For Those Who Do Not Believe In Trickle Down...

Depends on where you wish to collect the additional taxation?

 

In my opinion, you may be resorting to a fallacy by insisting that any labels which enable forms of economic discrimination under our form of Capitalism, is merely for political purposes. Those "labels" are not arbitrarily applied by the public sector when engaging in forms of economic discrimination for tax purposes or other social welfare purposes.

 

Unfortunately the general government of the Union still hasn't simply asked for Pareto Optimal solutions for public works projects.

 

If you are going to allocate funds to a different area then you need additional taxation in that area. This implies government must be willing to prioritize spending or increase taxation or use debt. If the choice is increasing taxation, then where this additional taxation comes from may determine wealth redistribution.

The great thing about pink pennies is that you, and me, and government can spend them in any fashion they wish. If you're talking about public good then you are talking about employment with government funding. Now we're right back to the same issue in the paragraph above...

 

Labeling is a detriment to our society!

It's tantamount to stereotyping.

To 'label' every person who earns less than $15K as living in poverty, or that they are poor, etc. is political BS. This statement discounts how people actually choose to manage their lives.

If you wish to discuss the segment of society, who research shows do not receive proper nutrition, and if society gives a crap about people not receiving proper nutrition, then find solutions to improve nutrition. But in this process, skip the part where you feel compelled to label these people...

 

I think the picture tells it all.

 

How can anyone believe in the 'Trickle Down' theory when wealth inequality is so vast?
You're basically asking people to believe in something that is completely detached from reality.

 

If you would have read the OP you would know this thread IS NOT about 'trickle down' theory.

This thread is about pink pennies, when spent energize the economy, because they 'trickle' in every direction including down!

Can you provide some metrics which show how much better or worse the economy is today regarding YOUR 'trickle down' theory? If you can't provide metrics, some data, then you have no idea what you are talking about. If you can provide some data from a reputable source, then let's see it...

 

Do you agree that any form of tax redistribution is a also a form of wealth distribution under our form of federal Government?

 

Why do you believe the general government of the Union is not delegated the power to fix Standards for the Union, if it is clearly and specifically enumerated in our own federal Constitution and supreme law of the land?

 

In my opinion, that is not really the point regarding the concept of supply side economics; since, supply side economics should be supplying us with better Governance at lower prices.

I merely claim that trickle down is merely a less efficacious application of supply side economics since supply side economics should employed at the macroeconomic level of a political-economy so that a rising tide can lift all boats, not merely boats that receive the privilege and immunity of public sector intervention and micromanagement of the tax code in their favor.

 

I agree with you that it is not about a less efficacious employment of "supply side economics". It should be about the general welfare of the United States.

What objection can there be to any public policy choice that conforms to the theory of supply and demand, and assumes full employment of resources in any given market; simply for the better metrics obtained from full employment.

 

Any progressive tax system is a form of wealth redistribution...

 

The government can do anything it wishes with taxpayer money.

The government crosses a line when it believes it needs to control or force policy in free markets...

 

Again, government can do anything it wishes with taxpayer money. But government should not be forcing policy, etc. in the free markets.

If government wishes lower unemployment, then government needs to hire the people using taxpayer money.

Government is crossing a line if they expect or demand the free markets to magically hire more people. This is ignorance and politicis.

When demand increases more people will be hired...it is this simple...

 

Yes, because progressive forms of taxation are subset of taxation in general. Taxation is one socialized, even if not nationalized, form of income redistribution, and therefore, wealth redistribution.

 

I am not sure why you believe that propaganda and rhetoric, since the general government of the Union is clearly and specifically enumerated the power to Regulate (well) forms of Commerce among the several States of the Union.

 

The point is about full employment of resources in any given market, simply for the metrics obtained. An example would be reevaluating the term "natural rate of unemployment" and replacing it with in the term "inefficiency rate" in the market for labor.

Full employment is an assumption and ideal goal in any given market, and especially human capital.

 

The discussion was about creating jobs, unemployment. The government cannot regulate job creation...

 

I disagree 100%.

The economy is a separate entity which really doesn't care who and who is not working.

People, and their behaviors, which includes holding a job, is a voluntary action. The only people who care about employment is the individual who is seeking work.

Therefore, 'full employment' IS NOT a goal of markets. Full productivity in order to meet demand is the goal of markets...

 

I did not know that markets had a goal other than price discovery. I am pretty sure that this is not even a goal so much as a function.

It may be that market activity spurs some market participants to maximize productivity I find it somewhat whimsical to view that as a goal of markets since markets are only an uncaring machine that discovers prices.

Besides all that, if, according to your reasoning the goal of markets is the full productivity of economic assets to meet demand it seems to me that unemployment would point to a distinct failure of the markets in both the meeting of demand and full productivity since unemployment does not meet the demand for income and also leads to a decrease in demand which results in the underutilization of productive resources.

Of course, once production is downsized to meet the lower demand it can be claimed to be fully productive in meeting demand but that is a little disingenuous. Disingenuous because it blithely denies its inability to meet demand in the employment market.

So, it just seems to me that the goal of the markets (if they had a goal at all) would include full employment as a matter of course unless you take the extremely arbitrary position that labor and employment are not economic markets while all else in the economy is.

 

You obviously didn't read my post or if you did you decided to create your own assumptions???

A single business reacts to demand on it's products and services...period! A single business does not give a crap about those who are unemployed. A single business cannot hire another employee until demand on it's products increases and is sustained. Now multiply this single business by all the businesses in the USA and the world...