McCain's Big Backfire: Majority of Americans Like the Idea of Spreading the Wealth

[dalegg 143]

The rich did not produce the theorized trickle down effect when given their tax breaks, and this is the cause of such economic instability even before the housing bust, so why are we wanting to give them even MORE tax breaks in an even LONGER term? The tax burden is already on the middle and lower class. I have no idea how, furthering it, with lower wages and higher costs, you'd expect them to survive or even spend money either.

Got a question for you... Why do you say that?

Why do you say that the extra money given back to the wealthy had no trickle down affect? Did they just take all of their tax savings and put them into savings accounts and contributed nothing to the economy? How do you know that? Up until very, very recently the economy was actually doing pretty darn good, despite two wars going on. You can argue about the debt...but hold off on that for just a minute since I'm not arguing that. I'm trying to imagine what the economic picture would be like if they didn't have their tax cuts. How much worse off would the automobile industry be for example.

I can understand how you would want middle class persons such as you and I to have more of a tax break than the upper class who don't need it. Nobody is arguing that they need it, but why do you think we have actually suffered because they have had more money to spend? This is the part I'm confused about. When they got their tax breaks, it didn't come at our expense. We also got tax breaks. I get that our dollar is a bit weaker because of our debt, but I would argue that in a further depressed economy caused by this particular group not spending any money there would be even less tax dollars going into the system.

The tax burden is already on the middle and lower class? What in blazes are you talking about?

Edited November 3, 2008 by dalegg

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dale, would you agree that we as a nation would be better off with a large Middle Class where there is less disparity between the highest income earners and the lowest? And if so, how do you envision that happening?

[HAL 9000 96]

An economy that was doing really good? Dale... think about that for a minute now...

[IAMX 3,055]

Why do you say that the extra money given back to the wealthy had no trickle down affect? Did they just take all of their tax savings and put them into savings accounts and contributed nothing to the economy? How do you know that? Up until very, very recently the economy was actually doing pretty darn good, despite two wars going on. You can argue about the debt...but hold off on that for just a minute since I'm not arguing that. I'm trying to imagine what the economic picture would be like if they didn't have their tax cuts. How much worse off would the automobile industry be for example.

Firstly, once again, lowering taxes as a trickle down effect is a short term solution. In the long term, it f*cks the economy, screws up the debt, and places a burden upon the lower and middle class, which is what we see now.

I can understand how you would want middle class persons such as you and I to have more of a tax break than the upper class who don't need it. Nobody is arguing that they need it, but why do you think we have actually suffered because they have had more money to spend? This is the part I'm confused about. When they got their tax breaks, it didn't come at our expense. We also got tax breaks. I get that our dollar is a bit weaker because of our debt, but I would argue that in a further depressed economy caused by this particular group not spending any money there would be even less tax dollars going into the system.

We're mainly talking about our local economy, not the value of the dollar on global markets.

As in, when the tax burden shifts to the lower and middle class, wages go down, and/or local purchasing power is weakened by this group. They don't spend money, because they don't have it, and it also helps fan the fires of problems like the housing crisis.

The tax burden is already on the middle and lower class? What in blazes are you talking about?

Secondly, just as the last paragraph iterated, the tax burden is on the middle class. When wages go down, it's because a tax is being passed down to those in the middle and lower class, meaning the burden comes upon them to compensate the lower wages by spending less, because the taxes being taken out hurt them, further harming the economy. This is the "trickle down effect" (pun intended) of a stagnant economy or one in recession. The way this is mitigated is lowering taxes on the middle and lower class, raising taxes on the upper class (who have the least amount of movement from a tax increase), to give the middle and lower class the ability to make their dollar extend further, thus helping the economy, and also creating more jobs by spreading money around the local markets.

[dalegg 143]

Dale, would you agree that we as a nation would be better off with a large Middle Class where there is less disparity between the highest income earners and the lowest? And if so, how do you envision that happening?

I happen to think we do have a large Middle class. Go on, start throwing your tomatoes, but I've been to other countries where there actually is a large disparity and we don't look nothing like that.

[dalegg 143]

An economy that was doing really good? Dale... think about that for a minute now...

I have thought about this a lot. I've seen you guys posting about the horrible failed economic policies of the Bush Administration for years now and dude, I just don't see it.

You can try all you want to convince me that I am living in a bad economy, but from where I stand things look excellent. Each year is better than the previous. I fully understand that I am supposed to be seeing a bad economy, but Honestly, truly, really... I don't.

Could be here in Orange County, California, I am sheltered from the real world. I will accept that as an answer.

[dalegg 143]

Why do you say that the extra money given back to the wealthy had no trickle down affect? Did they just take all of their tax savings and put them into savings accounts and contributed nothing to the economy? How do you know that? Up until very, very recently the economy was actually doing pretty darn good, despite two wars going on. You can argue about the debt...but hold off on that for just a minute since I'm not arguing that. I'm trying to imagine what the economic picture would be like if they didn't have their tax cuts. How much worse off would the automobile industry be for example.

Firstly, once again, lowering taxes as a trickle down effect is a short term solution. In the long term, it f*cks the economy, screws up the debt, and places a burden upon the lower and middle class, which is what we see now.

I can understand how you would want middle class persons such as you and I to have more of a tax break than the upper class who don't need it. Nobody is arguing that they need it, but why do you think we have actually suffered because they have had more money to spend? This is the part I'm confused about. When they got their tax breaks, it didn't come at our expense. We also got tax breaks. I get that our dollar is a bit weaker because of our debt, but I would argue that in a further depressed economy caused by this particular group not spending any money there would be even less tax dollars going into the system.

We're mainly talking about our local economy, not the value of the dollar on global markets.

As in, when the tax burden shifts to the lower and middle class, wages go down, and/or local purchasing power is weakened by this group. They don't spend money, because they don't have it, and it also helps fan the fires of problems like the housing crisis.

The tax burden is already on the middle and lower class? What in blazes are you talking about?

Secondly, just as the last paragraph iterated, the tax burden is on the middle class. When wages go down, it's because a tax is being passed down to those in the middle and lower class, meaning the burden comes upon them to compensate the lower wages by spending less, because the taxes being taken out hurt them, further harming the economy. This is the "trickle down effect" (pun intended) of a stagnant economy or one in recession. The way this is mitigated is lowering taxes on the middle and lower class, raising taxes on the upper class (who have the least amount of movement from a tax increase), to give the middle and lower class the ability to make their dollar extend further, thus helping the economy, and also creating more jobs by spreading money around the local markets.

Sorry man. I'm just not in agreement with you on this one.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dale, would you agree that we as a nation would be better off with a large Middle Class where there is less disparity between the highest income earners and the lowest? And if so, how do you envision that happening?

I happen to think we do have a large Middle class. Go on, start throwing your tomatoes, but I've been to other countries where there actually is a large disparity and we don't look nothing like that.

Compared to many Third World countries, you're right. Compared to most industrialized nations, we've fallen behind.

[dalegg 143]

Dale, would you agree that we as a nation would be better off with a large Middle Class where there is less disparity between the highest income earners and the lowest? And if so, how do you envision that happening?

I happen to think we do have a large Middle class. Go on, start throwing your tomatoes, but I've been to other countries where there actually is a large disparity and we don't look nothing like that.

Compared to many Third World countries, you're right. Compared to most industrialized nations, we've fallen behind.

Yes, but they are all socialists.

[HAL 9000 96]

Dale, would you agree that we as a nation would be better off with a large Middle Class where there is less disparity between the highest income earners and the lowest? And if so, how do you envision that happening?

I happen to think we do have a large Middle class. Go on, start throwing your tomatoes, but I've been to other countries where there actually is a large disparity and we don't look nothing like that.

There absolutely is one thing the top crust in both scenarios (USA vs those other countries, surely) share- they want to remain top crust and will continue to do so at the expense of everyone else. In the USA the middle class can be argued to exist to keep people more or less satisfied while the upper echelons run the show. How satisfied depends on how you set the bar for satisfaction. As of late, before the latest crisis started- that bar started going up and satisfaction started to look a lot more like survival.

Making our society, under the current system of flow of wealth, one resembling some countries where the middle class is very small.

[dalegg 143]

Dale, would you agree that we as a nation would be better off with a large Middle Class where there is less disparity between the highest income earners and the lowest? And if so, how do you envision that happening?

I happen to think we do have a large Middle class. Go on, start throwing your tomatoes, but I've been to other countries where there actually is a large disparity and we don't look nothing like that.

There absolutely is one thing the top crust in both scenarios (USA vs those other countries, surely) share- they want to remain top crust and will continue to do so at the expense of everyone else. In the USA the middle class can be argued to exist to keep people more or less satisfied while the upper echelons run the show. How satisfied depends on how you set the bar for satisfaction. As of late, before the latest crisis started- that bar started going up and satisfaction started to look a lot more like survival.

Making our society, under the current system of flow of wealth, one resembling some countries where the middle class is very small.

If you say so.

[HAL 9000 96]

Dale, would you agree that we as a nation would be better off with a large Middle Class where there is less disparity between the highest income earners and the lowest? And if so, how do you envision that happening?

I happen to think we do have a large Middle class. Go on, start throwing your tomatoes, but I've been to other countries where there actually is a large disparity and we don't look nothing like that.

There absolutely is one thing the top crust in both scenarios (USA vs those other countries, surely) share- they want to remain top crust and will continue to do so at the expense of everyone else. In the USA the middle class can be argued to exist to keep people more or less satisfied while the upper echelons run the show. How satisfied depends on how you set the bar for satisfaction. As of late, before the latest crisis started- that bar started going up and satisfaction started to look a lot more like survival.

Making our society, under the current system of flow of wealth, one resembling some countries where the middle class is very small.

If you say so.

Rich getting richer. Middle class getting poorer. That's what HAL 9000 sees. Anyone else?

[Peikko 1,575]

I heard a story about ball bearings last night, riveting! Seriously, who knew that some of them are so big and that there is now an 12-18 mth lead time on getting them? Who knew that most of them are going to China to build windmills?

[diadromous mermaid 36]

I find it interesting to no one has mentioned that many of the top eschelon have acquired their "wealth" by placing their funds at risk. The average Joe doesn't.

[KandD 1]

I would have to say that the middle class pays most of the taxes for this country. We middle class people work our AZZes off and get taxed the most. The rich usually get to write most of their taxes off. The poor doesnt have to pay as much tax, so there leaves the middle class holding the vasoline.