50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

Listen to the many lectures by the plutocrat Nick Hanauer. He blows out of the water the fallacy of neoliberalism. Now, he, like myself, believe in free enterprise, he made his fortune as an investment banker. So, he's no commie.

The guy is a one percenter, superrich dude.

 

There is no fallacy. The democrats are not wanting the rich to pay their fair share. They already pay most of the taxes. They just want them to pay more.

I want someone to tell me what is their "fair share". Not just more.

 

When I read posts like this I realize that the post has no clue what it takes to be rich.
You may want to do some research, it will be very revealing to you.

 

Why would you believe that?

 

Since we already have an understanding of that to expect once this tax money gets in the hands of our government, we can project the results of what you propose.

Spending is what causes deficits. Rich individuals already pay more than their fair share. Of course, politicians don't want to lose the power they gain through taxation, so they convince people to look at the rich and demand more from them. While that may be useful to our irresponsible politicians, in the end those who get hurt the most are the workers.

Question for you, in what year did tax cuts result in reduced revenue for the federal government?

 

Try addressing what I actually said.

Then why have the last two times we either had balance budgets and surpluses or close to it were after tax rate cuts which both produced an explosion of economic activity and tax revenues? Do you believe after the Clinton tax rate increases tax revenue growth increased or decreased?

What do you believe is more the driver of deficits spending increases or revenues?

And we are in a recovery period again how did the Obama/Biden policies of trickle up compare to supply-side policies?

And you sai

Why do you say we are not taxing the "rich" when they pay the vast majority of federal taxes, a highly disproportionate share of federal taxes? How much more a share of federal taxes should they be paying?

 

So tax cuts have never resulted in a loss of revenue for the federal government. Your hypothetical example is a fun opinion to discuss, but in reality, our government spends like thieves with stolen credit cards and convincing people to demand more from the rich is easier than being responsible with your hard-earned tax dollar.

California went the opposite direction and we pay the highest taxes. Care to discuss results?

 

We don't tax wealth on the federal level, we tax income.

 

Of course, it increased.

 

I asked you please respond to what I post.

There is no such thing as trickle down and supply side economics does not say wealth and income will trickle down. Supply side works as demonstrated during the Reagan recovery, the Gingrich/Kasich fiscal policies and Bush/Republican fiscal policies and recovery. Demand side, trickle up, policies fail as with the Clinton/Dem fiscal policies and Obama/Democrat fiscal policies demonstrate.

When are you saying supply side economics didn't work?

 

Of course it did not it slowed from 9% to 7%.

 

They got the biggest tax cut ever, which is causing deficits to soar.
We should, at minimum, reverse the tax cuts for the super rich.

 

Spending half of it. taxation the other half, and part of my statement assumes prudence on the spending side. Spending issues are a separate subject.

I'm studying Nick Hanauer, so I'm putting my opinions on hold, until further review of his policy suggestions.

 

So increasing taxes, which is how the govt gets money doesn't increase the money the govt gets.

 

I admire that you met me half way and brought spending into the discussion. What if for every dollar of tax increase, 2 dollars must be cut from the budget. How about government employees never receive a benefit not available to workers in the private sector? We could cut government employees 10% overnight and the rest can just work 12% more? (Still only half a day!)

The only ones not doing/paying their fair share is the government. Until they learn to manage our hard-earned tax dollar responsibly, they don't deserve another penny from anyone, rich or poor.

 

they result in a loss of revenue every single time they are made. again..............math.

I agree, republicans love to deficit spend and EXPLODE the national debt. They not only slash revenues, but INCREASE spending at the same time. It's complete fiscal incompetence, yet they do it every time they are in power.

Sure. CA is the largest state economy in this country, and the 5th largest in the world. They have a lot of whacky things going on, which are funded by tax payers, but those tax payers are the ones voting in the politicians implementing the policies, so that's what they want.

 

Tax RATES.

 

How do you define fair share?

 

According to the Fed reserve report, the top 1% have 36.18 Trillion of the nation's wealth, and the bottom 50% have $2.36 Trillion

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/

Truncating the above chart to show just the latest quarter, i.e., the most recent tabulation, the chart states



Top 1% - $36.18 Trillion

Below the above, top 9% has $44.2 Trillion

Below the above, the 40% (above the half way mark) $33.47 Trillion

And the bottom 50% have $2.36 Trillion of the nation's wealth.


So, let's create a pie in percentages. The total nation's wealth is $116.21 Trillion which is 100%

So, in percentages, the top 1% have (rounded) have 31% of the nation's wealth

So, just below the 1%, is 9% have 38% (the two combined are the top 10%)

So, just below that, the 40% group ( just above the half way mark ) have 28%

And the bottom half have 2%

Therefore, we can calculate the tax burden commensurate to wealth distribution.

We figure out what the governments tax needs are,

and the top 1% ( I think it is some 5000 families? or whatever it is ) they pay 31%, so 31% of the nation's tax burden divided by 5000 tax payers ( or whatever the number of the top 1% is ) and that is what each of this group pays

The next percentile pay 38% ( the number of families would be exponentially higher ) figured similarly as above

The next percentile pay 28% ( a greater number of taxpayers, still ) burden calculated as above

And the bottom half, ( millions of taxpayers) pay 2% and those at 130% of poverty and below pay nothing, or receive a negative income tax if they to bring them up to 130% of poverty.


Now, I will defer to experts the implications of the above, but that's my idea, anyway.

 

Prove those tax rate cuts decreased tax revenues.

CBO income tax revenues

2016 1546.1
2017 1587.1
2018 1683.5
2019 1717.9

 

What don't you understand? We do not tax wealth on the federal level. One has nothing to do with other. I am the wealthiest I have ever been in my life yet will be paying the lowest in income taxes in decades. I have retired, I have no debt own my house and cars and have less than half, about a third of the income I had last year. Are you saying I should he paying more in taxes because I have more wealth than about 85% of the rest of the citizens?

 

Well according to history

So what did they do for the poor folks while they had carte blanche?

 

The trickle down myth is attributed to Adam Smith the Scottish philosopher of the Seventeen Hundreds in his book The Wealth of Nations. I have read the book, have you?
In short it’s a capitalist agenda. Although it was written long before today’s America existed it was written for any capitalist nation.
Coming to America today, which is a capitalist nation, lets see if the trickle down method works or it doesn’t. It’s far too easy, you are expected to believe that the crumbs that drop from the high table where the 1% of elite dine, drop to care for the 40 million and rising poor. Its ridiculous, especially in a country were greed over need counts. How about the politician you elected and find out he/she has been bought by Wall Street?
The list goes on and on and I’m pushed for time. So, a last point, remember change always comes from the bottom, never from the top. The future lies with the young not with a President that will be past eighty at the end of his time in office.

 

You are incorrect. You can claim that the total would have been higher if taxes were higher, but every additional dollar the government takes is a dollar the business cannot spend on growth. Hindering growth does not equal more revenue. The burden is passed on to the consumer and the workers are the ones hurt the most.

You are right about Republicans spending, but you left out the other party that is just as bad. Politicians in both parties spend like thieves with stolen credit cards. (It was so cold in D.C., politicians had their hands in their own pockets!)

Just look at the results in CA and how businesses are fleeing to tax friendly states and taking their jobs with them. CA leads the nation in poverty. Is that what you want for the rest of the country?

 

Yes I read decades ago and the "trickle down" is a modern misnomer for supply-side economics. Ever read "Free to Chose" by Milton Freidman or "A Time for Truth" by William Simon for a more modern view of econkmics?
And no lots of change comes from leadership at the top. Let's see if "trickle up" works did it when Obama and the Democrats used such policies? It was an abject failure, the worst recovery in modern history especially compare to the supply-side policiesnof the Gingrich/Kaisch Congress and the Bush43/Republican Congress policies and with the Trump/Republican Congress policies. Which economies would you rather have now?