Ace, I think you're playing a shell game.
For starters, when looking at the Bush years and whether his tax cuts saw wealth trickle down, you want to consider the small set of people who had university-aged children who actually earned a scholarship and actually attend a university. And you want to consider medical benefits. What does that have to do with tax cuts?
While it's good to have the increases in these things covered, let's not forget that the CPI increased over the same period at a reasonable rate compared to a desired 2% inflationary rate. Regardless, if your wages are flat and the CPI is creeping upwards, you should realize that the two are connected. During the Bush tax cuts, the average American did not likely see a substantial increase in living standards.
Under Bush, only a small minority of well-educated saw real income increases. Under the same period, the poverty rate jumped about 2 percentage points.
Explain to me again how is the wealth trickling down? I don't get it, nor see it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Government sets the poverty rate. Even peole in "poverty" in this nation live well relative to what some consider real poverty in other parts of the world. Everyone has access to food, water, shelter (children, elderly, disabled), education, clothing, medical care. I think technically, I was in "poverty" in 2009 and 2010 based on my income given business conditions - I lost money. But, I don't think I am in poverty.
|
Okay, draw less than $20,000 from your business or any other assets year over year. Now on top of that if your spouse or any children don't earn anything at all, and this continues indefinitely, would you then consider yourself in poverty? Would you be comfortable taking care of your wife and child with an income below $20,000 year to year? Would you feel stable? Secure? Well, under Bush, an increasing number of people were in that position. Where is the wealth that was supposed to trickle down?
Quote:
|
No. There are people who have what it takes to create real wealth, and there are many more who do not. There is sort of a symbiotic relationship between the two. People who can change the world through innovation, often get filthy rich, but they support real living standard improvements for the rest of us. If we just look at human history we see so many examples, I don't understand how people say "trickle down" is not real. Perhaps there is one of those semantic issues blocking an understand - I clearly see what I see and can not understand why others can not.
|
I think it's either a semantic issue, the little shell game you're playing, or possibly your metaphysical approach to economics. I don't doubt that a select set of the filthy rich had a hand in increasing the quality of life for many, but they are not gods; they had a lot of human help. It's the help that is the concern. Those who are getting filthy rich through companies like McDonald's and Walmart are still responsible for the transient McJobs that don't pay livable wages. But where would the wealth be if it weren't for them and for the Asian workers who make the Happy Meal toys and many of the wonderful products that Walmart stocks on their shelves? Thanks to these business models, it's assumed that these workers aren't working for any level of comfort or even permanently. I'm not even sure it's assumed they're working to support a family, when many of them are. And this is just two examples.
Is the wealth trickling down to them? Have their lives improved under the Bush tax cuts? Why are the poverty rates increasing?
When you're talking about trickle-down economics, you're actually talking about technology, and it's often the case that government has to invest in it in order for the poor to gain access to it. It's not like the rich got rich by giving things away. And again, wealth doesn't come from nowhere. The rich don't create wealth, they corral it.