* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Are you for Trickle Down Capitalism?

[ataraxia]

agree! What he says is to trick the public so he won't be seen as the nasty 1%. Its good PR. He admitted once on CNBC he put it all Gates Foundation so govt won't get it and waste it when he croaks.

When he croaks he is giving away 99% of it. You knew that, I am sure.

 

[James972]

He's talking about himself and the behavior of all his billionaire friends.

you obviously mean lying about the behavior. All are limited in what they have left for investment after liberal govt takes their money at gun point.

 

[James972]

When he croaks he is giving away 99% of it. You knew that, I am sure.

giving to Gates Foundation so govt won't tax and waste it!

 

[James972]

But it does mean a lot in terms of how many more schools you can build, neighborhood health clinics, foster care for orphaned children, etc...

don't be absurd! France taxes away almost double what we do and people are literally rioting in the streets because they cant make ends meet. Welfare begets more welfare this is how libs starved 120 million to death

 

[ataraxia]

you obviously mean lying about the behavior. All are limited in what they have left for investment after liberal govt takes their money at gun point.

No. That sort of reasoning and behavior has been corroborated by numerous studies by economists as well.

 

[iguanaman]

1) if a robber lets people keep their own money he not rewarding them.
2) If you tax a venture capitalist he has less ventures and less new products,less productivity increases and no wage increases. 1+1=2

Govt. is not robbing anybody. If you have high taxes only on income over a million a venture capitalist will not take income over that. He will have more to invest in his business and more to increase wages of his employees. Punitive taxes are not meant to be paid they are an incentive for a CEO to find uses for the money other than socking it all away for himself.

 

[ataraxia]

giving to Gates Foundation so govt won't tax and waste it!

I am sure govt wouldn't tax 99% of it.

I was listening to Warren's son Peter Buffett talking once. He said the only inheritance he has ever gotten is $90,000- and that was when his grandpa passed away. His dad hasn't given him anything, and has told him he is not getting anything. He says he remembers his dad telling him while growing up: those who grow up with a silver spoon in their mouth have a silver dagger in their back.

 

[James972]

I am sure govt wouldn't tax 99% of it.

I was listening to Warren's son Peter Buffett talking once. He said the only inheritance he has ever gotten is $90,000- and that was when his grandpa passed away. His dad hasn't given him anything, and has told him he is not getting anything. He says he remembers his dad telling him while growing up: those who grow up with a silver spoon in their mouth have a silver dagger in their back.

no idea what subject you are on

 

[James972]

Govt. is not robbing anybody..

then why do they need guns to acquire the money?????????????

 

[iguanaman]

then why do they need guns to acquire the money?????????????

Now you are questioning why we have laws and enforce them? :lamo

 

[James972]

If you have high taxes only on income over a million a venture capitalist will not take income over that.

They get their money as capital gains, if they make 1 billion on a venture and pay 39% cap gains they have 400,000,000 less with which to invest in other ventures. THe more shots on goal the more new ventures and the more wages go up. 1+1=2 You know nothing, You are arguing on ego, not IQ. Why???

 

[ataraxia]

They get their money as capital gains, if they make 1 billion on a venture and pay 39% cap gains they have 400,000,000 less with which to invest in other ventures. THe more shots on goal the more new ventures and the more wages go up. 1+1=2 You know nothing, You are arguing on ego, not IQ. Why???

Because after 4 decades of such policy, 99% of the population still can't afford any of the things they are investing in. Why???

 

[ataraxia]

no idea what subject you are on

My point is even if government takes away 50% of his wealth, he would still have more to pass on to his heirs than giving 99% to the Gates Foundation. Your argument makes no sense.

 

[James972]

I am sure govt wouldn't tax 99% of it.

I was listening to Warren's son Peter Buffett talking once. He said the only inheritance he has ever gotten is $90,000- and that was when his grandpa passed away. His dad hasn't given him anything, and has told him he is not getting anything. He says he remembers his dad telling him while growing up: those who grow up with a silver spoon in their mouth have a silver dagger in their back.

The Washington Post reported in 2014: "Buffett's three kids each have a $2 billion foundation funded by Dear Old Dad. The rest of his money? Going to charity."

 

[James972]

Now you are questioning why we have laws and enforce them? :lamo

in a free country govt is not supposed to take your money at gunpoint. That is why Founders permitted no income tax

 

[James972]

Your argument makes no sense.

what argument???????

 

[ataraxia]

The Washington Post reported in 2014: "Buffett's three kids each have a $2 billion foundation funded by Dear Old Dad. The rest of his money? Going to charity."

The foundations are not their money. They are the designated custodians. Peter's foundation is for the purpose of wildlife preservation in Africa. He cannot use it for any personal use.

 

[ataraxia]

in a free country govt is not supposed to take your money at gunpoint. That is why Founders permitted no income tax

George Washington himself headed a militia to take the money of the folks in the Whiskey tax rebellion. At gunpoint. There goes your theory.

There was no income tax at the time because there was hardly anything that was "income": you either had land and made money, or you didn't. So this policy made sense at the time. The concept of income as anything worth writing home about only came about after the industrial revolution.

 

[James972]

Because after 4 decades of such policy, 99% of the population still can't afford any of the things they are investing in. Why???

you mean four decades of increasing liberalism with libsoc govt growing 4 times since then

 

[James972]

George Washington himself headed a militia to take the money of the folks in the Whiskey tax rebellion. At gunpoint. There goes your theory.

what theory???

 

[ataraxia]

what theory???

That the founding fathers did not believe government could take your money at gunpoint.

Why are you playing stupid?

 

[ataraxia]

you mean four decades of increasing liberalism with libsoc govt growing 4 times since then

No. That was what we had before Reagan. If you look at the income curves, they only start separating after 1980. Why?

 

[lwf]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Are you for Trickle Down Capitalism?

Liberals call capitalism "trickle down" while conservatives call it "flood down". Republican flood down capitalism is, for example,* when Steve Jobs invents a super complex state-of-the art smart phone computer, and makes it so cheap that most of the world can afford it, or, when so much pay floods down to Americans they can spend $1 trillion on Christmas, or, when 2.6 million of us can afford to board planes every day in America.

Liberals pretend they don't like flood down capitalism so call it trickle down capitalism to imply not enough trickles down. There solution is trickle down welfare which would undermine the great flood downward always underway in America. Can anyone agree with liberals on this?
* *

Trickle down capitalism says invest in supply and demand will follow. Trickle up capitalism says invest in demand and supply will follow. One of these makes more sense than the other:

Artificially making businesses more profitable by investing tax dollars so that they can reduce their prices because consumers don't have enough money to afford their products is backwards.

Allowing consumers to have more spending money will GUARANTEE that said money will flow right into the free market and naturally end up in the pockets of successful businesses. Yes, unsuccessful businesses will suffer, but successful businesses boom and the economy stabilizes.

Trickle down economics is a government bail-out of poorly run businesses and, while sometimes providing a short-term pseudo-boost to the economy that looks good to potential voters, always ends up in a recession since consumers are the life-blood of the economy, not businesses.

Business is consumer driven, not vice versa.

 

[phattonez]

No. That was what we had before Reagan. If you look at the income curves, they only start separating after 1980. Why?

Because of this:

We lowered the tax rate of unearned income mostly, which allowed massive capital accumulation and the increasing of inequality.

 

[ataraxia]

Because of this:

We lowered the tax rate of unearned income mostly, which allowed massive capital accumulation and the increasing of inequality.

Wow. So you are an economic liberal. Interesting.