Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Easy
Write a special provision into the tax bill so he can make some more money.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/corkers-controversial-flip-tax-plan-raises-awkward-questions

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

It just never ends. I ran my 2016 tax return numbers thru the new tax plan and found an increase in final tax paid. So I am now planning on how to cut my discretionary spending to pay it. I suppose millions of others will see the same and do the same, so economy won't boom as much as the GOP says. The wealthy are not apt to either for once you have bought all your toys are you going to have the time to buy second copies. I and my wife live on two pensions and one Soc Sec account. Next year that SS account gets abolished.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Too bad everyone won't have the opportunity to do as you have done. Sorry for your outcome.

As a business owner, I expect to stand some gains. But I worry for my parents, children and grandchildren.

Trickle down economics is a hoax! Always has been, always will be.

Never trust anyone who asks you to give them more so that they can share it with you.

Yankeepapa6 Loc: New York City

That would also benefit Democrats also.

dljen Loc: Central PA

It's a tax scam to appeal to the corporations and the rich. I'd be very surprised if new jobs were created by this. This congress can't say they didn't pass anything all year so had to pass something no matter how crooked. As usual, a Dem president will have to clean up this mess and be blamed for raising taxes.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

That's a very strange point of view. It would benefit anyone who is a rich real estate investor.
Such as; oh I don't know, let's say the Trump and Kusner families?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Oh, please and just how many senators were purchased with the healthcare law, do you not remember the Louisiana purchase? $100 million, $300 million to California, $18 million to AARP, and then the special provisions for the unions and all of Pelosi and Reed's supporters....

Then from time to time the Clintons would put the entire government up for sale.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

Whenever you see someone in a limousine, on their way to board their private jet, driving past a homeless person, that's trickle-down economics at work.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

When you see posts such as yours, that is liberal education at work.

EyeSawYou

Only the foolish believe that trickle-down economy doesn't work of course it works. Even Obama believes that it works.


Obama said this “…your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3000% which means they could give you a raise.” I am sure he meant $3,000 not 3000% of course, he misspoke. But..... isn't this contrary to Libtards own mantra that trickle down economics does not work??? This is what we have been trying to tell Liberals about cutting taxes for job creators which are the business owners, give them tax breaks so they will be able to give us our raises. :)

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Could is so much different than will.

EyeSawYou

The liberal motto is that it doesn't work not that it couldn't work. Nice try, but no cigar.

Yankeepapa6 Loc: New York City

And any wealthy Democrats.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

I'm surprised you bring that up. What with that Reagan theory on trickle-down economics, I'd think you'd be thrilled that there were rich people so you could feed off their crumbs.
Want to know what really works? Study the Eisenhower administration.

EyeSawYou

Does trickle down economics work?
Yes. Whoa, Contra said yes? That almost proves the point. However, tax cuts and regulation cuts obviously works. If you deny that, you are an idiot. Here is why: comparative advantage. Companies don't built here because its too expensive, and its annoying when Obama says you cant build in right to work states (lol). So making it cheaper encourages people to come to this country and discourages outsourcing. And the tax cut does not have to be huge. A 10% tax cut for a millionaire is equivalent to a 20% tax cut for someone making 100,000 dollars. Lets give historical examples. 1920's. taxes went from 73% to 25%, economy expanded 59%. No surprise, I would rather hire people if I had more money in my pocket too. A flat tax raises taxes on the poor and lowers them for the rich--Harvard economists predict that would create 5 trillion dollars (that means our economy would grow by 1/3!). Also, it makes sense, would I rather work when hard when half of it is washed down the toilet, or when 10% of it is taken? Would I work harder if my secretary gets a tax cut but me--the only reason she is in the workforce--gets a tax hike? Higher taxes discourages innovation, expansion, and economic growth. Its Econ-101. Lower taxes would increase our comparative advantage and not "reward" outsources, it merely gives them a reason to return. And that's a fact (raising taxes on them makes them want to come back why?

Supply Side Works Lower tax rates increase available income for families, spurring demand. This in turn results in increased business growth, which both together create a strong economy.

Businesses engage in capital accumulation and reinvest in their own facilities to gain higher future profits, and this leads to human progress and higher standards of living.

Here is a good example: Apple. Apple uses some of its profits to reinvest them into creating new factories, and engaging in more research and development for future Apple products, so Apple stays competitive in the future. As a result of these actions, demand for workers increases, innovation requires high skilled workers, and in return these actions improve employment levels and higher wages. High taxation discourages this expansion, and leaves less money to do so.

Yes--brief rebuttal to the 'No's' While it's valid to argue the scope of supply-side economics, it is not legitimate to argue its existence.

The primary fallacy voiced on the 'No' side is that the wealthiest will "hoard" their money instead of spending it. The implication, I suppose, being that they're literally stuffing their mattresses with bundles of cash. Of course, this is ludicrous. Money saved is money reinvested. Money reinvested enters the supply of funds available for the range of business investment and projects. It lowers the cost of funding these projects, and in aggregate, increase the total volume of projects attempted. And of course, the lower rates lower the threshold for attempted projects--lower tax rates permit lower net presently valued projects to become that much more attractive. I.e. no point in risking for minimal return.

Or, look at as the flip-side of the Keynesian coin: business with X% cost of capital and Y demand vs. Y% cost of capital and X demand.

Job creation occurs where markets allocate capital, not where we decide 'another 10 million mechanic jobs sound great!'.

Also, supply-side economics have absolutely nothing to do with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Logic says yes. The fact is simple: increased taxes take money out of Americans' pockets. Some will say "well yes, but these are the richest people and they can afford it". These people fail to understand what drives our economy. Do you really think it's the day-laborer on the street? No -- it's the rich that foster innovation, accumulate wealth, and create employment for millions of Americans. This is a core part of the American Dream: the ability to build something from the ground up, own it, and do whatever you please with it. If you take this away from people, they will no longer have incentives to create businesses; if you are taxed 75% on your income like the rich in France, you will simply move away, as the most rich man in France did right after the implemented this tax. And even if they taxed all the money of all the rich people in the US, the government would still want more (during the Great Depression, for example, the government placed a 100.6% income tax on those with the highest earnings. This did little to no good... Consequently business started to pick up again when they were dropped). Place more restrictions on businesses, and they simply will not be able to afford it, begin outsourcing jobs to China, and leave Americans with no jobs. But allow the rich to keep their wealth and stir the economy, and you will find that everyone seems to do better. (By the way, the reason the economy was thriving in the 1990s was because Clinton inherited it from Ronald Reagan, supply-side economics and conservative values.

Less Taxes = More money in American Hands Lowering taxes on American companies allows for more jobs to remain here, in America. If you continue to tax the big companies it will only lead to outsourcing and a rise in unemployment. How can you say it doesn't work when initiated in the Reagan administration, Reagan started with a 10.2% unemployment rate when he took office. After his administration, the unemployment rate was at a 50 year low at 4.9%. This is the greatest change in the unemployment rate of any Presidency. How can you not see the damn facts!

How can it not work? Hoarding? How do you hoard anything nowadays? Where does it go? Put it in a bank? Stocks? Real Estate? Vacations? Trinkets? Toys? Boats? Cars? That's not hoarding. Those are all economic activities in industries that employ workers from high level executives to minimum wage janitors? Didn't the money in motion start at the top with the purchase of a good or service and trickle down to all the workers, managers, subcontractors, and ancillary services required and get all the way from these peoples pockets to fund their purchases and buy their lunches, pay their mortgages, and fund their expenses? And then go on to the pockets of those who's goods or services were purchased by that group?

I think I have seen the opposite of hoarding, over extension, to a much higher degree than any other economic activity lately. Living within one's means and saving or investing are responsible activities that needs to be part of everyone's plan regardless of how meager an amount is set aside. As uncertainty and risk is removed from one's future, additional economic activity will occur.

When Applied to Other Sectors of the Economy There is a lot of talk about the impact of infrastructure such as pipelines to the economy. From my perspective, these types of projects do have a trickle down effect into the economies where they operate - from the design phase through the construction and ultimately the transportation or end phase. These multi-billion dollar projects must hire people and buy goods and services from both the national and local economies - the pipe, the contractors, the motels, the coffee shops all along the route benefit economically from such projects. Once the pipeline has been built and is transporting oil or natural gas, communities along the route continue to benefit through taxes and payments for right-of-way's etc. All of which are paid for from the tolls charge to transport the petroleum products. While not driven from a reduction in taxes where the tax savings is expected to spur economic activity, these benefits are realized through payments made by the pipeline companies who "tax" the oil producers through tolls to ship their oil - QED :)

http://www.debate.org/opinions/does-trickle-down-economics-work