Once again, Ill be doing the Arguments and then My view.
Supply-Side Economics (SSE): If we give Money to the rich, they will ut it back into the economy, and then it will trickle down to the poor.
me (me): Umm... How dsoes that work?
SSE: The rich spend the money on the things that the poor make, then the money goes to the poor.
Me: Ahhh... If Only it worked that way. But it doesnt. THe reality is, the rich people are high-up, or the owners of big companies. The rich dont get their money from the government, without the government, they would STILL be rich. They will put their money BACK into their company. For example: My parents work for P&G. P&G is a VERY large company, and my parents are fairly high-up. When they can buy something P&G makes, they will. This money does NOT go to the factory worker in China who makes the Swiffer, It goes to My parents, and the other People at their level and higher in the comapny. The factory worker gets Very little Money. (My parents are NOT evil, they give a TON of 4 to charity, they ARE NOT the ultra-rich that I may discuss later.)
By giving money to the rich, you dont help the Poor. You help the rich (this kinda makes sense doesnt it?)
SSE: But it wrks!
me: no it doesnt. Now let me introduve a plan that WILL help the poor AND the rich.
UPSIDE-DOWN SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS
Here's How it works:
You give 4 to the poor (kinda like welfare, but more of a tax-break). THe poor dont have that muh money, so they will usually not invest, they spend it. Where do they buy from? THE BIG COMPANIES. Who owns the big companies (or works High-up in them)? THE RICH. Now lets put this all toghether. Here is my diagram of where the money goes to:
$from the poor -> goes to buy food, Clothes etc. -> bought from BIG company -> $goes to the rich
This WOULD actually WORK. The poor get the money they need, and then it goes to the rich!
You help the poor, and its harder to follow! BOTH sides are supported by big companies ( I am of the brainwashed opinion that the Democratic paty is less so, but I know thats not true) All laws are made with the rich/Big companies in mind. therefore, when the legislators make a law, it favors the rich + powrful.
My view is it DOESNT work @ all, so drop it. Want proof? Regan employd it, and as Soon as Bush I got into office, he dropped it. If the republicans (who created it) dont like it, Dont DO IT!
toodles
Motor.On
p.s. 85 omments and counting!!
You give 4 to the poor (kinda like welfare, but more of a tax-break). THe poor dont have that muh money, so they will usually not invest, they spend it. Where do they buy from? THE BIG COMPANIES. Who owns the big companies (or works High-up in them)? THE RICH. Now lets put this all toghether. Here is my diagram of where the money goes to:
$from the poor -> goes to buy food, Clothes etc. -> bought from BIG company -> $goes to the rich
This WOULD actually WORK. The poor get the money they need, and then it goes to the rich!
You help the poor, and its harder to follow! BOTH sides are supported by big companies ( I am of the brainwashed opinion that the Democratic paty is less so, but I know thats not true) All laws are made with the rich/Big companies in mind. therefore, when the legislators make a law, it favors the rich + powrful.
My view is it DOESNT work @ all, so drop it. Want proof? Regan employd it, and as Soon as Bush I got into office, he dropped it. If the republicans (who created it) dont like it, Dont DO IT!
toodles
Motor.On
p.s. 85 omments and counting!!
16 comments:
That's all fine on paper, but it breaks down in one spot: where do you get the money to give to the poor? Even if it's lowering taxes, then you have to raise somebody's taxes to make up for it.
Ok, Wikipedia has an article on Supply-Side Economics. The basic theory is that money which is given to the rich filters down to the poor because rich people buy stuff from poor people. Alan is saying that it doesn't work. I have yet to see a study on the matter.
A multitude of things are wrong with alan's biased opinion. First off, if you give money to the poor, they spend it on a lot of unnecessary items (ie cell phones). Even if they do use it to buy food, or clothing, they end up in debt. We still ultimately have to provide more and more money for them.
Also, you're forgetting that companies are not only made up of rich executives. For every executive, there are tons of workers. The workers get paid by *OMG* THE PROFIT OF THE COMPANY!!! HOLY CRAP , that's profound, isn't it? So, when the big companies make money, the workers make money. Without the company, the worker would make no money, and without the worker working hard, the company would either make no money or fire him/her.
All that aside, I don't want to give money to anybody. I don't mind charity, and I'm glad to give to those in need. What I don't like is people who just freeload off of the blind generosity of the democrats. The democrats are generous with my money, and it's absolutely not fair. If I work my ass off as a doctor, I should get to keep what I make. If I laze my way through life and flip burgers, I should also get to keep what I make. I'd rather be self-sufficient than free-load off of the people who actually earn their money.
Eric- Raise the taxes of the rich (which bush lowered, so its more of returnng the taxes to normal. Or give them More taxes, they can afford it)
Scott-The cell phone cmpanies are rich as well. Also, my nanny is no too well off, and She wouldmuch rather buy ffo and clothes than a cell phone or other "unnecessary items" Eeryone wants to SURVIVE. Even IF it menas they dont have a phone.
Charities GIVE MONEY TO PPL too! the PPl who would get money fromGovernment Programs ARENT freeloaders. They dont get all that much money! they still have to WORK.
If you are a doctor in the ultra-rich that I am talking about, YOU wouldnt NEED the Money that the Gov't would take to pay for it.
The profit of the company DOES go to the workers, but they dont get paid very much. Im not talking about the person who makes $60,000 a year, im talking about the worker who works at three jos, and makes $15,000 a year. just getting them up t the poverty line working @ ONE job wold be a HUGE improvement.
Some conservatives talk about PPL who have tricked welfare into giving them a huge amount of money. Its NOT TRUE. They tell you about a welfare queen who collected welfare 15 times, but It ISNT TRuE. The easiest way to sole it? Raise the minimum wage. Why?
1. No need for three jobs (better working workers!)
2. No need for Welfare!
3. Easier for US to buy a car! ( you gotta have three points, I know the third is weak!)
PPL Can't freeload off the minimum wage. It's not NEARLY enough to live off of.
K, maybe Upside-Down Supply-Side Economics doesnt work. But neither does Supply-Side economics!
While I don't really have a solid opinion on supply-side economics (I'd have to read more BusinessWeek or talk to my dad sometime), I do have a moral problem with giving to the rich. While I think its true that many wealthy people in America got there through hard work, I don't think its necessary to give them MORE money, and they should certainly be taxed at a higher percent than poorer people, because they have more money to spare. I'm not saying that rich people should be taxed into the ground, but I believe they can afford to pay a little more than poverty-line workers.
I believe that if the government is going to 'give' money to anyone, it should be the people who are in the lowest income bracket. While some might be lazy and decide to spend whatever measly amount the government gives them on unneeded items, I think the majority would put the money to good use. This especially applies to highly disadvantaged workers, such as single parents trying to care for children. In a wealthy society like America, children should NEVER have to suffer from decisions (bad or good) made by their parents. Working parents who need a little more to keep their kids in day-care, or provide for their health, should get whatever they need from the government, and more. I read in a book called Savage Inequalities (about schools in low-income places), that millions of American families (I can't remember exact numbers) don't know where they'll get their next meal, and in a place like the U.S., I don't think this should ever happen.
-mrtoodles
On a lighter note, there is a really, REALLY funny political cartoon about supply side economics in Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them, called "Supply Side Jesus." If you haven't seen it, you should, it's hilarious.
-mrtoodles
I definitely agree more money shouldn't be given to the rich. However, even a flat rate tax all across the board would be fairer than what is going on now. The rich would still pay much more than the low class workers. I don't really think the government should give money to anybody. It is true that children should never have to pay for their parents decisions, but I think it's an evil that is very hard to avoid. One good alternative is 241-KIDS, who can investigate to see if the children are deprived. I don't think it is in any way "fair" to take from the rich and give to the poor. Demographically, there are more and more people who end up in the low income bracket purely through laziness. I agree, there are a number of people down there because they have it hard, but I think that at least half of the people in the lower income bracket are there because they aren't working as hard as the people in brackets above them. This is probably the only real difference in our opinions.
The Reason that most of the PPL in the low brackets who are there is because of the "poverty circle" Once you get into the low-income bracket, Its REALLy hard to get out. The main reason is education. Without a good education, you re kinda screwed, you cant get OUT of poverty. One of the best things for the poor would be better eduation, it may not particularly help the parents, but the childre would have a fair chance at life in a higher-bracket.
A flat-tax would NOT be good. For one, th gov't would be near broke. They get most of their $$$ from the rich anyway. the rich HAVE the $$$ to spare, so they can give moe of it away.
The rich would pay more with a flat rate. 20% of 100,000 is a lot more than 20% of 10,000. With tax brackets, the rich pay more of their total amount of money. Also, raising taxes on the rich is like punishing them for having money. That's like Theisen saying that if your midterm is over 85%, you have to do the Advanced or Expert topics (on the article review). So those who don't do any work have to do less work to get money. That is the REAL circle of poverty.
eric or we can just take away the GIANT tax cuts the rich (a.k.a. EVERYONE who lives in Indian Hill) get... cuz they get an ess load! Anyways the poor HAVE to spend the money cuz they dont have any more... the rich can just put it in a bank and not really addect the economy...
scott, no offense... but u think waaaaaaaaaaay too many people are stupid... well most people are but u give em alittle less credit
my parents both grew up poor and sometimes when my dad would go home to visit his parents he would have to coast down hills in his car cuz he didn't have enough money for gas... he used all his shit wisely and still had to do that (his car was a '67 chevy piece of crap)... so sometimes people really use their money wisely and still have tough times
Theisen did that to help ppls grades.
First off, it's not up to the government to decide what I need to live. Besides, even if i dont need it, I WANT IT!!! It's not that I don't care, but I should get to decide what I need to live, not some fatass like John Kerry or Bill Clinton, or even George Bush. It's a step in the right direction though.
Point two - Yes, I think most people are stupid. Is there a problem with that? Most people are stupid. There are speeches made in other countries about how stupid americans are. The democrats make these speeches. The guy who made Farenheit 9/11 made the speech I'm referring to.
Point 3 - I understand that even if you use money wisely, you could go through tough times. However, if we look at the history of welfare, people get trapped in this welfare circle. People who get on welfare are more likely to have kids on welfare. It does not help somebody get out of the lower income bracket by giving them money. They look at it as just that much less money that they have to work for. They don't work as hard, and they make less, and use the welfare to boost income to their regular level. Then, they become dependant on welfare. Even if you use your money wisely, I don't think it's the government's job to make sure the rich people don't have "too much" and make sure that the poor people freeload of the rich. The government should just preserve the rights. "Pursuit of happiness!" Rich are allowed to pursue happiness however they want. If they want to keep their money (after a minimum tax) to themselves to make themselves happy, so be it.
Point 4 - It is in no way fair to make rich people pay more than poor people. The tax brackets are completely unfair. It is just like a video game where one guy has a pos computer and another guy is the server and has an awesome computer. The guy with the pos computer can still win, but only by being better. If you tax rich people to death, they're still gonna be rich. Thats because they're good enough to find a way around it. The poor people just suck. Sorry to say, but most of them are poor because they made a choice to be poor.
Scotaro007: I really don't agree with that last statement in your comment, that most poeple are poor because they decided to be.
As I mentioned in a previous comment, the book Savage Inequalities does an excellent job of using the education system to show how American society continually keeps down poorer kids (which, an interesting note, usually turns out to be blacks, Hispanics, and non-Asian minorities) through bad education. I think everyone agrees that education almost literally translates into success in the world. It doesn't matter how good a people person you are - if you don't get the chance to go to college, you'll never be President.
One example that sticks with me that was used in Savage Inequalities was the public school system in the Los Angeles area. I don't remember all of it, but basically, the courts found that low-income schools were so far behind others that they required more property tax money and stuff to go to improve these schools. The people didn't like it, so they passed laws capping property taxes. This meant, that instead of bringing low-income schools up to a standard, the standards were brought down to the low-income schools. The situation for poor students remained the same - and the rich ones switched to private schools (as you can see, I went to a private school when I lived in L.A. for a reason).
When rich people do this, there is no good way for low-income areas to have their children educated enough to break out of poverty. They don't choose to be the lowest level of our society; our society chooses it for them.
Which brings us back to my orininal point: what do we do about it? Taking money from the people who earn it and giving it to the people who didn't is NOT a good solution and is one of the main reasons that Rome fell. They had so much welfare that they couldn't support an army, etc. Then the Christians came along and really effed everything up for them. Oh well, too bad. Let's not repeat their mistakes.
Imporve the Education System. In lower class-public School areas.
Post a Comment