Spot on. Our taxation policies favour rich and disadvantage the poor.
I agree. Especially no tax to asset appreciation and no inheritance tax
Spot on. Our taxation policies favour rich and disadvantage the poor.
What is wrong with favoring the rich? Any system which favors the losers of society is destined to fail.
Imagine what would happen to the Olympic games if the fastest man in the world was forced to run the 100 metres sprint with his legs tied together. Who'd bother to watch? The sponsors would disappear, the audience would evaporate and the whole Olympic movement would go up in smoke.
It is not a zero sum game. Wealth generates more wealth because the generation of wealth requires talented individuals to be join the team and they get a slice of the pie too.
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
Of course it works.
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 richinvestors, executives, corporations and the likewould 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 Reagans presidency, during which he cut tax rates for the rich.
But the IMF studys 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 quintiles 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 Pikettys 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 studys 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.
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
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.
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.
He is trolling for higher traffic lar
Why should the rich be punished for being successful? That's what Western societies have been doing and that is why the Western democracies are all going downhill.
Singapore has its priorities right. It punishes the lazy peasants and rewards the enterprising for their achievements.
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.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.
This is what happens when a society panders to the needs and of the lazy and the useless.