I agree. Especially no tax to asset appreciation and no inheritance tax
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Gst going up!
- Thread starter Pinkieslut
- Start date
I agree. Especially no tax to asset appreciation and no inheritance tax
Thats where the Republicans fail. They have the same mindset as you and hope for the trickle down effect which has been proven that it does not work
If only 'trickle down' were true. Even the right-wing IMF has admitted, finally, that the emperor has no clothes on. One of the most enduring myths of our time.
Trickle down economics is wrong, says IMF
Adding another nail to the coffin of Reaganomics, a recent study published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that, contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics, an increase in the income share of the wealthiest people actually leads to a decrease in GDP growth.
“The benefits do not trickle down,” the authors of the study write, directly contradicting the theory that US president Ronald Reagan popularized in the 1980s. Reagan argued that decreasing the tax burden for the rich–investors, executives, corporations and the like–would not only increase their own income but stimulate broad economic growth as they create opportunities for others’ increased prosperity. This belief has been at the center of conservative economic thought in the United States and abroad since Reagan’s presidency, during which he cut tax rates for the rich.
But the IMF study’s five authors say we should instead focus on raising the income of the poor and the middle class. “Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,” they write. “In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades.”
Raising up the poor appears to have a dramatic effect: A 1% increase in the income share of the bottom quintile results in a 0.38% increase in GDP. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the income share of the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth.
The IMF study comes with caveats. The dataset is from a wide range of countries, some with better available data than others. Also, inequality is far more skewed in developing countries than in countries with advanced economies, producing possible outliers. Lastly, the findings about the top quintile’s adverse effect on GDP growth was significant at the 90% confidence interval (a measure the certainty of the statistic), but fell short of the 95% gold standard within social science research.
Income inequality, both globally and in the United States, has recently found its way into the spotlight after the publication of the French economist Thomas Piketty‘s best-selling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century. And in a speech in 2013, President Obama called income inequality “the defining challenge of our time.” Meanwhile, Pope Francis denounced trickle-down economics in a scathing statement, saying the theory “expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.”
A recent bookpublished by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) supports the IMF study’s assertion that inequality suppresses economic growth. Both studies relied heavily on the Gini Coefficient, a measurement of income distribution in which a score of 0 represents a society in which all wealth is shared completely equally and a score of 1 a society in which all the wealth belongs to a single person (currently, the United States has a high Gini Coefficient of .4, falling only behind Chile, Mexico, and Turkey in this measurement of inequality for OECD countries.) The OECD study found that an increase in inequality on the Gini scale of two points corresponded to a 4.7% drop in GDP.
Stefano Scarpetto, the director of the Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs at the OECD, said that the main conclusion of the OECD book, In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All, is that economic growth is most damaged by the effects of inequality on the bottom 40% of incomes.
“[Increased inequality] tends to reduce the potential of the lowest income classes to invest in quality education,” Scarpetta said, adding that the negative effect of increased inequality on growth that the IMF researchers found holds true for the advanced economies of the OECD.
Of course it works. Just look at the number of millionaires and multi millionaires in the Bay Area for proof.
Apple, Google, Intel, Facebook have all created immense wealth that have benefitted all in the vast silicon valley community who have the desire and the work ethic to be part of the action.
Of course there are still hobos on the streets but that's because they've never lifted a finger to help themselves. You can't blame the rich for the plight of those who cop out and refuse to do an honest day's work.
Where have you been? 'Trickle down' has gone the way of the flat earth and geocentric universe! When a fascist institution like the IMF had to swallow humble pie, you know that it'd be easier to revive the dodo than to justify the myth.
The argument's settled: Trickle down economics doesn't work. No one talks about it anymore. But no one wants to change the current paradigm.
Every article has an agenda and this one was obviously written with some target audience in mind.
The reason why I can say with 100% confidence that trickle down effect works is because I personally gained from the presence of the wealthy and the talented.
I wouldn't have been able to retire in my early 40s without trickle down economics.
I'm not alone. I personally witnessed my whole team who jumped on the same bandwagon that I did all do very well for themselves.
Statistics can be juggled to suit any scenario you please. However, nothing can change my personal experience which is certainly not an illusion because I am sitting here with all the material benefits surrounding me as I type.
If trickle down economics is a myth, then I must be hallucinating.
Lol. We were talking about the same thing, although yours were more detailed
'Trickle down' economists today have disappeared into the woodwork, too embarrassed to be seen or heard. And here we have Boss bandying a disgraced theory as if it were a gospel truth. Talk about flat-earthers.
He is trolling for higher traffic lar
The best illustration of the success of trickle down economics is the Singapore success story.
The reason why trickle down economics is receiving hard knocks at the moment is because it suits a political agenda.
It has been held responsible for the widening income gap but that is not what the trickle down effect is all about. It is not a wealth distribution scheme. It is an opportunity generating system.
Actually I'm just conveying my personal experiences.
The wealthy don't just leave their money under their pillows. They put their wealth to work and this is where all the minions can benefit.
Had a wealthy individual not injected a substantial amount into my last venture, I can think of at least 50 people who would now be taxi drivers instead of comfortably well off retirees.
There were a handful who refused to come along for the ride and they are now struggling to make ends meet. You can't blame economics for that. They are the ones who chose not to come on board.
As government getting bigger and implementing more laws and enforcing measures, tax will get higher and higher to pay for all these government loafers.
This article/study by PwC is full of holes. Not least is the fact that PwC is the lead auditor on many GLC and stat boards such a s Temasek. PwC has been asked by the PAP to float up a trial balloon preparing stupid sinkies for more GST to come. The notion that the govt has to increase social spending due to the aging population is full of shit. The PAP has transferred the costs of such increased social spending on to the backs of sinkies through Medishield Life and what not. The fact is that almost half of Singapore's GDP does not stay in the country. The 2 million FTs here pay their income taxes (at a very low rate vis a vis the rest of the world) and then send the balance of their earnings overseas back to their home country. The money earned in singapore by these 2 million is therefore not spend in singapore and is spend in a foreign country, hence benefiting that country's economy and not ours. The lost of the multiplier ripple effect in the singapore economy is drastic. Making matters worse, FTs have replaced many singaporeans in mid and upper management and other professional jobs. These displaced singaporeans become unemployed or under employed earning a fraction of their former salaries. because these singaporeans are earning less, their tax base is also decreased. These people have less salary and hence pay less taxes, and because they earn less they buy less goods and services and hence do not contribute as much to GST. Of course the other corollary to increasing GST to feed supposed increases in social spending is the simple fact that the PAP can cut expenses from other areas. Do we need $13 billion a year in defence budget? For a military threat that is now still undetermined and unknown? Could they not simply cut $3 billion from it and spend it on social uses for elders? Of course they can. It would still leave them with $10 billion for defence, more then any other country in SE Asia.
I think PwC need to consider all these factors before they write shit.
I think PwC need to consider all these factors before they write shit.
Last edited:
Actually the rich don't really pay their share of the Income tax anyway.
I suggest introducing capital gains tax.,maybe 15 %. Presently speculators are not taxed.
Societies where social welfare are available created a more caring society, and the young one more daring to take a risk as they have a safety net.
So their young are now earning big bucks in sports, music and film, entertainment, authors of books, video games, etc.
Countries that have no safety net does not produce such talent
So their young are now earning big bucks in sports, music and film, entertainment, authors of books, video games, etc.
Countries that have no safety net does not produce such talent
Bay area and California as a whole supports democratic candidates except during the bush era. And that could be the reason why they are the most creative in the US.
This is what happened when 70% gave the PAP mandate to do
what they want!!
So stop complaining & Whinge, you ask for it!! quote KJ!!
Why don't you go fuck your mother?
Similar threads
