Trickle down is logically inconsistent. If you were given a raise at work and you were paying someone to mow your lawn or clean your house, would you give them a raise just because you had more money? Would you hire more people to help them when they were already doing an adequate job? Neither will the 1%ers. They will only hire more people if they can sell more product than they can produce with the current staff. The only way that demand will increase is that more people have more money to spend. Giving middle class people more money will increase jobs, because they will spend it, not hide it in the Caymans. That requires more hiring, and those people will then also have money to spend, so the whole economy prospers. Trickle down has never worked and never could. Trickle up however is good for everyone, including the 1%ers.
Hard to follow the logic of the Republicans when the stock market is at all time highs.. the unemployment rate at historic lows and the rich are already sitting on tons of money. Investment, if any, will only be automation to further reduce the labor component of the product. The middle class will never see the wage growth so long as they remain as individuals.. it was unionization that forced benefits and wages and now the lack of same that has created a stagnant wage. The upper class white collar has professionals negotiating on their behalf.. the guy in coveralls.. is on his/her own.
Frankly I’d rather double the rate on both the rich and corporations so that welfare is adequately funded and we can pay a “living welfare benefit” that would be equivalent to a month’s pay at the proposed minimum wage hike of $15/hour. I’m really getting sick and tired of hearing Neil Cavuto saying “TAX CUTS!” every other sentence on his show on Fox News Channel (the print shop I work at has that on their TV so I don’t have much of a choice). Frankly I’d like to see someone make Cavuto swallow some alum so he’d shut up like in the cartoons about his precious tax cuts.
MIKEFIVE, a business bases their decisions on a variety of factors. Your claim about the end consumer paying the taxes assumes that when the company’s taxes are raised, the prices to the consumer are raised the same to compensate. This is a simplistic view disregarding the market costs, affects that raising prices would have on sales, and actions of competitors. If you are trying to say that lowering corporate taxes would lower prices. SORRY but I would have to laugh at that.
The democrats idea of their base’s fair share of taxes is paying negative taxes. For those who don’t understand, that means the democrat base gets paid, rather than pays taxes. Democrats can’t offer tax cuts to their base, as most of them already pay ZERO federal taxes. Half of the country do not pay federal taxes, and it isn’t the rich folks. This is why democrats offer entitlements (freebies) to their base — to buy votes.
The GOP on other hand aren’t buying votes, they are trying to allow those who actually pay taxes to keep more of the money THEY EARNED. In my opinion, tax percentages should go down after you make more money, not increase. All but a small handful of Americans should have to pay some taxes, even if it is a just a few hundred dollars. Democrats just want more folks on their plantation so they can seize power, and drive our country off a cliff. Democrats can’t build anything but failure.
INTJUTSU, rather than making false assumptions take a look at what each state pays into federal taxes versus what they receive in federal funds. The blue states pay more in and receive less – about 70 cents on the dollar. Red states pay less and get more in return. So the ones who are the TAKERS that are paying negative taxes are the Republican states. Somehow the Repub politicians have convinced them to vote for Repub policies even though the Rs will take away their government benefits. Then again, many of them said they couldn’t wait for Obamacare to go away because they are happy with ACA. In case you don’t know, Obamacare is ACA.
lopaka over 6 years ago
Yep, make America great again… like it was around the turn of the 19th and 20 centuries.
Masterskrain Premium Member over 6 years ago
“The Public?? The Public BE DAMNED!!”
Radish the wordsmith over 6 years ago
The Republican Anti-Revolution is a return to Feudalism.
Diane Lee Premium Member over 6 years ago
Trickle down is logically inconsistent. If you were given a raise at work and you were paying someone to mow your lawn or clean your house, would you give them a raise just because you had more money? Would you hire more people to help them when they were already doing an adequate job? Neither will the 1%ers. They will only hire more people if they can sell more product than they can produce with the current staff. The only way that demand will increase is that more people have more money to spend. Giving middle class people more money will increase jobs, because they will spend it, not hide it in the Caymans. That requires more hiring, and those people will then also have money to spend, so the whole economy prospers. Trickle down has never worked and never could. Trickle up however is good for everyone, including the 1%ers.
Alberta Oil Premium Member over 6 years ago
Hard to follow the logic of the Republicans when the stock market is at all time highs.. the unemployment rate at historic lows and the rich are already sitting on tons of money. Investment, if any, will only be automation to further reduce the labor component of the product. The middle class will never see the wage growth so long as they remain as individuals.. it was unionization that forced benefits and wages and now the lack of same that has created a stagnant wage. The upper class white collar has professionals negotiating on their behalf.. the guy in coveralls.. is on his/her own.
Radish the wordsmith over 6 years ago
Really, stop voting for heartless right wingers.
Mr. Blawt over 6 years ago
And this is their Gun Control plan.
docforbin over 6 years ago
Frankly I’d rather double the rate on both the rich and corporations so that welfare is adequately funded and we can pay a “living welfare benefit” that would be equivalent to a month’s pay at the proposed minimum wage hike of $15/hour. I’m really getting sick and tired of hearing Neil Cavuto saying “TAX CUTS!” every other sentence on his show on Fox News Channel (the print shop I work at has that on their TV so I don’t have much of a choice). Frankly I’d like to see someone make Cavuto swallow some alum so he’d shut up like in the cartoons about his precious tax cuts.
Nantucket Premium Member over 6 years ago
MIKEFIVE, a business bases their decisions on a variety of factors. Your claim about the end consumer paying the taxes assumes that when the company’s taxes are raised, the prices to the consumer are raised the same to compensate. This is a simplistic view disregarding the market costs, affects that raising prices would have on sales, and actions of competitors. If you are trying to say that lowering corporate taxes would lower prices. SORRY but I would have to laugh at that.
INTJutsu over 6 years ago
The democrats idea of their base’s fair share of taxes is paying negative taxes. For those who don’t understand, that means the democrat base gets paid, rather than pays taxes. Democrats can’t offer tax cuts to their base, as most of them already pay ZERO federal taxes. Half of the country do not pay federal taxes, and it isn’t the rich folks. This is why democrats offer entitlements (freebies) to their base — to buy votes.
The GOP on other hand aren’t buying votes, they are trying to allow those who actually pay taxes to keep more of the money THEY EARNED. In my opinion, tax percentages should go down after you make more money, not increase. All but a small handful of Americans should have to pay some taxes, even if it is a just a few hundred dollars. Democrats just want more folks on their plantation so they can seize power, and drive our country off a cliff. Democrats can’t build anything but failure.
Nantucket Premium Member over 6 years ago
INTJUTSU, rather than making false assumptions take a look at what each state pays into federal taxes versus what they receive in federal funds. The blue states pay more in and receive less – about 70 cents on the dollar. Red states pay less and get more in return. So the ones who are the TAKERS that are paying negative taxes are the Republican states. Somehow the Repub politicians have convinced them to vote for Repub policies even though the Rs will take away their government benefits. Then again, many of them said they couldn’t wait for Obamacare to go away because they are happy with ACA. In case you don’t know, Obamacare is ACA.
.http://www.businessinsider.com/the-states-the-most-and-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government-2015-7