Trumped up trickle down or Clintonized?
 

okay folks,
I was hoping to start a discussion on the difference between the GOP and the Dems on tax systems, and what constitutes a healthy economy. After the first presidential debate I was left with a few ideas I had not had before.

If I were Trump, how would I measure an economy as strong. I think it would be when my companies are doing well. When my investments are putting money into my pocket. Please not I said TRUMP, not GOP.

The Dem's, when there are plenty of jobs, low unemployment. When people have money in there pockets and are willing to spend it.

I can see Trumps point of view. If I were in his shoes, I would likely measure it the same way. Same with the Dem's. In a nutshell, it is almost the same perspective - do I have money in my pocket? The question is where you are standing and how that affects your perspectives. Either way a national budget cannot be balanced without a strong economy.

Trickle down economics to me is absurd. What drives jobs in a company is the return on investment, how much better the bottom line gets by having these jobs(employees). If they do not add to the bottom line they are cut. Just because a company gets more money(less taxes) does not mean they will create jobs with them, not hardly.

If the American people are working and at a reasonable rate(pay and unemployment) then they have money in their pocket. If they have money in their pocket they will spend it, consuming goods and services thus putting money into the hands of the companies and creating a demand for the product, and possibly jobs if the demand is high enough.

Either way, I think saying that the economy is directly tied to the amount of taxes people pay, is fundamentally flawed.

thoughts.

Rich people and companies have options more so than before. There are myriad loop holes supported by both parties and there is fierce competition for investment using the tax incentive.
It is not the amount of taxes collected which matters. It is how we use it.

Trickle down is ridiculous because it assumes that if the wealthy have more money, they WILL use it to hire more Americans.............

Unless, of course, they made that fortune operating overseas.

I am not quite sure what this means? "fierce competition for investment", I get this. "Using the tax incentive"? I am clearly out of my league here. Can you educate me on this?

Trickle down is an apt description of supply side economics. Voodoo also works.

It's important to reflect on what makes for that needed strong economy. You are right that demand is the engine that powers everything, but consider the impact of a rich many on demand. No matter how rich, a man can only eat three meals a day and drive one car at a time. Their wealth is often largely invested in real estate and collectable luxury goods, things that contribute little demand for new production. 5 or 10 thousand middle class people will almost certainly create more demand stimulus than one billionaire.

Relocation/location to states and countries with sweeter deals.

But collectively what they (billionaires) do with their money?

As does doo-doo economix.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Self indulgence?
Feed the greed (too much is never enuff)?
Paper assets on Wall Street? Share the gains thru Charity, public works?

If you see tangible resources, including energy, as finite, then the aggregation of "wealth" either indicates an inbalance in distribution of resources, inflation of value, or both. "Creation of wealth" is a fiction, except on Wall Street where fiduciary alchemy is the raison d'etre.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk