Trickle down don't work

[morqthana]

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?

What the resident people here who can see facts are suggesting is that all your scenarios of "imagine this", "consider that", "obviously it works" are all fabricated nonsense, and that it simply does not work that way.

Obviously it works.

OK - cite some examples where it has.

Still waiting...

 

[morqthana]

I've lost track of who's arguing what. Just a bunch of accounts pasting random AI slop.

You've certainly lost track - I'll give you that.

What you could do is to read the "random AI slop" to see the sources it uses, and then go and read those. You can also search for relevant reports/studies/info without using AI, and read those.

However there would only be some point in doing that if you actually wanted to know the truth, and were prepared to deal with finding out that trickle-down as an economic policy simply does not work. To learn that no matter how "logical" it may seem to you, no matter how "obvious" you think it is, in reality it does not work. And never has.

But you don't, and you aren't, are you.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

If only you could put together a structured thought then I'd discuss with you. Just detached vague concepts from google.

Are you an AI agent?

Once you understand what trickle down means, we can start.

Tell me when you are ready, by demonstrating where trickle down has worked

 

[Brigadier]

Once you understand what trickle down means, we can start.

Tell me when you are ready, by demonstrating where trickle down has worked

Start with Ivor stating what the accepted definition of "trickle down" is.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

However there would only be some point in doing that if you actually wanted to know the truth, and were prepared to deal with finding out that trickle-down as an economic policy simply does not work. To learn that no matter how "logical" it may seem to you, no matter how "obvious" you think it is, in reality it does not work. And never has.

It sounds like you're quoting from the Holy Bible of Leftiness. If you say it enough times then it's true?

Obviously wealth trickles down, just not all of it. But if rich people got poorer as a result of their business activity then they'd close every business down and sack everyone. Which is probably not something we'd want to happen.

Either the rich get richer, nobody works or the government runs everything. Take your pick.

 

[Brigadier]

It sounds like you're quoting from the Holy Bible of Leftiness. If you say it enough times then it's true?

You think it works for your repeatedly posting carp, so I can see why you have come to that conclusion.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Take it to the limits - if tax is 100% then there's no economy. Obviously taxes stifle economic activity and therefore how much money ends up flowing downwards.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Do people really think that higher taxes have no negative consequences?

This is just mental lefty propaganda.

 

[noseall]

Obviously wealth trickles down, just not all of it

Wealth? You mean some poor people get some coins in their begging tin.

. But if rich people got poorer as a result of their business activity then they'd close every business down and sack everyone

That applies to traders/working folk, the world over. A pointless, obvious and banal statement which in no way justifies 'trickle down' economics.

. Which is probably not something we'd want to happen.

Either the rich get richer, nobody works or the government runs everything. Take your pick.

You really do thrive upon posting irrelevant nonsense in order to try and justify your misguided, non-existent trickle down economics.

 

[morqthana]

There's also a parallel ever-growing state-run economy, which produces approximately nothing.

By that do you mean things like police, justice, roads, schools, health, armed forces ... ?

 

[noseall]

Yes, lots, absolutely everywhere. It's how the entire economy* works. Generally rich people own the companies where people work. Their wages are wealth, trickling down into their bank accounts every month without fail.

That is exactly what does NOT describe trickle down economics. You really are clueless.

There's also a parallel ever-growing state-run economy, which produces approximately nothing.

Explain (without embarrassing yourself).

 

[MNW67]

Take it to the limits - if tax is 100% then there's no economy.

False dichotomy.

Obviously taxes stifle economic activity and therefore how much money ends up flowing downwards.

Only in extremis. See above.

Either the rich get richer, nobody works or the government runs everything. Take your pick.

Another false dichotomy.

 

[fillyboy]

False dichotomy.

Only in extremis. See above.

Another false dichotomy.

North Sea oil. Extremis?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Looks like Ivor hasn't yet worked out what he means.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Do people really think that higher taxes have no negative consequences?

This is just mental lefty propaganda.

Missing the whole point