|
03 Jan 03 - 07:13 PM (#858088) Subject: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert Well, looks like the Bush Administration is at it again. The centerpice of the latest economic stimulus program is going to be tax relief for those folks who own stock and receive dividends. Hmmmmmm? More trickle down... Didn't work for Reagun and it won't work here either. See, what Bush and Co. don't get is that the working man and the poor folks who do 90% of the real work inm America are living paycheck to paycheack and there ain't no stock port-folios. Nope, ain't gonna help the working man at all. Another tax give away to the upper class. Then they are going to pull out that same lame, worn out argument that the wealth just want to money to build new assembly lines for the working class to drop dead working on. Yeah? Whatn happened to the widget factories that Boss Hog has just shut down over the last tweo years? The aliens steal them factories, 'er what? No, what we need is some *trickle up* economics. Let the working class in on a little of bit of the cake. After all the working class baked it. Not Boss Hog! Bobert |
|
03 Jan 03 - 08:14 PM (#858132) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: kendall Before Doug jumps in to defend the robber barons, I would remind him of a quote by Abraham Lincoln when he was asked which is more important, capital or labor? he said; "Capital is the result of labor, therefore, labor is more important." The basis of "Trickle down" is, If you want to feed the birds, just feed the horses." |
|
03 Jan 03 - 08:34 PM (#858142) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: alanabit Yeah. And we all know what they leave behind them when they move on... |
|
03 Jan 03 - 08:42 PM (#858144) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Deda The philosophy, if it can be called that, behind this administration is "Let them eat cake." |
|
03 Jan 03 - 08:45 PM (#858146) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert Or in the birds case, ahhhhh... Nevermind... Bobert |
|
03 Jan 03 - 08:49 PM (#858149) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: GUEST,MarkS |
|
03 Jan 03 - 08:54 PM (#858152) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: GUEST,MarkS Goofed on the last post, so lets try again! Can anybody comment on the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues? Seems like the last time lowering tax rates was tried, the increase in economic activity increased tax revenues substantially. And since the (I may have the numbers a bit wrong) the highest percentile of income earners contribute something like 80% of all taxes paid, seems like targeting a tax reduction to those who pay most of the taxes might be a good idea, if your goal is to keep money in the local economy. Comments anyone? MarkS |
|
03 Jan 03 - 09:19 PM (#858164) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert Ahhh, not to be soundin' too picky here, Mark, but where did you come up with your "80% of all taxes paid" are paid by the "Highest percentile of income earners"? Please share your resources. Bobert |
|
03 Jan 03 - 09:25 PM (#858172) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Greg F. If yer going to quote Lincoln, do him the courtesy of quoting him correctly: Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. First Annual Message to Congress December 3, 1861 |
|
03 Jan 03 - 09:27 PM (#858175) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Greg F. Not qhite, Deda; the philosophy of this administration is "Let them eat shit." |
|
03 Jan 03 - 10:09 PM (#858190) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Troll Where did the jobs go? Can you spell NAFTA? How about "Third World Countries"? The sad fact is that the American working man has priced himself out of the market and the jobs have gone where the labor is cheapest. The girl who makes those $150 Nikes in Indonesia makes $.46/hr or was it a day...I forget now. Multi-national corporations have no stake in the local economy; their sole aim is to make as large a profit as possible. That is the aim of most businesses. I'm not real sure just who you want to overthrow here, Bobert. Is it the Government, the corporations or just anyone that's doing better than you? troll |
|
03 Jan 03 - 10:10 PM (#858191) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: NicoleC MarkS, That may be true in a thriving economy (although I doubt your statistics -- 80% of the income does not equal 80% of taxes paid, as any accountant worth her salt will tell you), but the US doesn't need more investment infrastructure right now. The idea of jump-strating economic growth by cutting taxes to the wealthy and to large corporations is based on the idea that it spurs business investment and infrastructure. ("Supply Side economics") Then, in theory, those business hire employees, who can then afford to buy more of the products the same corporations sell to them. Like all theories, what may be true in one circumstance is not true in another. There is substantial overcapacity in the US economy right now. Perfectly good factories are closed for lack of sales. US automakers have more inventory than they can sell, even with 0% interest. US agriculture is dumping excess food at bargain basement prices on Mexico and Chile while demand at food banks in the US is skyrocketing. Those companies fortunate enough to be selling through inventory are still taking gouges at their profit margin -- which means laying off yet more workers. We don't need more investment, because the economic capacity is already there. The problem is weak purchasing power. For the past 25 years, the US economy has rested soley on the backs of consumers, many of whom either can't afford the products or just plain spend to much. Consumer debt grows every year, and prices go up but wages don't keep pace with inflation. Like the stock market, it's a bubble that must crash. Unemployed workers can't buy new cars and new clothes. Underpaid workers aren't going to be buying luxuries to make businesses happy, and even the lowest interest rates in decades aren't spuring consumers to tackle more credit card debt to get the latest trinkets. Employment isn't that bad YET (only 8.5 million Americans officially) -- but consumers with jobs aren't spending either. How is prompting companies to make more goods that remain unsold going to help? Economics is a see-saw -- both consumer and supply need to be in a good financial position for growth to happen. In the 80's this kind of supply side economics was a disaster for the country's budget and for consumers -- who started turning to plastic to buy groceries. Yet, the Bush recipe for a thriving economy 2 years ago was tax cuts to the wealthy. Then the economy tanked, and it was still a sign that we must cut taxes for the wealthy. God forbid the economy recover without anyone doing anything, because the recipe for that will be tax cuts for the wealthy, too! Do you think that a consortium of wealthy politicians is maybe a little biased when it comes to who pays less? And let's remember, there's no such thing as a "tax cut." There's only "tax rearranging." Who pays for a tax cut to the wealthy? It isn't Congress -- most of them are millionaires. It isn't many of the richest businesses in this country, who already get so many tax breaks that some years they don't pay any at all. It's not going to be the bloated Defense Department budget. And with the individual states nearly as strapped for cash as the common worker, they aren't going to be able to make up the difference out of their budgets. One guess. |
|
03 Jan 03 - 10:11 PM (#858192) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: NicoleC The sad fact is that the American working man has priced himself out of the market So, Troll, you can afford to live in the US on 46 cents per day. Wow! |
|
03 Jan 03 - 10:22 PM (#858196) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert Yo troll: Fir once, I gotta *half* agree with ya. (Danged, someone get some smellin' salts. troll done passed out. Medic!...) No, you're half right here. By the American worker expecting his share ofthe pie (cake) he has priced himself out of competin' with folks who come to the US from 3rd World countries. The alternative is for the American worker to duke it out with someone who thinks living in an apartment with 16 other people is better than where ever they came from. Yep, just the way that Boss Hog drew it up on paper. NAFTA was nothin' more than a "labor" bustin' treaty that insures that most of America's workling men and women willm die in poverty. Good plan, troll. Gotta hand to your guys. They really know how to throw a party. Ain't much different than the goons that Boss Hog hired back in then 30's to break strikes, burn crosses and scare the crap out of anyone willin' to stand up for the working man... This was the George Bush's and Bill Clinton's America in the 30's and it still is, thank you.. Bobert |
|
03 Jan 03 - 10:36 PM (#858203) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Troll No Nicole, and neither can you. What I meant was that the businesses have taken their factories to the thrid world because the wages are lower. They can't make the profits the need to stay in business here or, in some cases, they can't make the profits they want to make. The two are not always one and the same. We have strong labor unions in this country and they have given the American worker a high standard of living. But nowhere in our Constitution is there the guarantee of a job. We have only the right to look for one. If the asking price for our labor is too high, we will not be hired. If there is a mechanism in place (i.e. the unions) that demands a certain wage in order to hire workers and business decides that the asking price is too high, their choices are limited. They can go out of business or they can go overseas. They can also relocate to a state that is "open shop" but the cost of labor will still be higher than it would be in, say, Sri Lanka. So they flee and we lose jobs. I don't know what the answer is; perhaps there isn't an answer. Maybe we all need to tighten our belts and adopt a less material and wasteful lifestyle. I don't know. I wish I did. troll ***BTW, I was a union member for 26 years and a shop steward for part of that time. |
|
03 Jan 03 - 10:41 PM (#858204) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert Sorry, Nicole. My feeble typing skills (haha) and feeble mind were busy trying to post whilw you ere postin'. Nice stuff. And no mis-spelled words (as if I know). But your point are well taken. What good does it do push investemnt when ya got the consumer class in debt up to his ears and you're cuttin' his income by bringin' in cheaper labor? This ain't rocket science here! But Bush thinks he can convince the Joe Six-pack that it's those "liberals" who have put him in this fix! Ha, well he might do it for a while but when Joe Six-pack figures it out, Hmmmmmm? And he will figure it out. Like I say, the onle way this dead economy is going to grow is through *trickle up* econmics where *demand* is increased. Good post, Nicole and if I haven't mentioned it lately, I love you (Plutonically speakin') fir your vision and good spelling and smarts. Ahhhh,, shucks (Bobert looks down as feet...) Bobert |
|
03 Jan 03 - 10:54 PM (#858208) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert Well, danged. I can't keep up. Here I go and post somethin and two other folk have posted since I started typing and messed everyhting up. No, troll, you got it wrong. You want America filled with workers willing to live 26 to a two bedroom apartment. You talk about companies that need to make profits in order to "stay in business". Yeah, right?!?!.... Like what are we talking about here, troll. 20%, 30% 2000%? What is a reasonable "net" profit? Now you say you were a union man. How would you have liked competing against folks who were willing to live 26 to a two bedroom apartment? No, didn't think so! Or your butt would be at work this very minute and probably 5 or 6 days until YOU dropped out on the assembly line. Face it, you benefited from the union and now you want to kick sand in the faces of the American worker. Yeah, you may have been a union memebr but you were never a union man. Big difference! Bobert |
|
04 Jan 03 - 04:50 AM (#858307) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: NicoleC Troll: I realize that companies go overseas for cheaper labor. My objection was that your comment was worded to blame the American worker for the cost of living in America. I'm guessing you are a working stiff like me or close to it -- pray tell, when was the last time you really had a significant choice about the cost of rent/mortgage or food? Or clothes, or education for your kids? One can't blame the workers for asking for $18 an hour to pay the bills when the CEO's are making 200x as much and certainly don't have 200x the education or are putting in 200x the work. So we take these same companies that take their jobs overseas, and yet we are suppose to support tax cuts (paid for by average American) to improve their investment capital so they can build more factories in southeast Asia and take more jobs overseas? I don't get it. Explain to me again how this is supposed to trickle down and support the American worker? I'm all for helping out the folks in various 3rd world nations whenever possible, but the US government should have the interests of their employers first and foremost. And I am NOT talking about the lobbiests who pay for Congressmen's trips to the Cayman Islands to talk "tax strategy." Bobert: Darlin', we don't see eye to eye on many things, but I appreciate the compliments :) |
|
04 Jan 03 - 06:36 AM (#858338) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: katlaughing Nicole, thanks for the excellent posts; great explanations and logic! |
|
04 Jan 03 - 08:03 AM (#858368) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Terry K There are some really good insights here - Nicole's reasoned views on economics, Troll's view on the global economy, Bobert's right wing views on immigration - all fascinating stuff. |
|
04 Jan 03 - 08:41 AM (#858378) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert Hmmmmmmm, Terry K? "Right winged views on immigration"?!?!?!?.... Well, someone get DougR up. Wait until he hears that his ol' Wes Ginny lefty has been labeled a right winger! Wheee! That's gonna make his day. Never been accused of that! Wow! But seriously speakin', I have three employees in my small company and they are all immigrants. One Ukranian and two Salvadorians. But that's not the issue at all. This issue is that corporate America just happens to love the Hispanics because they do work cheap. It's one thing to take investment capital to the third world but quite different when you bring the third world to the US. It does have a tendancy to look like strike busting scab labor. Now, immigration is fine. It is what the US is all about but there is a point of diminishing returns and when it becomes so great that it threatens the working classes quality of life I believe that point has been reached. Now if that's right winged then so be it but I just see it a pro-labor. Pro-union. Pro-working class. BTW, how many Hispanics have ya heard about lately that are being rounded up, other than at entry, in America's (US) cities, handcuffed and detained or deported? Not many. Boss Hog likes things just the way they are. they work cheap. They pay taxes and mnay do not file for refunds for fear of being found and deported and many will return to Latin America before they become a drain on the Social Security system. I'd just like to see these folks become participants of a "trickle up" economy. But I guess that's right winged, also? Oh well. Sticks and stones will break.... Bobert Goldwater |
|
04 Jan 03 - 09:14 AM (#858390) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: GUEST,MarkS Hi Bobert Found some data to answer your question by surfing the IRS and Census Bureau sites - sorry but I guess I am not clever enough to make the links blue - maybe another poster can help. Anyhow - here is what I came up with for 2001: Percentage of income earners versus percentage of total tax paid: Top 1 % paid 36% of taxes 2-5% 19% 6-10% 11% 11-25% 17% Total 83% thus paid by the top quarter of income earners Interestingly that leaves the bottom 75% of income earners contributing only 17% of revenue. Hope this helps MarkS |
|
04 Jan 03 - 09:31 AM (#858397) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: GUEST Well duh, MarkS. It doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to figure out that the 17% of revenue is coming from people who earn poverty level or below incomes. So, considering that, oddly enough, low income and poor income earners will never be able to contribute enough money in taxes to pay for the services you use (like roads, health care, airports, the education system, etc), just who do you suppose we should tax to pay for Star Wars? The war against Iraq? The Homeland Security bureaucracy? The fox at the SEC to guard the henhouse on Wall Street? The problem with taxing the poor instead of the rich should be obvious shouldn't it? We won't get much in the way of government services from which the corporate welfare entities earn their billions. |
|
04 Jan 03 - 10:58 AM (#858438) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: kendall Many companies have taken their factories overseas for the cheap labor. Fine, so, how come those $150.00 shoes are still $150.00? Furthermore, with the administration's lax policy on corporations setting up headquarters in other contries and paying NO taxes in their own country it looks like old fashioned greed to me. They don't give a damn about their own country as long as their bottom line makes the fat cats even fatter while the infrastructure in their own country goes to hell. IT'S A DIRTY BIRD THAT BESHITS ITS OWN NEST. |
|
04 Jan 03 - 01:08 PM (#858551) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: GUEST,Lyle Couple things to consider: MarkS, your figures are correct, but more needs to be examined to tell the whole story. For example, what group can least afford to pay taxes at all? Again for example, what percentage of total income in each group is paid in taxes? If I make $500,000 a year and pay $50,000 in taxes, that means I am in the top group of taxes paid. And if I make $15,000 a year and pay $1,500 in taxes I am in the lowest group. But in which case can I most afford the taxes paid? BTW, the argument that the two people mentioned do not pay the same percentage does not stand up under close examination because the higher income has a LOT more chances to find exemptions. Second: When talking about companies not using American workers because they are paid more has some flaws. Take at any major American company and look at the salaries of the top management people then compare that amount of money with the salaries of the workers. Ouch! Maybe we send a lot of work to third world countries in order to pay management the extremely high salaries. And Kendall, your statement on the basis of trickle down economics is the best I have ever heard!!! Lyle |
|
04 Jan 03 - 03:59 PM (#858674) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Don Firth There is a story which is probably apocryphal, nevertheless, I think it makes the point:— Henry Ford was giving Walter Reuther, then head of the auto workers' union, a guided tour through his newly automated assembly line. There were no live bodies there, only robots, cranking out car after car. "Robots," Ford said proudly. "They work tirelessly, they never take breaks, they never call in sick, and they don't draw wages." With a bit of a smirk, he added, "And, Mr. Reuther, I would be interested to know: how are you going to charge them union dues?" "Well, Mr. Ford," said Reuther, "the same way you are going to sell them automobiles." How long will it be until these brilliant tycoons have warehouses jammed full of $150 shoes that no one can afford to buy? Don Firth |
|
04 Jan 03 - 04:08 PM (#858681) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bat Goddess What big businesses forget is that if the people don't have JOBS, they can't BUY the products that the businesses are producing: cars/tennis shoes/televisions, etcet etcet etcet. "Supply side economics Will make us rich, they say. We'll have to do our best To stay alive until that day. Alive until that day, my friend, Alive until that day. It'll trickle down, just stick around Alive until that day-o Put it on the ground, spread it all around Dig it with a hoe. It will make your flowers grow." Linn |
|
04 Jan 03 - 04:11 PM (#858683) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Peter T. The day that people can no longer borrow off the inflated expected worth of their investments in their houses is the day that will happen. A contributor to the deflation that is just around the corner, becoming known in economist circles as Bubble 3 (Bubble 1, technology; Bubble 2, the stock market; Bubble 3, consumer credit). 2 down, one to go. yours, Peter T. |
|
04 Jan 03 - 04:19 PM (#858689) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: GUEST There is some good news for the little people regarding Bubble #3. The bastards were so greedy last fall, they couldn't agree on the final "overhaul" of the bankruptcy laws that would have made it impossible to file bankruptcy for most consumers, without paying heavy penalties through "repayment plans". The bad news--the greatest champion of the little people who fought the credit card companies, banks, et al to prevent passage of the bankruptcy bill was now deceased Senator Wellstone. |
|
04 Jan 03 - 04:23 PM (#858694) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert Mark S. : I am appreciative of yer stats. Now can ya' find out how much of the wealth is held by those categories of folks that comprise the upper 25%. When we have those sats then these stats will become very interesting. Right now, we have incomplete picture as we discuss trickle down economics vrs. trickle up. Supply side vrs. demand side. Bobert |
|
04 Jan 03 - 08:16 PM (#858837) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Troll Bobert, from your "you were never a union man" remark, it appears obvious that you don't know what a union shop steward DOES Why don't you find out instead of shooting from the lip with one of your smart-assed lines that does nothing but denigrate the other fellows statement. It you spent a little more time defending YOUR statements with facts and a little less time putting down others, your posts might have a little more impact than they do. As it is, you seem to be more interested in letting everyone know how clever you are than in putting forth any meangingful rebutal. The fact that the union allowed me to provide a good life for my family has absolutely nothing to do with the face that it is the unions that have pushed the wages in this country to an extremely high level. It's a vicious circle of higher wages, so higher prices to cover them. Whencompanies were content with small profit margins, it was workable but with the advent of the information age and global competition, it doesen't work anymore. Add to this the "bottom line" mentality of managment in the last 25 years and the situation becomes impossible. Someone asked how the corporations managed to sell $150 shoes? Simple; take a look at the consumer debt in this country. Someone has sold the American consumer a bill of goods. If you don't wear Nike, drive an SUV, and have a DVD with a wide-screen TV, you have failed as a parent and as a human being and you probably have disgusting personal habits as well. Kendall, they don't put prefit before country. They are multi-nationals and they don't HAVE a country; only a Board of Directors. We watched TV and believed that "Friends" and Ally McBeal" and the other sitcoms were what we should aspire to. Welcome to the good life. troll |
|
04 Jan 03 - 09:00 PM (#858856) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: kendall "For the love of money is the root of all evil." |
|
04 Jan 03 - 10:06 PM (#858902) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert Well, troll, we are in total agreement that the 8ggod life* has been defined by marketers and lots of folks get caught up in that trap, borrow way too much money for SUV's, big houses they don't need and the like. And most of those folks will work well past retirement age paying for them. Sad state of affairs. I drive a 1990 Toyota with rust and 192,000 miles on it and will probably drive it another 192,000 miles. My wife any I cut coupons and live frugally and with any luck will be able to retire by age 62 without any debt. But I do know a bit about unions and I know a bit about 14B states (Taft-Hartley Act.) After my life a social worker I worked driving a truck for a living. I brought home $92 a week. This was in 1980 and since I lived and worked in a "Right to Work" state I lived in near poverty. I would occasionally talk with other truckersx waitin' to unload and discovered that union truckers were bringing home close to $300 a week, which for 1980 wouldn't qualify as well off but also not qualify as poverty. Same truck, same job. Hmmmmmmm? Yeah, all one has to really know about unions can be learned in any of the 14B states, my friend. When you have lived in a state where unions are pretty much *outlawed* (as in most of the South) you find real poverty. Yeah, people still get up at 4:30 in the morning, pack a peanut buttter sandwich, and head off into the dark to work their butts off for next to nothing. So, yeah, I'm aq union man. When the CEO's are earning 5 or 6 million and all the management is in 6 figures, I think the working man should make enough to at least pay his danged bills. I am so sick of hearing just how well off the American worker is! It's a lie! In terms of real spending power he was better off 25 years ago. The American worker is now working longer and harder than any time in the last three decades and not being fairly compensated for his loyalty or his labor. I'm real glad, Troll, that the union was able to provide you and your family with a decent living. And I mean this sincerely for I'm sure you were a hard working loyal worker. But in these days take a guess what the main *benefit* that unions are pushing for? Jobs! Not wages. Not vacations! Not money! But JOBS! Yeah, in your day the job was an assumption. These days are different. Where-ever you look. Name the industry. Take the UAW for instance. GM is gonna lay off a boat load of folks this year. All the union has been asking for is JOBS! You may think that I don't know anything because I was not a "Shop Stewerd" but in the words of Bob Dylan, "You don't have to be a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows!". I do read a lot and I know a lot of people and I know that the American worker has gotten the short end of the stcik for a logn time. Want proof? Find out how much the CEO is getting paid for any of the companies that complain that labor costs are so great that the company may have to go out of business. Thene check the salaries of the managers in that company... I'm not going to argue with you any more about this issue, Troll.m If younreally think that the American working man has it made, there is nothing that I'm going to say that will ever get you to see it from our point.... Bobert |
|
05 Jan 03 - 04:06 AM (#859050) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Troll In every contract I ever worked under, he main issue in negotiations was jobs. Primarily because of outsourcing. The shop stewards are the people who file the grievances and fight for the rights of the workers under the contract. They work long hours AFTER the regular work day preparing and researching their cases. Their pay is usually the return of their union dues which doesn't amount to much; less than a dollar an hour on average. They tend, as a general rule, to be VERY dedicated to the welfare and rights of the worker and I am proud that I was one of their number. Since I was in a right-to-work state, I had to defend EVERYONE on the workroom floor, not just the union members. I am well aware that the dollar does not have the buying power that it had 25 years ago, but to blane it all on the CEO's is a little naive. There is much blame to be had on both sides of the table and labor needs to clean up it's own stable and curb it's own excesses before it can go after managment. After all, the corporations wouldn't be making SUV's etc if SOMEONE wasn't buying them. There's plenty of blame to go around. troll |
|
05 Jan 03 - 08:16 AM (#859109) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: kendall No group has a corner on greed. |
|
05 Jan 03 - 09:35 AM (#859133) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert Well, troll, I'm not putting all the blame on the CEO's but stciken to the original premise opf this thread that creating more investment capital for those folks who allready have discretionary income (supply side economics) in times when the working class isn't buying the stuff that is on the shelf because he can't afford it, is ill thought out. We don't need more stuff on the shelves. We need to increase demand and that won't happen by shifting tax burdens away for the wealthy onto the working class. We're going to have to find a middle ground tilted more toward the working class if we are going to stimulate anything. Bobert |
|
05 Jan 03 - 02:20 PM (#859282) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Troll Bobert, I simply do not believe that the Government can create new jobs no matter how much of my or anyone elses money it has. Jobs MUST come from the business sector and I don't know of any other way to create them than by businesses expanding. That takes capital. You are right. We don't need more goods on the shelf, we need customers to buy the goods that are already there. The only way to create new customers is to put people to work so they can buy the stuff they're making. Therefore, new jobs. How do we get new jobs? You tell me. troll |
|
05 Jan 03 - 03:10 PM (#859318) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: DougR Bobert a right-winger? Yep, and I'm a communist. Bobert, in continuation, the workers want jobs, yes, but if the salaries they require cannot compete with the salaries that can be paid in third world countries, the multi-national corporations are still going to opt for going "out of country" for their labor pool. And don't lay all the blame at the feet of the boards of directors of those corporations, or even the highly paid executives, the shareholders are constantly pressuring them to make higher profits and pay larger dividends! And I'm sure you are aware that the bulk of common stocks these days are owned by the very people you champion ...working people. Nicole: kat, Bobert and others have commented on the clearness of your posts, and I agree in most cases but I am a bit confused about your meaning in a post on this thread. You say (04 Jan 4:50 AM)"I'm all for helping out folks in 3rd world nations whenever possible, but the U.S. government should have the interest of their employers first and foremost." Does that mean you think the U.S. government should prohibit corporations from establishing plants or factories outside the U. S.? Who are you referring to as employers of the U.S. government? Tax payers? If so, can you imagine the screams of consumers when they are required to pay $250 for those athletic shoes instead of $150 because of the difference in U. S. labor costs and the cost of labor in 3rd world countries. And if the shoes are priced at $250 instead of $150 and do not sell, those same workers who were hired at higher salaries will end up getting laid off because the company will have to shave costs in order to show a profit (because the stockholders demand it) and labor is always one of the first areas affected. I think Troll is right. It is a terrible problem,and I don't know what can be done to make it better. DougR |
|
05 Jan 03 - 04:44 PM (#859375) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: NicoleC Yes, I mean the employers of the US goverment are the taxpayers. Who else? Let me give you a business example. Say I start a bakery. I can give out coupons to drum up business. It's a tried and true technique. I make up a bunch of "buy one get one free" coupons. Basically, half price, but I'll probably get more business, right? But what if I give out coupons that say I'll give you a free loaf of bread if you buy one somewhere else? I might get a few new customers, but I'll be bankrupted in the process. My objection is to the idea that taxpayers are supposed to give big business investment money by reducing taxes, but then we'll watch most of that money leave the country for factories in the 3rd world. The jobs -- supposedly the carrot for corporate tax incentives -- aren't being created here. Ergo, nothing "trickles down." Lower prices don't help if there are no jobs. It's interesting that the blame is being laid on the workers in this thread for living in a country with high prices. It's just not that simple. Whether you make $10,000 or $100,000, a bag of potatoes still costs about $2.00. If the price goes up to $2.50 to increase profit margins, then the low paid farm workers have to make more money in order to afford the potatoes, or they don't eat. Profit margins go down a bit -- prices get raised again. Instead of saying it's caused by both sides of the equation, the anti-labor faction will always blame it on the workers. Meanwhile, companies are drastically increasing compensation at the highest ranks. I don't have it in front of me, but last year a study came out that noted that if minimum wage had increased at the same rate as CEO pay in the last 30 (?) years, the minimum wage would be over $25/hour. Yet, it's all the fault of those damn unionized assembly lineworkers! Economics of supply and demand is not a one way trip. Given an atmosphere of excess production, it makes no sense to create investment to increase production when we are already over capacity. *IF* we were suffering from insufficient capacity and excess consumer demand, it would make sense to help spur investment. Right now, however, that's just not the case. |
|
05 Jan 03 - 04:58 PM (#859384) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: CarolC Sounds to me like at least part of the answer might be to link whatever tax incentives the government grants ONLY to companies that create new jobs here in the US, and to create tax based disincentives for companies that move jobs out of the US. That is, if we are going to link any sort of tax breaks (incentives) to our efforts to stimulate the economy here in the US. |
|
05 Jan 03 - 06:11 PM (#859418) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: NicoleC I've thought of that Carol, and I like the idea, but I don't see how to make it work in reality. Corporate accounting is like black magic -- remember all that money utility companies made in CA under deregulation? When the market got bad we found out all the past profits went out of state on paper and weren't "available" to pay the bills. So even though they had many fat years, they still cried bankruptcy and wanted the taxpayers to bail them out... again. And they got away with it because the money was out of state jurisdiction. How much more so would that happen with a multinational? I can just see those tax incentives shifting all over the place on paper and having no positive effect at all. It would be nice though if it could be made to work -- targetted investing locally could help a lot more than just throwing tax money around. |
|
05 Jan 03 - 07:37 PM (#859458) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: kendall When Henry Ford raised his workers salaries to $5.00 per day, the going rate was $3.00. His competitors said he was crazy. He answered this charge by declaring, "How else can they afford to buy my cars"? He was crazy alright, like a fox. |
|
05 Jan 03 - 07:57 PM (#859467) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: CarolC Could tax incentives be connected in some way to what the money is spent on, rather than given to companies that "report" compliance with the terms of the incentive? |
|
06 Jan 03 - 12:05 AM (#859561) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: NicoleC Yes, but it requires that companies fill out accurate tax returns. Ha! Either that or we have to build the government infrastructure to audit higher numbers of corporate tax returns -- which I don't think anyone wants. Everytime we increase the size the IRS, they just audit more middle to lower income returns. Even so, there's always the cost benefit analysis. You have to audit a LOT of returns before it makes financial sense for a company to fairly report their taxes because it's cheaper than paying the occasional penalties -- which is pretty much the status quo now. An individual doesn't risk the penalties most of the time, because there'snothing he can cheat on that makes the penalty seem to be the cheaper method. Not true for big business, unfortunately. Recent years have shown us what most of us have known in our gut all along -- we cannot count on big businesses fairly reporting their financial status, either to stockholders or the IRS. At some point paying taxes has to be on the honor system -- but creating incentives for people to cheat (like offering tax credits that they solely determine they qualify for) seems poorly planned. Maybe a tax/financial whiz could come up with a solution that covers all the bases. I guess I'm at the point where I dont' think we can count on our legislature to pass it without reams of pork and exceptions that weaken it to the point of uselessness. I'm having a cynical week :) |
|
06 Jan 03 - 11:05 AM (#859799) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: CarolC I can't say I'm particularly surprised by any of that either. Ah, well. |
|
06 Jan 03 - 11:12 AM (#859809) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert It's hard not to be cynical, Nicole. With all the problems that have been created either aggressively or passively in the last two years, it's difficult to even think of light at the end of the tunnel, And then again, if we do see light, it's most likely another train getting to plow the working man down. The historians, should there be any in the future, are going to have a *field day* trying to figure out how one adminisrtaion could screw up so much world and domestic instability in such a short time and still have (if you can believe the corporate owned press) approval ratings in the 60's percentile. Hmmmmmm? Me and my Wes Ginny slide rule been workin' on this one fir a while now and can't figure it out. I think their using some of Reagan's "fuzzy math" myself. Now we read in this morning's Wsahingotn Post that Bush is going to cut domestic spending. ("Lid Put on Domestic Spending", Page A-1, Jan. 6th)... Ahh, like who didn't know that? He allready has. His major piece of legislation as the "Education Bill". Remember, "No Child Left Behind"? Yeah, he got up and woof-woofed all over the country patting himself on the back. Now we learn that the money he set aside to fund it, ain't there and nothin' really changed other than a philosophy that rote memory is more important than teaching people to think (shades of "Brave New World").... (Well, Bobert, what do you think happened to the money for education?) Ya' might want to check Donnie Rumsfielod back pocket, fir starters..... Yep, the working class is gonna get a good whoppin' put on 'em here and it ain't gonna stop unless and until democracy is returned to the American people, which may never happen... Ol' Tom Jefferson is "rolling and a tumblin"" in his grave... Bobert P.S. Thanky, DougR, fir coming to the rescue but I was thinkin' there fir a moment, "Danged, Bobert, right-winged? Well, if so, just give yir buiddy Georgis Porgy a call and tell him to call off the war..." Nevermind... |
|
06 Jan 03 - 11:15 AM (#859810) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert Ahhh, make that "instability" a "stability"... See, CarolC, I am making an attempt. Bobert |
|
06 Jan 03 - 11:22 AM (#859815) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: CarolC However, on a more optimistic note (apropros of nothing in particular) take a look at this! Honda fuel cell car More about the Honda fuel cell car I'd like to see some tax incentives go to companies for developing and marketing these kinds of innovations. I think they could revolutionize the economy. (I may be a bit starry-eyed, but that's what I think.) |
|
06 Jan 03 - 11:31 AM (#859825) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: CarolC P.S. Hey, Bobert, I wouldn't sweat the spelling stuff if I were you. My desire to become a better writer is like my desire to become a better visual artist. These are particular interests of mine. I have a learning disability that involves numbers. I can't see myself ever becoming a mathmetician, and I carry a calculator around with me all the time. So, occasionally, when I'm at a store checkout counter, I can't count my change correctly. Sure, it doesn't feel very good, but I'm not going to beat myself up about it. ;-) |
|
06 Jan 03 - 11:34 AM (#859828) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: Bobert Or, how about going one step further, Carol, and throw in SUV gas filler plates and SUV nozzels with higher taxed fuels. And those taxes could be earmarked to pay then taxes incentives for purchasing fuel efficient cars, like the Honda fuel cell cars. Hmmmmm? There is no need for most folks to drive SUV's. They buy them because the ad-men tell them they have to if they want to be *cool*. SUV's plute more, consume more and are have a higher incident of accidents than do passanger cars. Throw in the SUV'er *attitude* and you have a bad situation. Hey, I think if we did what the two of us are suggesting here, CarolC, we could cut back on the entire amount of oil that we need from Iraq. Hmmmmmmm? Then we wouldn't have to go m,off and get folks killed. Hmmmm, part B? Bobert |
|
06 Jan 03 - 12:27 PM (#859878) Subject: RE: BS: More Failed Trickle Down Economics? From: NicoleC Carol, you'll be happy to know that the california Fuel Cell Partnership has been working on fuel cell vehicles for a while. I used to work down the street from them, and the test vehicles drove around all the time. It's a consortium of all the major auto manufacturers, who pay for most of it, but the next major source of funding is the state of CA. And the federal government kicks in a fair amount, too -- or at least they did. I'm not sure if that got cut with all the other Bush anti-fuel-efficient cuts. That includes a few mini-scooter type cars like an fuel cell upgrade of the Honda EV, Ford Focus, and a Daimler Chrysler mini car that looks like those Samrt Cars they sell in Europe. But GM has a minivan in the works, Hyundai has a fuel cell Sante Fe SUV, Nissan and Toyoto also have SUVs (Xterra and Hghlander), and Volkswagon, of course, if the only one with a sensible sedan. They're coming... |