Trickle down don't work
- Thread starter Brigadier
- Start date
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 45,912
- Reaction score
- 3,526
- Country
So now all of a sudden it's not to do with the price any more, it's all to do with the ethics of castration?
Your argument is all over the place!
But, as you've chosen the ethics of castration, let's explore that.
Do you eat castrated cows, sheep or pigs?
Pork sold in this country is likely to come from uncastrated animals, especially Red Tractor labelled pork, but some beef and lamb reared and sold here comes from castrated animals.
And if you eat pork reared in the EU, it may come from castrated animals.
But the key thing here is, unless it's Red Tractor pork, you would never know whether the meat comes from a castrated or uncastrated animal. The packs won't be labelled.
So, if I were you, I'd start choosing meat very carefully.
Or go veggie like me.
Or you might be calling yourself a hypocrite.
Trickledown is the idea that if you slash taxes for the rich the economy grows and the poor get richer.
It is an idea always pushed by the rich……….
Ask yourself why, and there you will find the truth.
I recall watching a tv prog a few years back where it asserted a growing number of prominent economists suggest trickle down economics is, increasingly, a failed experiment. There seems to be a fair few papers, cited and otherwise, backing up this position. No doubt there's a counter assertion, however I'm too lazy to look for it 
www.lse.ac.uk
Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich | LSE Research
Trickle-down economic policies are destined to fail, research suggests. David Hope explains why the issue is so controversial.
www.lse.ac.uk
Free market capitalist countries like USA and U.K. have low living standards for ordinary citizens
Countries with progressive social democracies (you would call them crazy marxist commies) like Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark have higher living standards for ordinary citizens.
So facts prove you wrong. As usual.
Poor Aveatry, too cowardly to admit being a Reform supporter, but he is riddled with Reform propaganda
You are a communist - why don't you admit it
Last edited:
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 18,498
- Reaction score
- 1,575
- Country
Which of the example countries do you consider to be communist ?
OK, let's imagine that you're a successful, rich entrepreneur. You have a business idea, which will involve £10m startup cost and will employ 20 people on £50k each, and you'll make £2m profit for yourself. So 20 working people will earn a living, you'll make more than all of them put together but you'll be recovering the £10m initial investment. You'll make an annual profit and will recover your startup cost after 5 years, after which you'll make clear profit if it's still viable, but all this involves risk - you might lose the lot and never make any money at all.
What exactly are the resident lefties suggesting? If the suggestion is that the owner shouldn't make a profit then they simply won't bother starting the business and precisely £0 will trickle down. Or do you have another answer?
I suspect that no lefty has ever actually thought through this sort of situation, it's all just angry bitterness from resentful people and wouldn't ever result in anything constructive.
Or should "the people" i.e. the government own and run everything? i.e. communism.
The big problem these days is that wealth is very mobile.I recall watching a tv prog a few years back where it asserted a growing number of prominent economists suggest trickle down economics is, increasingly, a failed experiment. There seems to be a fair few papers, cited and otherwise, backing up this position. No doubt there's a counter assertion, however I'm too lazy to look for it
Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich | LSE Research
Trickle-down economic policies are destined to fail, research suggests. David Hope explains why the issue is so controversial.
We have massive companies like Google, Starbucks, Amazon using devious tactics to funnel invoices through tax havens like Dublin and U.K. loses tax revenue.
If every country slashes taxes to keep these businesses it’s just a race to the bottom.
I don’t know what we can as these huge businesses have more power than countries like U.K.
It’s a real challenge
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 18,498
- Reaction score
- 1,575
- Country
Where I have argued about making money for the entrepreneur?
I do advocate that all his employees are paid enough money to live on. And to be able to buy goods to keep the economy flowing.
You are the 1 supporting them not being paid enough and insisting that they will receive enough money from the state to provide for them.
Try having a re think
None of your angry rant actually offered any answers.
I'll distil it down for you... A business is employing people, who are happily working there and earning a good salary. But the owner is making more money than all of them put together. Money is trickling down, but also gushing upwards.
What's your solution for this very common situation? Allow it to continue, tax it to death so that it shuts down or never got started in the first place, or have the state take ownership?
Personally I'm happy for "the rich" to continue making profit, well done to them. Plus I hope to be one of them one day.
A bit of Googling for context:
"do tax cuts for the wealthy help the economy"
AI Overview
Research suggests tax cuts for the wealthy don't significantly boost overall economic growth or create jobs
; instead, they often increase income inequality, with benefits concentrated at the top, debunking "trickle-down" theories, though proponents argue it frees up capital for investment and job creation. Studies show such cuts disproportionately benefit the rich and can reduce future budget discipline, while tax cuts for lower/middle-income earners are linked to more stimulus.
Arguments Against (Based on Research)
- No Significant Growth/Jobs: Major studies, including one by the LSE and King's College London, found no significant effect on economic growth or unemployment from top tax cuts.
- Increased Inequality: These cuts consistently lead to higher income inequality, increasing the top 1%'s share of income.
- Limited "Trickle-Down": Evidence largely contradicts the idea that benefits "trickle down" to the broader economy.
- Resource Misallocation: Tax cuts for the wealthy can shift the tax burden and reduce funds for public services, notes Investopedia.
- Investment & Innovation: Advocates argue that lower taxes allow the wealthy to invest more in businesses, driving expansion, innovation, and hiring.
- Capital Availability: More capital for the rich theoretically boosts investment, although research questions the magnitude and broad impact of this effect.
While proponents claim tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate the economy, recent, large-scale studies using OECD data suggest that these cuts primarily raise inequality without delivering broad economic growth or job creation, shifting focus to lower/middle-class tax cuts as more effective stimulus, says the Chicago Booth Review.
There's a point at which tax is so high there's just no point in bothering to take risk, make the effort or bother getting out of bed in the morning.
The UK is somewhere around that point. That's why unemployment is rising.
The UK is somewhere around that point. That's why unemployment is rising.
Notch is a comunist. Read their website and it reads like every single post he has made.
He is a comunist but too scared to admit it.
Communist Party of Great Britain
communistparty.co.uk
Communists aren't deluded, they know they are but deliberately lie to conceal it, as they know nobody would vote for it.
They call themselves things such as "socialist" and "progressive" to get power, then they start the process of quietly dragging us towards the communist goal, hoping that we won't notice.
Starmer is a communist, it's absolutely obvious. Not the nice carey-sharey type either, more the imprison everyone who thinks otherwise type.
Most of what they're now doing to us wasn't in their manifesto. Removing juries, controlling the media, eliminating the opposition... it's all happened before in the world.
They call themselves things such as "socialist" and "progressive" to get power, then they start the process of quietly dragging us towards the communist goal, hoping that we won't notice.
Starmer is a communist, it's absolutely obvious. Not the nice carey-sharey type either, more the imprison everyone who thinks otherwise type.
Most of what they're now doing to us wasn't in their manifesto. Removing juries, controlling the media, eliminating the opposition... it's all happened before in the world.
