Trickle Down has failed almost as many times as Marxism
Fifty years of tax cuts, 18 developed countries, and the only ones who benefit from it are the rich. It never trickled down when Reagan cut taxes, it never trickled down when Bush cut taxes, and it never trickled down when Trump cut taxes. It doesn't drive economic growth or create jobs either. The one statistically significant impact of trickle down is the rich get richer. Why do people keep pushing failed economic policies?
It's like communists trying to argue for a planned economy even though they've failed dozens of times. What will it take to make them understand that bad policy doesn't work
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-yea…
Now the richest 400 Americans in this country pay a lower tax rate then you. Yep.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/0…
Even Republican voters are now sick of trickle down, and admit it failed. I guess that's why the party switched to culture wars and fake populism.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/many-republican-…
I am not a socialist. I believe in capitalism, and I think billionaires should keep most of their wealth. Just less of it than me, and less of it than someone earning a million dollars a year.
Go spam somewhere else. In 2018, the bottom 50% paid 3% of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1% of taxpayers paid more income taxes than the bottom 90%.
You having a different view, does not make it spam. Drumpfy took time out of his day to write this topic with sources. I do not think spam is the right description here. Sure, it is a left wing thing! So what! Both sides should be heard and they will be heard here.
He often posts links to make his posts look good; when you read them, they often don't make his point. For example, if you read through the CBS News article, the article asserts in a roundabout manner that the Covid policies that HE supported have driven income inequality.
The source for the chart is a complete joke. "It also includes the burden of about $250 billion of what Saez and Zucman call “indirect taxes,” such as licenses for motor vehicles and businesses."
Let's include costs for food too - call it a hunger tax. Shocker - poor people spend more as a % of their incomes than billionaires!
Bruh he cites CBS news. If that’s not spam idk what is
This isn't 1950. The middle class foots the bill. Maybe for income tax but you have payroll tax which mostly comes from regular people and is now like 35% of the federal revenue.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics/
Yes but how much wealth do the top 1% of taxpayers own. It's not what they are paying but what they could be.
You're arguing a strawman. "Trickle-down" economics is a pejorative given to supply-side economics and the Laffer curve. Supply-side economics, at its core, simply posits that incentivizing production brings down the cost of goods as production scales up, which spurs demand for goods as the costs fall. What supply-side economics posits is demonstrably true and has been seen with countless products, from electric cars to iPhones.
The Laffer curve puts forth an obvious truth, that raising taxes does not necessarily increase revenue to the government. The curve points out that there are two tax rates that produce zero revenue: 0% and 100%. Somewhere along the curve is the "tax rate" that maximizes revenue.
Anything else you're trying to make Reaganomics into is nothing more than strawmen from the demand-side Left (and, Republican opponents of Reaganomics in the early 1980s).
Member you're giving this buffoon too much credit to think he has even the slightest understanding of any of this when he's trying to compare supply-side econ to Marxism in the first place.
I'm comparing it to Marxism in the sense that
1. Both failed many times
2. Ideologically driven people want to repeat those failures
+1 SB. Whenever anyone uses the terms "trickle down economics", you know the conversation is at a bad starting point because you're using the language of politics not economics.
"Trickle down economics" is just a term used by the Left to smear the economic policies of the Reagan administration, nothing more nothing less. It doesn't actually have any true meaning. If you want to attack an economic theory, name it properly and then go after it.
If you're talking about free-market economics, then just say that and then we can have that debate. Good luck showing that it has failed like communism.
Agree. But...supply-side economics has certain negative implications as it often trends towards oligopoly-like market conditions.
Incentivizing production will bring down costs (economies of scale) which will bring in more sales (lower price, so more customers), leading to more revenue, etc. This means that new entrants are incentivized to provide goods/services at prices that are "as low as possible". In today's investing/VC world, you can run negative cashflow businesses for years and years on the assumption that you will eventually run your competitors out of business (as they will have to drop prices to effectively compete with you, and lose money in doing so). As the valuations of your competitors drop, you can acquire them. In this way, the pool of competition becomes smaller. This may be good for the individual consumer (eg. lower prices), but it allows for a fewer number of companies to have larger amounts of control. Now instead of 100 companies lobbying/competing for things like government policies, human capital, or technology, that number is less than 10. This creates new (in my opinion: bigger) risks to society. Things like collusion, cartel-like behavior, or flat-out price gouging are very possible (extreme example but think about how much power Google has over the internet. Or, why should the cheapest distributor of goods also control hundreds of media outlets/newspapers [Amazon-WaPo]). Additionally, because 10 companies split an industry as opposed to 100, those 10 companies have greater influence over other aspects of life. For example tech companies can push political agendas (left politics, right politics, environmentalism, wokeism, etc.), and because their oligopoly-like status in their industries gives them incredible size, they have considerable influence.
Now I'm not saying to increase taxes on the 0.1% in order to shut down wokeism, but supply-side economics has negative effects to society in general that I don't think get recognized often enough. Anyways, rant over
Are there any examples of products and services (other than those subsidized by gov't, e.g. college tuition, housing) that have become more expensive and of lower quality in the last 40 years? Because all evidence suggests that products and services have decreased in price relative to inflation and increased in quality. That's not simply (or even primarily) because of Reagaonomics, but if your claim is that somehow the last 40 years has led to a consolidation of industries, you're going to have to start getting granular--which industries and how has that hurt products and services and consumers?
The banking industry has consolidated, but that's largely been due to gov't regulation that has made running small banks nearly impossible.
Drumpfy is literally the forum idiot, no need to take anything too seriously from him
People never seem to realize that Trumps approval rating was at the lowest of his term the 2 weeks after passing the tax bill (obviously excluding post January 6th). It’s not popular and has only driven income inequality as the top income brackets continue to move more and more if their wealth from income into assets that are taxed at capital gains rates
I think near 0% interest rates and inflation have a BIT to do with the inflation of assets. I don't think the 2017 TCJA is the key driver in asset inflation. Let's be real.
This is the correct answer.
Lefties claim that the government needs more power to solve the problem the government created.
How convenient…
I can’t understand for the life of me how cutting taxes in each bracket is a somehow a negative for the working class. It takes serious mental gymnastics to explain that.
It’s not necessarily bad. It just widens the gap which exacerbates social issues
It's not bad, it's just wasteful. 1.9 trillion to the debt is not worth it especially when the economy is soaring.
Letting the rich keep more is smart money. Letting the government keep more is dumb money.
Look at what Biden has done to inflation. Big government isn’t the way.
I'm no fan of biden but to blame a complex issue like inflation on him is a bit of a stretch. both parties as well as 3 fed chairmen have been guilty of inflating asset prices, driving rates down to zero, and starting the idea of bailouts for the sake of the s&p500. I think trump is the one who gave the initial covid stimulus, biden simply continued it and hasn't helped matters, but you can't say solely he caused it
I blame greed, bernanke, yellen, and powell (although I really appreciate what they've done to my billable AUM)
Nearly Half Of Democrats Blame Biden’s Policies For Inflation, Poll Suggests
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/11/17/nearly-half-of-…
I totally get where you're coming from, and totally agree. But, unfortunately there's just as many on the other end of the political spectrum still quick to lay blame at Trump's feet even though he's been out of office for almost a year. Same for Biden. Or, god forbid, it was done by some committee that they had no part in or control of that ran off and put some policy in place that added fuel to the situation. Also, let's remember it's just a few of us that actually know the term "Bernanke put" (I wouldn't be shocked if there's monkeys on here young enough to not even know it themselves), let alone where it came from and what it means or why. Or "tempest in a teapot".
I don't blame Biden specifically for the inflation--he's just part of the larger Blue superstructure that has caused it and/or exacerbated it. Shutting down the entire economy, paying people not to work, unemployment offices not enforcing the law and taking people off unemployment who refuse job offers, Blue governors/mayors, etc. instituting vaccine mandates that hurt the supply chain, kowtowing to unions who refuse to work at the ports, left media sending blue areas into a state of neurosis causing garbage economic situations (e.g., NYC has double the unemployment rate of the nation).
If you'll recall, in addition to the 2020 stimulus bills that both parties contributed to, Biden has passed two unnecessary stimulus bills of enormous size. That, plus the Fed pumping money into the system AND overseas supply chain issues and you've got terrible inflation. Biden is not personally responsible for it; it would probably be bad under Trump had he been re-elected. But Biden has not instituted a single policy to make it better.
Afghanistan is the best example. $300 mil a day for 2 decades blown! Mind boggling. And that’s a low estimate. That right there is 100% proof that giving the gov more money is an AWFUL idea. The gov is the absolute worst steward of capital.
"Free market" conservatives are the ones who want to keep blowing money there (Trump now wants to go back to bombing Afghanistan after Biden withdrew).
It's never about spending; oil subsidies, wars, and tax cuts are always fine no matter the cost. But policies that help average people are strictly prohibited.
So [Drumpfy] - what do you think about Biden so far?
<crickets>
Halved child poverty, got infrastructure passed, and got us out of the mess that is Afghanistan. Great job!
people who complain about trickle down economics never mention the real alternative which is higher taxes that never works. I think the reality is everyone's taxes are too high and id trust some rich guy to allocate capital efficiently a lot more than the government.
-this also goes on the assumption that we have truly had a lot of trickle down economics, i disagree even with tax cuts every dollar is still taxed to death often multiple times before its in your pocket and you can actually spend it. I do not see how allowing more money into peoples hands vs government ( the largest corporation) is possibly a bad thing.
Didn't even have to mouse over the title to know Drumpfy wrote this
I'm 95% sure he's being paid by WSO to be the alt left voice this forum desperately does not need
What are the odds Drumpfy's Linkedin title is "Content Creator on WSO" lol
Well, it technically wouldn't be wrong...at least it couldn't say "lauded" or "heralded"?
Yep, I'm alt-left. Which is supposed to be the left wing version of the alt right, a bunch of fascist whackos.
Because I support the tax policies of that famously leftist country known as America up until 2018.
I'm 100% sure he's being paid to post here. He is trying to fill the time before his mail order Russian bride comes over to the states but sadly doesn't realize she's long gone and is getting spit-roasted by multiple dudes as we speak
I don't care about the argument but this is the single dumbest comment I've ever seen. You should be ashamed of that sentence and how much of a fucking loser it demonstrates that you are.
You are a sad loser.
Drumpfy, you are so racist...
I'm not even going to argue frequency of failure, but even if you were right on that, you are a goddamn retard for making this comparison given the disparity in degree of failure. That's a cute effective tax rate graph, but if I were supporting an argument about the failures of marxism, I'd post a picture of thousands of bodies in a pit.
200mm+ dead in the last century - Marxism has clearly been the most destructive idea in the modern world, fucked up that you'd compare it to lower corparate and top marginal tax rates.
I never said they were the same in terms of the scope of their failures, obviously it's not like marxism in that sense. I was referring to the fact that people want to keep repeating the failures of failed economic systems. In addition, they are often driven by ideology as opposed to pragmatism. I don't deny there are some regulations and taxes that we as a country would be better off without, but the conservative approach to any aspect of government is "burn it down and let the free market handle it".
And second of all 200 million is a blatant exaggeration. If you fudge the numbers you look bad, and this is coming from someone who is obviously not a fan of Marxism.
1. I know that you didn't - you just flippantly compared tax cuts to something that killed over 100mm ppl. I could factually say the Holocaust has only happened about as many times as a senile man from DE has been elected POTUS. However, the two don't have anything to do w/ each other and a few naps during global summits and some shit-stained drawers at the Vatican don't merit being mentioned alongside the extermination of 6mm Jews.
2. Between Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Ceausescu, Tito, the Jong-Uns, Ho Chi Minh, et. al, conservative estimates of the death toll are 125-150mm. Being an apologist for a system responsible for deaths in the 9-figures over the last 100 years make you look a lot worse than "fudging the numbers". Also, if a guy who led a certain National Socialist Workers Party is considered a socialist/marxist, the 125-150mm body count ticks up a bit...and only a bit because the Soviet and Chinese commie body count is unmatched since biblical times. Genghis Khan doesn't have shit on them.
You are a heathen who has failed to adhere to the teachings of our lord and savior Supply Side Jesus. Extra taxes for you.
Posting this on a throwaway, but I honestly don't care as who the system affects as long as it puts the most money in my hands, and I bet there are plenty of people here too who also don't really care what happens to billionaires or the working class. Just so happens that sometimes our interests align.
I think it's fine to be selfish, but the most insufferable people are those who claim the policies that would serve their own desires are what's best for everybody.
.
[Drumpfy]
Off topic but what made you decide to try to transition from tech to finance?
I don't think Drumpfy's intension was to have an intellectual debate about taxation and economic growth. As others have pointed out, the title is using pejorative words. There are two main issues here:
1. Is it ethical to reduce taxes for people who are high income earners and who are already wealthy?
My answer here, as I have stated previously, is NO. What noble purpose does it serve? Of course, it does not have to serve a noble purpose...We do not need to give a tax cut to the very low income people because they already get breaks. Middle class people are struggling for so many reasons an now with escalating inflation, it is getting much worse. Inflation has become a very unfortunate tax increase for lots of people
2. The other main issue is whether or not a tax cut drives economic growth. Raising taxes certainly does not drive growth but does lowering them fuel growth? I am sure the answer is "It Depends." From this perspective, I am sure there are very good arguments for and against lowering taxes. Another question to consider is how is the tax cut is structured? Is lowering taxes for high income people more effective for the economy than lowering them for middle class people. I do not have the answer to this question. My main issue with the most recent tax cut was it was done at a time when it was not needed. Implementing expansionary fiscal policy when the economy is performing well does not make much sense and might be contributing to the inflation we have now.
Corporatism and reaganism is slowly destroying this country but it's become a political thing rather so sycophants won't acknowledge it.
The Fed and the government have been feeding money to the rich via stock market manipulation since Greenspan. The middle class should be happy with their $1200 stimulus or whatever it was though. Big win.
The capital gains and tax rates on business interests are a joke. That's how billionaires pay 0% effective taxes.
Meanwhile the middle class gets shitted on from all angles as they are income earners. W2 workers. Their healthcare, housing, and higher education costs continue to skyrocket. The capital class can withstand this due because their value of their assets inflate. Not so for everyone else.
The government then also destroys competition by ignoring anti trust laws, making it prohibitively hard to start a business, providing massive corporations tax breaks on top of a tax code that allows massive corps to avoid taxes altogether. Shit in some cases they just hand these corps money via subsidies. Elon Musk's entire career following Paypal has been about capitalizing on government subsidies.
All this is anti capitalist bullshit but people want to claim capitalism when the idea of government subsidized healthcare is brought up. Most Americans worship at the altar of corporatism not capitalism. They are not capitalists and if they claim they are then they are either liars or have no idea what they're talking about.
Trickle down economics is not a conservative policy, it's a strawman invented by the left.
Conservatives never advocated the government should take poor people's money and give it to the top 1% and let it trickle down. They advocated for LOWER taxes. THE MONEY WAS THEIRS TO BEGIN WITH. Conservatives just said the government should STOP STEALING people's money through taxes. Fighting for lower taxes means fighting for less theft - fighting for higher taxes means you're pro-theft.
Whether or not low-tax policy leads to better outcomes for the average person, I really don't care. Taxation is theft with the threat of imprisonment, and that is immoral. I do believe that lower tax policy is better for society. However, even if it weren't, the end of having a more equitable distribution of wealth does not justify the means of violating a persons' human right to property.
If I stole your wallet and donated it to charity, would that be moral? Absolutely not. Even if it led to higher overall utility, it would still be evil, because it violates your human rights.
Is it illegal for the federal or state governments to assess taxes? I doubt it, so it is not theft.
We should have a military, right? How should we pay for it?
Imagine being this much of a corporatist moron smh.
Marxism doesn't just ''fail''. It starves millions and then rounds up other millions all in the name of equality. It has no comparable economic and social policy that is so catastrophic.
Yes there is, fascism.
Yeah..... everyone remembers the mass starvations in Italy under Mussolini, Spain under Franco, Portugal under Salazar or Germany under Hitler. Except that they didn't happen. Only the last one started rounding up millions and killing them off.
Liberal education. LOL
With all these various systems globally , and so many educated minds thinking about it, one would have thought we would have come up with an optimal taxation system by now, or at least some mutually agreed upon credible empirical studies of the effects of certain taxation policies on an economy.
I get taxing the idle rich who add minimal value, but taxing the fk out of someone as healthy for the country as Musk makes 0 sense to me. He is just going to redeploy his capital/wins into other great businesses anyways which is a win/win. He will allocate far better than gov can too.
What still annoys me is the stimulus money that was printed and handed out for nothing; something both parties are guilty of. Heavy infrastructure investment makes sense to me but not money for nothing...doesn't do much for anyone.
The long term effects of the tourism, airline, and service industries getting wiped out and tons of people getting evicted during the pandemic are much worse than the cost of the stimulus. It's not like 2008 where the banks fucked up, those industries were doing just fine until COVID.
Elon Musk has built an empire based on anti capitalistic government subsidies. He needs to be taxed like everyone else. Imagine using his productivity as an excuse not to tax his personal wealth. He's double deleterious because his companies rely on government money (govt choosing business winners and losers isn't capitalist) then complains when he has to pay taxes, or avoids then altogether. Ridiculous.
Oh and your statement on the stimulus is ridiculous. The stimulus the wealthy have been receiving for decades via stock market manipulation, tax policy, and business subsidies/bailouts dwarves in comparison to that little $1200 the middle class got. The middle class get crumbs and people are up in arms about it. The government and fed have been handing the wealthy money for 4+ decades at this point.
This entire system is made to siphon as much wealth from the middle class to the wealthy as possible. But just enough so the middle class don't go totally bankrupt. Keep them living pay check to pay check. As long as they can afford to service their growing debts and keep the corporate machine going it's all good.
Odio ea ut unde est consequatur. Qui consequatur eos voluptatem velit assumenda. In consequatur doloremque alias delectus ab expedita blanditiis. Eaque hic qui est atque. Quam voluptas incidunt eligendi deleniti quis nulla.
Veniam dolorem ab qui assumenda numquam sed. Fugit error totam suscipit magni ut minima et. Nihil non nostrum maxime consequatur quod omnis nam vero. Veniam neque sed impedit officiis itaque.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Qui eius quod perspiciatis in et. Fuga delectus accusamus maxime commodi ut nesciunt alias culpa. Totam est voluptate dolorem qui. Rerum explicabo asperiores est libero ipsum.
Veritatis inventore quidem ea maiores. Nobis nam dicta placeat deleniti modi magni in.
Autem veniam laboriosam perferendis laborum maiores esse est. Molestias provident quisquam quia. Aperiam perspiciatis voluptas commodi eveniet omnis commodi quisquam tenetur. Ut aut ut laudantium perferendis sequi. Animi doloremque id ut dolorum. Rerum blanditiis eum voluptatum eos sunt. Recusandae unde et ullam id.
Tempora molestiae numquam pariatur enim est ut. Ipsa molestiae ut numquam beatae soluta excepturi sunt beatae. Quo qui alias dolorem sit sit odit sit.
Et illo qui nulla corrupti. Similique deleniti sed sed eum.
Et voluptatem quo voluptatibus quos aliquam corporis. Quia fuga est non aut qui velit. Enim enim magni ab possimus voluptatem reprehenderit non. Non ut cum voluptas est. Quod quia dolor labore ut. Deleniti magnam et et.
Optio nam sed aut temporibus quos. Ut aperiam voluptates architecto soluta accusamus consequatur. Omnis dignissimos consequatur illum. Fuga sapiente omnis et aut.
Corporis et officiis qui possimus quas maiores. Vitae ut ut molestiae voluptatem sequi et. Exercitationem libero repellendus suscipit quasi est provident nisi. Dicta qui aut consequatur inventore enim. Aut aut sunt laborum corporis.
Voluptatem molestiae eum et officiis earum possimus. Eius delectus voluptatibus eos sed. Laborum laudantium id et quaerat et.