Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

MadBunny



    Posts: 3625
  • Darwins +124/-0

Trickle down is the theory, what is the actual bill or policy or law or whatever that kicked in the theory back in the 70's? What was the piece of legislation voted on to bring about this change and what was in place before it?

I found a wiki article describing the theory but am not having much luck in getting specifics.

What you want to look into is Supply Side Economics and the Laffer Curve. 

Reaganomics.  Note the follow up links below for related topics such as stagflation and supply side.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reaganomics.asp

The so called Laffer Curve
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp

Here is a pretty good article on Supply Side Economics.  It's reasonably unbiased.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/05/011805.asp


Just also realized...don't know if this makes a difference but from 1947 up till 1979 in that chart is called the great prosperity. Everything is on the up and up. If my memory serves me...the "rich" were taxed at something close to 80 or 90% following the great depression and the war. Apparently the graph shows that allowing the "rich" people to keep more of their money hurts everybody else. I don't understand (in a broad sense) how that can be true.

Going back to one of my 4 points

3. We should be able to keep the fruits of our labor.


Is it keeping the fruits of your labor if the corporation that employs you keeps virtually all of the income your production creates?  Take a worker at McD.  They create XX dollars of income, yet they receive effectively the  minimum legal wage.  McD keeps the rest and pockets it.  As a result the rest of us wind up paying for low wage subsidies to the workers who can't live on what they make.  We pay this through taxes, taxes that we pay but McD doesn't.  Keeping the fruits of our labor would imply that the workers at McD earn a wage more in sync with their level of productivity.  The argument on the part of McD is that their profits will go down and they won't be able to hire as many people.  I don't accept that argument.  They will hire whatever number of people they need to get the job done and no more.  If their profits drop... too bad.  There are better things to spend my tax dollars on than CEO salaries.

If you really want to know how much we spend as a nation subsidizing low wages take a look at this.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/publiccosts/fast_food_poverty_wages.pdf





Changed Change Reason Date
Chronos Now I c u already wrote this. Now I look like a copy cat. November 28, 2013, 05:54:08 PM