those wealthy corporate elite to take less personal income and instead plow it back into their businesses to build those assets for themselves by increasing capacity and hiring workers to produce for profit.

So your assessment and mindset for this situation is incomplete, inadequate, and the conclusions you draw are entirely incorrect.

Now, are you going to tell me you have never heard this explanation before? Or is it the standard and/or common response of the left?

 

Of course we have

 

I hope you realize that's a pathetic "response" and more of a deflection than anything. I guess you have no cogent argument, but that's normal.

 

How are facts a pathetic response? I post history and you post the same nonsense thinking if we try the same thing over again we will get a different result.

 

"The first part takes revenue from those who can afford it most, and uses it to fund badly needed projects." which is exactly what I said -- trickle down.
The nation has done better when tax rates were low, like zero for almost the first 150 years.

I said all the excess. When the tax rates were 90% very very few paid any tax at that rate.
The "elite" can't plow funds back into investment until after they have paid personal income tax on it. You are confusing it with being paid in stock as opposed to dollars which does reduce their tax rates, but also does not build any plants or hire any labor.

 

Nothing forces the wealthy to wait till they have paid taxes to invest in their businesses. That is a silly claim