Do greedy millionaires and billionaires...

[Shadowferal]

Better; Trickle down economics is a proven failure

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

Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will "trickle down" and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.

from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn't, and then examined their economic outcomes.

The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates.

Julian Limberg, a co-author of the study and a lecturer in public policy at King's College London, said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. "In fact, if we look back into history, the period with the highest taxes on the rich — the postwar period — was also a period with high economic growth and low unemployment."

[kamuimac]

Ok, historical economically explain this:

explain what ? he was talking about 50s - you show me 90s.

you want me to compare apples to oranges ?

or you want lesson on how capital when used in smart way is able to multiply ones wealth ? and those who have more of it are able to multiply it more.

i could be mean and tell you to ask you afro-american friends to tell you their family stories how glorious were 50s and 60s for their grandparents . and how they were able to maintain wealthy households from minimum wage salaries and working 40 hours a week. im sure you would hear plenty of those stories.

oh wait unless you mean solely white educated citizens households in 50s - and completly ignoring the state of living of hundreds of milions of imigrants and descendants of "non-white" immigrants in that period.

your problem is that all "american dream" myths were nothing but lies - lies that got very fast verified exackly in the 70-80s period - when you could no longer exploit immigrants to build wealth of "middle class" . those myths were build on blood sweat and tears of whole geenrations of slaves, asians, eastern europeans , mexicans etc who travels to US and were exploited for 200 years to build that "wealth of nation" - and when it was no lonfer possible to maintain you had to ship all your industries and businesses so that they can exploit people in asia so that "west" could maintain their "standard of living" . because if those things were build on your soil very few people would be able to even afford them due to cost of specialised labour.

if anythign this graph is proving 1 thing - poor people dont save and dont invest - only most likely spend all the money they have - so they have nothing to multiply their wealth . they earn realitively the same if you include inflation as they were in 1990. while wealthy people non stop multiply their capital and earn more and more from those investments. and its a good thing - because its creating jobs so poor people arent unemployed .

[Forogil]

Better; Trickle down economics is a proven failure

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

Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will "trickle down" and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.

from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn't, and then examined their economic outcomes.

That's a bit over-simplified - the original idea of Reagan wasn't simple trickle-down, but actually smaller government allowing lower taxes for everybody! And that was originally tried, so 1982 wasn't just a reduction for the wealthy - but also for the poorer.

However, even if some parts of the government were easy to cut, most weren't(!), and the rest continued to grow - which meant that government spending didn't decrease much (if anything) at all. And despite supply-side economics being hailed as the anti-thesis of Keynesian economics it was in some sense based on the belief in similar multiplier effects - that weren't as strong as hoped for - so the lower taxes didn't pay for themselves (d'uh).

Then in 1986/1987 the tax code was simplified (yeah!), and the lowest tax bracket increased (eh? - I guess they had to try to balance the budget), while the highest tax bracket was reduced even further. And that was true trickle-down economics (and, as expected, it didn't work).

The paper mention both the first and the second Reagan Tax Cuts:
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Ho..._published.pdf
(Note that they only study medium and large OECD countries, it didn't study if tax havens attract the rich with tax-cuts :-)

[kamuimac]

"In 1978, a student who worked a minimum-wage summer job could afford to pay a year's full tuition at the 4-year public university of their choice."

i find it hillarious. its your own fault for allowing this to happen and it has literaly 0 to do with minimum wage - but with how you in US let Universities to become nothing but money printing machines.

ask European countries how they do it when students in many of those dont pay anything to recive University eduacation . i know i didnt . i pay for it with my taxes now . and i dont mind it.

[Forogil]

i find it hillarious. its your own fault for allowing this to happen and it has literaly 0 to do with minimum wage - but with how you in US let Universities to become nothing but money printing machines.

ask European countries how they do it when students in many of those dont pay anything to recive University eduacation . i know i didnt . i pay for it with my taxes now . and i dont mind it.

And in some countries there's more: the students get a combination of grants and loans for studying.

[Shadowferal]

i find it hillarious.

I'm sure you're laughing... It's all you can do.
For all of your claims of "study" you came up empty. But then facts and the truth were against you anyway. So laugh away and next time provide us all the source of your alleged "study." A source I'm sure we'll all find amusement. Something along the lines of an old fashioned correspondence course with Bob Jone University perhaps?

[Bodakane]

explain what ? he was talking about 50s - you show me 90s.

you want me to compare apples to oranges ?

or you want lesson on how capital when used in smart way is able to multiply ones wealth ? and those who have more of it are able to multiply it more.

i could be mean and tell you to ask you afro-american friends to tell you their family stories how glorious were 50s and 60s for their grandparents . and how they were able to maintain wealthy households from minimum wage salaries and working 40 hours a week. im sure you would hear plenty of those stories.

oh wait unless you mean solely white educated citizens households in 50s - and completly ignoring the state of living of hundreds of milions of imigrants and descendants of "non-white" immigrants in that period.

your problem is that all "american dream" myths were nothing but lies - lies that got very fast verified exackly in the 70-80s period - when you could no longer exploit immigrants to build wealth of "middle class" . those myths were build on blood sweat and tears of whole geenrations of slaves, asians, eastern europeans , mexicans etc who travels to US and were exploited for 200 years to build that "wealth of nation" - and when it was no lonfer possible to maintain you had to ship all your industries and businesses so that they can exploit people in asia so that "west" could maintain their "standard of living" . because if those things were build on your soil very few people would be able to even afford them due to cost of specialised labour.

if anythign this graph is proving 1 thing - poor people dont save and dont invest - only most likely spend all the money they have - so they have nothing to multiply their wealth . they earn realitively the same if you include inflation as they were in 1990. while wealthy people non stop multiply their capital and earn more and more from those investments. and its a good thing - because its creating jobs so poor people arent unemployed .

Apples and oranges? You think I'm arguing the American dream is real and that you're arguing it isn't? Poor people don't save and invest?

Dear god......you're so backwards on this i don't even know how to continue. I feel like I just said its hot outside and replied, 'No its not hot outside because I like pizza." How does one approach that?

Apples and oranges?
The point of the argument was to show how bad the middle class has it now compared to back in the 50's. Showing you how and when the things started trending so terribly for the middle class is not apples and oranges to the argument. Black people were not part of the middle class in the 50s. No one is arguing they were. Of course they had it bad, you'll notice the graph shows most of the middle and lower class as the thin black line that has barely changed, right?

You think I'm arguing the American dream is real and that you're arguing it isn't?
You are the one arguing in favor of the American dream and I'm the one saying it is bullshit. I don't even know to explain this to you in a way you'll understand since you are so fucking backwards.

Poor people don't save and invest?
Dafuq?!?!?!?!?

Do you understand what the word poor means? Are you one those people that think poor people have all this disposable income and they are wasting it on cars and cell phones and jewelry?

[Sorensen]

Apples and oranges? You think I'm arguing the American dream is real and that you're arguing it isn't? Poor people don't save and invest?

Dear god......you're so backwards on this i don't even know how to continue. I feel like I just said its hot outside and replied, 'No its not hot outside because I like pizza." How does one approach that?

Apples and oranges?
The point of the argument was to show how bad the middle class has it now compared to back in the 50's. Showing you how and when the things started trending so terribly for the middle class is not apples and oranges to the argument. Black people were not part of the middle class in the 50s. No one is arguing they were. Of course they had it bad, you'll notice the graph shows most of the middle and lower class as the thin black line that has barely changed, right?

You think I'm arguing the American dream is real and that you're arguing it isn't?
You are the one arguing in favor of the American dream and I'm the one saying it is bullshit. I don't even know to explain this to you in a way you'll understand since you are so fucking backwards.

Poor people don't save and invest?
Dafuq?!?!?!?!?

Do you understand what the word poor means? Are you one those people that think poor people have all this disposable income and they are wasting it on cars and cell phones and jewelry?

Being poor is kinda like being in the friend zone.

[Zan15]

I mean same with so many things that people do. You spend money and it doesn't add to your net value. This is reality. Does having lunch add to my net value, that money just goes to whoever is producing the food.

I bought the house several years after making 10k per year. But when I got a job making more money I continued to live very cheaply in the studio apt for several years. This let me save enough to put down 20% on a cheapish house while the housing market was still relatively "bad."

"several years after making 10k per year"

did you get a new job for 150k a year or something that it only took you several years?
Or do you live in a depressed area and somehow won the employment lottery and are now trying to pawn this off as something everyone can try and almost always succeed at if they just try?

The more you provide details the less real it gets.

[Sorensen]

"several years after making 10k per year"

did you get a new job for 150k a year or something that it only took you several years?
Or do you live in a depressed area and somehow won the employment lottery and are now trying to pawn this off as something everyone can try and almost always succeed at if they just try?

The more you provide details the less real it gets.

I was able to throw away like 10k per year living in the studio for 3 years enough for a down payment on a house. When you live cheaply it's not impossible to save.

[Shadowferal]

When you live cheaply it's not impossible to save.

That is dependent upon where you're living cheaply.

[Zan15]

I was able to throw away like 10k per year living in the studio for 3 years enough for a down payment on a house. When you live cheaply it's not impossible to save.

no not impossible, just improbable.

Especially saving for a house/condo/property. I am learning that the hard way.
it was a lot easier the first time I did this 25+ years ago even though my income has increased.
Even though Interest rates were multiples higher than they are now.

Prices and Cost of living have all increased at my income level much faster than my income.



You are most likely leaving out a lot of details on how you managed to save the money, what job you got, how you got it, what house, how much house in what area, etc etc.

Based on what other people have told you about the expenses you most likely had while making such a low wage you couldn't have been saving much unless there was another source of income or help.


If not then you also prove the point that your situation was so very unique that most people could never succeed in the same way

[Sorensen]

no not impossible, just improbable.

Especially saving for a house/condo/property. I am learning that the hard way.
it was a lot easier the first time I did this 25+ years ago even though my income has increased.
Even though Interest rates were multiples higher than they are now.

Prices and Cost of living have all increased at my income level much faster than my income.



You are most likely leaving out a lot of details on how you managed to save the money, what job you got, how you got it, what house, how much house in what area, etc etc.

Based on what other people have told you about the expenses you most likely had while making such a low wage you couldn't have been saving much unless there was another source of income or help.


If not then you also prove the point that your situation was so very unique that most people could never succeed in the same way

Anyone can do it just have to be willing.

[Edge-]

Anyone can do it just have to be willing.

I mean good on you and all for doing it, but let's not continue pushing this lie, shall we? Because it's never been anything more than a lie for millions that have tried and failed due to circumstances outside of their control.

[Draco-Onis]

"several years after making 10k per year"

did you get a new job for 150k a year or something that it only took you several years?
Or do you live in a depressed area and somehow won the employment lottery and are now trying to pawn this off as something everyone can try and almost always succeed at if they just try?

The more you provide details the less real it gets.

All you have to do is ignore math and it all makes sense. He made $160 /week pre tax and other things paying $350/month for rent, had a car and a bike ate food and saved 10k for a house.

Nothing fishy about that math.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone can do it just have to be willing.

Don't forget magic.

[Zan15]

Anyone can do it just have to be willing.

How does someone with Asthma be 'willing' to not have the additional 80-150 dollar expense every month of an inhaler... while making that same income?

LOL i rest my case since you won't provide actual details on how it was achieved but expect everyone to believe "anyone can do it"


i guess they could will away the asthma!!

- - - Updated - - -

I mean good on you and all for doing it, but let's not continue pushing this lie, shall we? Because it's never been anything more than a lie for millions that have tried and failed due to circumstances outside of their control.

hell its near impossible in my state right now because of the housing market.
The cheap interest rates and migration of people from cities outward has decimated any chance for lower income people to keep up with their "savings" to even get to the 20%.

on top of that the requirements for loans have gone higher and higher just to qualify and low income programs just do not have the money to cover the influx of people wanting help.

- - - Updated - - -

All you have to do is ignore math and it all makes sense. He made $160 /week pre tax and other things paying $350/month for rent, had a car and a bike ate food and saved 10k for a house.

Nothing fishy about that math.

Don't forget magic.

its not even that. Sure you miggggggggght be able to do it in a few localities.....

but the continued insistence that "anyone can do it if they are willing" is just downright trolling at this point

[Endus]

All you have to do is ignore math and it all makes sense. He made $160 /week pre tax and other things paying $350/month for rent, had a car and a bike ate food and saved 10k for a house.

Nothing fishy about that math.

Like, here's his original claim;

I have filed taxes where my gross income was in the 10k range yes.

First I was living in an apt with someone so split my rent was $225. After that a studio apt for $350. Electric and phone were my only utilities around $50/m. I had a car but biked mostly, so $20 for gas every 3 weeks or so.

No health insurance at the time because wasn't offered to my position and yeah if I got sick and missed work I didn't get paid.

So; $10k/year income, which works out to $833/mo.

Minus $350/mo for rent, down to $483/mo.
I assume electricity and phone were both $50 total, to err on the side of caution; $433/mo.
$20 for gas every three weeks is about $27/mo. Down to $406.

Now, time to get into unmentioned costs. First, food;
Using this calculator; https://mint.intuit.com/blog/food-bu...et-calculator/
And assuming 1 person, 19-50 years old, and a cost-conscious budget (the cheapest "Thrifty" option expects you to be using food stamps and such, and Sorensen was clear they didn't take government assistance in this time), that brings us to another $237/mo.

That leaves us $169/mo.

Are we done? Oh, god no.

They owned a car. And a bike. We didn't include costs for buying/leasing those.
There was no pricing for Internet, which is pretty much a necessity these days as much as power and water.
Nothing for health costs, and they said they had no insurance. A doctor's visit alone could wipe this out, let alone if you actually need treatment.
We didn't include any expensing for toiletries, at all. The grocery budget was just food; cleaning supplies and toiletries are extra.
No clothing budget, either.
Definitely have to assume you're not paying interest on any loans or credit cards of any kind.
Definitely didn't price anything for repairs and servicing for the bike and car.
Also no budget fees for parking costs.
Or household items, like furniture. Which ain't free.
Or insurance. I know around here, you can't drive a car without insurance. You'd also want homeowners' insurance.
At these budget levels, bank fees and the like matter.
And forget giving family/friends gifts on birthdays or Christmas.

Are we packing all that into just $169/mo? And that's just standard expenses, assuming you don't have any ongoing medical expenses or the like.

[PC2]

Anyone can do it just have to be willing.

Not only that but advocating for socialism is equivalent to a full-time job for many people that feel home ownership is impossible. If they directed that same level of effort and time towards personal problem solving, increasing their useful skills, and working then they would be able to buy the apartment or house they want the government to give them. People often feel the need to double-down so I expecting nothing will change in the immediate future.

[JohnBrown1917]

Not only that but advocating for socialism is equivalent to a full-time job for many people that feel home ownership is impossible. If they directed that same level of effort and time towards personal problem solving, increasing their useful skills, and working then they would be able to buy the apartment or house they want the government to give them. People often feel the need to double-down so I expecting nothing will change in the immediate future.

I wish this libertarian paradise you 2 want actually worked like that.

[kamuimac]

I mean good on you and all for doing it, but let's not continue pushing this lie, shall we? Because it's never been anything more than a lie for millions that have tried and failed due to circumstances outside of their control.

did they really try though ? or them trying was just typical new year reaoslution type of : "this year i will save more" and then after 2 weeks they relapse to bad financial habits.

how many of them really started to track their expenses - put them in spredsheet and controlled them for like 12 months,

how many of them track how much money they spend on junk food and stupid stuff - how many of them make meals at home themselves and how many order in food on regular basis .

there is always milion detail that people who "tried and failed" omit when discussing.

for example - how many hours weekly they spend on learning something new to change their lives. most will just answer "im to tired after work to do that" - while you have people who work then work out and gym and then work on changing their lives by learning stuff/developing their own businesses - those people dont look for excuses only work hard to achieve something in their lives.

its like with fat people in gym - you have those who go there for like 5 years without any effects - and then you have those who in 12 months completly "rebuild " their bodies. the latter really "tried" .