Kansas Rejects Trickle Down Economics

[Jack V Savage]

The layers of indoctrination will never allow people like Greoric to process this type of information.

I like to use the comparison of a painter and the owner of a picture frame factory.

The million dollars the painter might make from the sale of his painting is extracted from the economy very differently than the million dollars the factory owner might make at year's end from the sale of his company's frames.

It just seems like the reasoning behind the assertion that you're morally entitled to 100% of your pre-tax salary is so obviously faulty that no one should be convinced. If you can operate a keyboard, you should be able to see through that. And I realize that people will say that you can't derive morality from reasoning, but unless it's a first principle, you can't avoid it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're cherry picking .

It is a pure fact that the economic recovery under Reagan was one of the most dramatic recoveries in history ,short of the great depression.

No it isn't. I already corrected you on this. The 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1990s all had stronger growth than the 1980s.

The economy was a mess coming out of the Carter admin and Clinton is generally considered a pretty successful president too so I don't see how that comparison is really damning either, to whoever made that comparison.

Economic growth was stronger under Carter than it was under Reagan, and the economy was in a mild recession when Reagan took office (and a bigger one followed shortly after we got out of that one). Carter is also not generally considered a successful president.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

actually, from my knowledge of Trivia, Hollywood is in Cali, cuz of the year round Sun, since Natural lighting is always best and preferred for movies.

And the dry climate wont ruin their props. Plus it was not expensive to move down their back then so why not?

 

[MadSquabbles500]

It was to escape patent law.

Wouldnt that also mean, Hollywood back then, could not go after people ripping off their films?

 

[luckyshot]

Then why didn't you delete your shit thread?

 

[Thunderflash500]

Wouldnt that also mean, Hollywood back then, could not go after people ripping off their films?

I'd assume so. If I remember right anything filmed was infringing on Edison's patent because he was the one to invent the filming device. So they went to California to get away. China is a modern example of business going where it's most beneficial to be. They are also benefiting greatly on relaxed copyright laws at the moment.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

IMO, an economy is too complex to be reduced down to just tax cuts vs. no tax cuts, especially when we're comparing California with Kansas.

Taxes should not be about economic stimulus unless it is mafia level taxation. Taxes are for paying for gubment and services. No one should get away with skimming out on their fair share of it. How well an economy is doing should not hang on the taxes. If it is, then many fundamental factors are too screwed up.

 

[Greoric]

The implication here is that you produced all the value that you receive, which is obviously not the case. Production is a social process that involves nature, and distribution is a conventional process that involves laws.

The implication is that your income is representative of the value you created, so yes its your contribution. And while your productive efforts required coordination, a compulsory funded monopoly need not apply.

 

[Greoric]

The layers of indoctrination will never allow people like Greoric to process this type of information.

I like to use the comparison of a painter and the owner of a picture frame factory.

The million dollars the painter might make from the sale of his painting is extracted from the economy very differently than the million dollars the factory owner might make at year's end from the sale of his company's frames.

This started with my response to you supposing that more investment wouldn't be made if that money isn't first taxed.... There's one of us operating off of indoctrination, and its certainly not me.

 

[Greoric]

It just seems like the reasoning behind the assertion that you're morally entitled to 100% of your pre-tax salary is so obviously faulty that no one should be convinced. If you can operate a keyboard, you should be able to see through that. And I realize that people will say that you can't derive morality from reasoning, but unless it's a first principle, you can't avoid it.

It has nothing even to do with morality. You earn an income because someone thought your production was worth what they paid you for it.

 

[Greoric]

Exactly. Totally unrelated.

Hell if you consider it results in less money spent on consumption its probably a negative correlation.

Come again? The incentive to invest is inversely proportional to areas where the investor sees growth?

 

[HIMBOB]

Come again? The incentive to invest is inversely proportional to areas where the investor sees growth?

Haha, no.

The incentive to invest is related to areas where the investor sees growth.

Growth however is dependent on consumption and consumption reduces were more of the tax take is paid by the spending (ie middle and low) class.

 

[Greoric]

Haha, no.

The incentive to invest is related to areas where the investor sees growth.

Growth however is dependent on consumption and consumption reduces were more of the tax take is paid by the spending (ie middle and low) class.

Absolutely not. Where do you guys get the same nonsense from? Growth is dependent on under-consumption dude. Growth increases by virtue of people NOT consuming more.

 

[HIMBOB]

Absolutely not. Where do you guys get the same nonsense from? Growth is dependent on under-consumption dude. Growth increases by virtue of people NOT consuming more.

Huh? Explain how decreasing consumption leads to growth.

You seem to be suggesting low consumer sentiment would encourage investment.

 

[Greoric]

Huh? Explain how decreasing consumption leads to growth.

You seem to be suggesting low consumer sentiment would encourage investment.

Explain how if you consume less you've saved more? That requires an explanation?

Anyway, OK. You can only consume something if you produce it first, and you can only produce something if you first under-consume. Pretty straightforward right? Economies grow because more resources are put aside for future consumption, which are allowed to be allocated into productive efforts instead of immediate consumption.

 

[HIMBOB]

Explain how if you consume less you've saved more? That requires an explanation?

Anyway, OK. You can only consume something if you produce it first, and you can only produce something if you first under-consume. Pretty straightforward right? Economies grow because more resources are put aside for future consumption, which are allowed to be allocated into productive efforts instead of immediate consumption.

Saving allows for investment yes but as i said there is no link between investment and the place that generated the saving.

 

[m52nickerson]

Look, excuse you. The thief that steals $50 dollars out of your wallet instead of $200 isn't giving you $150. He's just letting you keep $150.

Why? Because the thief didn't create that wealth. You did. The government didn't create the wealth it doesn't tax (read: steal). You did.

The government collecting taxes is not the same as a thief. Sorry, you analogy is nonsensical.

 

[Burning Hammer]

Not worth the time if your OP is so shitty

 

[Aegon Spengler]

It doesn't seem like they've rejected it as much as they've seen what an abject failure it's been and have decided to walk away, although, the pockets of the people who pushed for this have already been lined so it wasn't a total loss for republican businessmen. it's likely this was a simple theft and policymakers were well aware it wouldn't work ahead of time

 

[Greoric]

The government collecting taxes is not the same as a thief. Sorry, you analogy is nonsensical.

Then provide a distinction.