Trickle-Up Economics?

[Elixir]

View attachment 19822

But seriously - this seems to me like a win-win, at least as far as a political platform. And it certainly lends some scale to the size of Trump's tax giveaway.
But just hypothetically - what would the effects be? Assume that the payout would be around $100k/yr over ten years. Seems to me that it would stimulate the economy a lot more than directly fattening the wallets of Trump's buddies. At the end of the day, it would probably benefit those same people just as much - if not more so - than Trump's scheme.
Thoughts?

 

[skepticalbip]

Why only give one in a hundred and forty a million dollars? Why not everyone?

 

[Elixir]

Why only give one in a hundred and forty a million dollars? Why not everyone?

Because the giveaway pot is "only" $1,500,000,000,000.00 shared among 1.4m taxpayers... plenty left over to build a pointless WALL.

But what would the impact look like?

 

[skepticalbip]

Why only give one in a hundred and forty a million dollars? Why not everyone?

Because the giveaway pot is "only" $1,500,000,000,000.00 shared among 1.4m taxpayers... plenty left over to build a pointless WALL.

But what would the impact look like?

That didn't really answer. Why not a pot 140 times larger?

Venezuela did even better. They made every Venezuelan a multi-millionaire. So did Zimbabwe for its citizens.

 

[Elixir]

Why only give one in a hundred and forty a million dollars? Why not everyone?

Because the giveaway pot is "only" $1,500,000,000,000.00 shared among 1.4m taxpayers... plenty left over to build a pointless WALL.

But what would the impact look like?

That didn't really answer. Why not a pot 140 times larger?

Read the meme. It's about re-distributing Cheato's tax cuts. So... what would the outcome look like?

 

[Trausti]

That didn't really answer. Why not a pot 140 times larger?

Read the meme. It's about re-distributing Cheato's tax cuts. So... what would the outcome look like?

So how much of someone else's money do you think you deserve?

 

[skepticalbip]

That didn't really answer. Why not a pot 140 times larger?

Read the meme. It's about re-distributing Cheato's tax cuts. So... what would the outcome look like?

I read the meme. It shows a complete ignorance of economics and human nature - as pointed out by my referencing the governments that had as little grasp of reality.

 

[ZiprHead]

That didn't really answer. Why not a pot 140 times larger?

Read the meme. It's about re-distributing Cheato's tax cuts. So... what would the outcome look like?

I read the meme. It shows a complete ignorance of economics and human nature - as pointed out by my referencing the governments that had as little grasp of reality.

Makes a lot more sense than giving all that money to the already rich.

 

[skepticalbip]

I read the meme. It shows a complete ignorance of economics and human nature - as pointed out by my referencing the governments that had as little grasp of reality.

Makes a lot more sense than giving all that money to the already rich.

That only makes sense if you believe that all wealth just is and is not created by individuals and further that the wealth belongs to the U.S. government and it is the job of the government to determine how to pass it out.

Reality is that the government does not give that money to the already rich but a tax cut just confiscates less of the wealth that they create each year.

 

[JohnG]

I read the meme. It shows a complete ignorance of economics and human nature - as pointed out by my referencing the governments that had as little grasp of reality.

Makes a lot more sense than giving all that money to the already rich.

That only makes sense if you believe that all wealth just is and is not created by individuals and further that the wealth belongs to the U.S. government and it is the job of the government to determine how to pass it out.

Reality is that the government does not give that money to the already rich but a tax cut just confiscates less of the wealth that they create each year.

Assuming that wealth was created in a vacuum, outside of the country/infrastructure/labour force that played a massive role in creating that wealth.

 

[Canard DuJour]

View attachment 19822

But seriously - this seems to me like a win-win, at least as far as a political platform. And it certainly lends some scale to the size of Trump's tax giveaway.
But just hypothetically - what would the effects be? Assume that the payout would be around $100k/yr over ten years. Seems to me that it would stimulate the economy a lot more than directly fattening the wallets of Trump's buddies. At the end of the day, it would probably benefit those same people just as much - if not more so - than Trump's scheme.
Thoughts?

Yep, it'd be a far more effective fiscal stimulus. They'd go straight out and buy goods and services in the real economy. In current macroeconomic conditions, the rich are more likely to buy speculative financial assets or try to lend it at interest to the non-rich.

 

[Elixir]

That didn't really answer. Why not a pot 140 times larger?

Read the meme. It's about re-distributing Cheato's tax cuts. So... what would the outcome look like?

So how much of someone else's money do you think you deserve?

Who says it's someone else's money? I've been paying into the system for a loooong time.
How about you?
ETA: I've also "created" jobs that have paid millions more into the local economy, not to mention the federal systems.
How about you?

- - - Updated - - -

View attachment 19822

But seriously - this seems to me like a win-win, at least as far as a political platform. And it certainly lends some scale to the size of Trump's tax giveaway.
But just hypothetically - what would the effects be? Assume that the payout would be around $100k/yr over ten years. Seems to me that it would stimulate the economy a lot more than directly fattening the wallets of Trump's buddies. At the end of the day, it would probably benefit those same people just as much - if not more so - than Trump's scheme.
Thoughts?

Yep, it'd be a far more effective fiscal stimulus. They'd go straight out and buy goods and services in the real economy. In current macroeconomic conditions, the rich are more likely to buy speculative financial assets or try to lend it at interest to the non-rich.

That's what I'd expect. As the meme points out, those billionaires would end up with most of it back in their pockets in very short order.

 

[dismal]

So how much of someone else's money do you think you deserve?

Who says it's someone else's money? I've been paying into the system for a loooong time.

And you've been working on your self-delusion too, I see.

 

[Gun Nut]

That didn't really answer. Why not a pot 140 times larger?

Read the meme. It's about re-distributing Cheato's tax cuts. So... what would the outcome look like?

So how much of someone else's money do you think you deserve?

When the "someone else" is your government, all of it.

 

[Gun Nut]

That didn't really answer. Why not a pot 140 times larger?

Read the meme. It's about re-distributing Cheato's tax cuts. So... what would the outcome look like?

I read the meme. It shows a complete ignorance of economics and human nature - as pointed out by my referencing the governments that had as little grasp of reality.

One aspect of human nature is a poor understanding of how to save for the future. MOST people would spend that money... that means boosting the economy. MOST rich people (being a minority among all people) DO know how to be frugal with money, that is why they are rich (or why they stay rich)... and those people are NOT boosting the economy by setting up trust funds and tax shelters.

I get the point... that if we give the same "giveaway" to poor people, those people will use the money in a way that benefits the economy... on average.... but give that to the already rich, and it changes nothing.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If you made it $5k/ person, you could reach 200x the people. More stimulus, I'd guess.

 

[skepticalbip]

If you made it $5k/ person, you could reach 200x the people. More stimulus, I'd guess.

That sounds like it would be the same as a back door across the board tax cut. There was an economic boost created by the Reagan tax cuts.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you made it $5k/ person, you could reach 200x the people. More stimulus, I'd guess.

That sounds like it would be the same as a back door across the board tax cut. There was an economic boost created by the Reagan tax cuts.

Or, a UBI in disguise. Personally, I would rather see the money supply expand this way as well. Giving money to people for having had money (borrowing from Rich people and expanding the money supply through the interest on those loans) doesn't make sense to me. It literally can only function to worsen wealth disparity.

 

[Horatio Parker]

If you made it $5k/ person, you could reach 200x the people. More stimulus, I'd guess.

That sounds like it would be the same as a back door across the board tax cut. There was an economic boost created by the Reagan tax cuts.

A tax cut where everyone receives the same amount(as long as they're in the bottom 80% or so). Ok, whatever.

The real point is the offset, which I'm indifferent about.

I prefer a job guarantee.

 

[Bomb#20]

That only makes sense if you believe that all wealth just is and is not created by individuals and further that the wealth belongs to the U.S. government and it is the job of the government to determine how to pass it out.

Reality is that the government does not give that money to the already rich but a tax cut just confiscates less of the wealth that they create each year.

Assuming that wealth was created in a vacuum, outside of the country/infrastructure/labour force that played a massive role in creating that wealth.

Well then, do you feel the labor force's wages belong to the government, and it is the job of the government to determine how to pass them out? The workers didn't create that wealth in a vacuum either, outside of the country/infrastructure/capitalists that played a massive role in creating that wealth.

The wealth created by economic activity is produced synergistically by the combined actions of labor, management, owners, suppliers and customers. They all receive more than they contribute. The notion that someone who prospered that way needs to "give back" is zero-sum-game thinking and has it precisely backwards. By participating in the productive process, he has already given back -- and he's given back more than he received.