so Occam's Banana,
Would it be true that you do not believe in trickle down economics? In response to the broken leg post. (don't feel like quoting a long response)
so Occam's Banana,
Would it be true that you do not believe in trickle down economics? In response to the broken leg post. (don't feel like quoting a long response)
cbc58, I commend you for bringing up a very politically incorrect topic. However, when you get right down to it, it's very difficult to find anybody in our economy that doesn't depend on government pushing money around to places it wouldn't naturally go.
There are of course people who supply other people with goods that they would naturally purchase for a price that is close to its natural value.
Certainly not anything like a government teacher, cops, firefighters, government bureaucrats, or any modern day soldier or military personnel. These occupations have a natural monetary exchange value of close to zero. Not that they aren't fundamentally valuable, but they tend to be things that people will volunteer for when necessary. Since natural markets aren't determining their value, we massively over pay for them and get them in a form that nobody really wants, save for a small minority of powerful government union members.
I recently had to spend a few hours listening to a firefighter tell me about how she has sacrificed her entire life only to be handed a paltry 80k per year pension at age 55. I didn't even bother questioning her on her enormous scope of delusions. She was driving me somewhere where I needed to go and didn't want to get kicked out of her car.
That depends on what you mean by "believe in" - and on how you define "trickle-down economics".Originally Posted by jbauer
Frederic Bastiat
When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law. - The Law Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Government
In the way Ronald Regan says it works. Take money pump it into a system (legitimately or illegitimately) and watch the economy grow. I can't stress it enough that I don't want more government action for those who haven't kept up with the 14 pages. One would have to think that the government putting artificial capital into a system like we've been doing since 2008 has caused better economic conditions then we would have seen over the past 4 years?....of course we'll pay for that someday.
we are looking at a triple-whammy if they ever do get around to downsizing govt.
reduce the numbers of govt. employees and you cut expenses but you also cut tax revenue they are supposedly paying in - plus they will go on govt. programs like unemployment, possibly food food stamps, and you just know the clueless legislators are going to offer early retirement bonuses. this will be even more of a burden on working Americans and they will pass the cost along in direct and indirect taxes and cost increases.
the entire economy is fake and one big shell game meant to give the illusion that there is prosperity and productivity. it's just the opposite.
I know lots of folks aren't going to agree with me on this but if you're not building or growing stuff you're living off others labor...
Well, it depends what you mean, exactly. Was Steve Jobs "building stuff" or "living off others' labor"?
Dear Slimedia: We hate you utterly. Your days are numbered.
Cordially, Every Ron Paul Supporter on Earth.
This does not qualify as a "whammy" as you put it - not even for the government side of things. Reducing government employment would actually increase the amount of money government has available- not reduce it.
Federal employees are paid with federal revenues. State employees are paid with state revenues. Hence, on net they do not pay income taxes with respect to their employer. They get more out than they pay in.
Sure, they may fill out forms and "send in a check" to the federal or state government they work for. But they get much, much more than that in the salaries (and benefits) they receive from the federal or state government for which they work.
The difference between what they pay in and what they get out is always a net positive (for them). That difference must be paid for by everyone else who isn't a government employee.
In fact, "government employment" is about as perfect an example as you could come up with for what I was talking about earlier in this thread. It necessarily destroys more than it "creates" and is therefore not a good or beneficial thing.
Last edited by Occam's Banana; 01-11-2013 at 02:34 PM.
When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law. - The Law Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Government
Given that definition of "trickle-down" economics (TDE), then no, I do not "believe" in it.
My own understanding of what TDE is (or is supposed to be) is pretty much limited to the Lafferian notion that by reducing or eliminating things like capital gains taxes or income taxes on the upper brackets, more tax revenues would be gained than lost. Reducing such taxes is supposed to free up money in the private sector which then (1) generates more-than-offsetting tax revenues for the State, and (2) generates economic activity that will "trickle down" to the middle and lower classes in the form of jobs, entrepeneurial funding, etc.. (Whether my understanding of TDE is accurate here, I am not certain. I've seen TDE used & invoked in a variety of ways, often very vague, which is why I asked what you meant by it.)
Given that taxation is economically destructive, and given the above description of TDE, then yes, I do "believe" in it - quite regardless of whether points (1) and/or (2) mentioned above are true or not. But by the same token, I could be said to "believe" in any policy that reduces or eliminates taxes (on any group at any level and to any degree) - just so long as there is no "offsetting" expropriation of private goods, services or money by the State.
When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law. - The Law Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Government
It's a whammy. Reducing govt. employment (federal) is going to highlight the glaringly obvious fact that the govt. has been booking tax revenue that they themselves are paying out. Big circle jerk and accounting shell game. So while they will be reducing expenses, the other accounting column of income tax revenue goes down, plus we'll get on the hook for retirement payouts, unemployment, etc., etc. And since we are flat-busted-broke and running trillion dollar deficits, there will not be more money available -- only less expense to pay.This does not qualify as a "whammy" as you put it - not even for the government side of things. Reducing government employment would actually increase the amount of money government has available- not reduce it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
