"50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says"

Whelp, it says the same thing other studies have shown during this time period. Think people will learn a lesson, or will we continue to support policies that only benefit the top tier rich? I think it is highly likely we'll see our 1st trillionaire in the coming decade or so but I doubt we'll see that 'Bezos' trickle rain down upon us.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trickle-down/

It works fine be for the ruling elite.

Working as intended.

which is why they did it again for the 2017 tax cuts. can't have the rich get richer by normal means... let's give them more tax cuts just in case. i mean, the rich are the people most in need of extra $$$, right?

at some point this will piss off everyone and wont be done again.

I will never understand how anybody that isn't rich defends this shit voting against your own self interest is the dumbest shit.

In before "but you posted a study, appeal to authority - I win."

Horse and Sparrow failed again. Lets try it again. Soon it must work.

Indeed. But if you try to talk to them about facts they get mad.

Trickle down is a political term made up by democrats, just like assault weapon. It's not an actual theory.

Actually Will Rogers is credited with coining that phrase.

Not surprising at all, given the kind of people that promote this kind of delusion.

You know what has changed in 50 years?

• People work more hours per week
• Things cost more
• Paid less (adjusted for inflation, of course)
• Houses become less affordable
• Education is either worse than it was, more expensive than it was, or both.
• Employer rights outweigh employee rights
• Small business ownership and employment is shrinking, being replaced with corporate businesses and employment.

...the minimum wage in the United States has gone up 353% since 1970, and average incomes have gone up approximately 500%. In that same span, however, the cost of basic household goods has gone up 482%, the cost of a four year education has gone up 994%, and the cost of an average home has gone up 917%.

In other words, in the eyes of an average worker from 1970 compered to today, the prices at the grocery store have remained largely unchanged, but the cost of an education has roughly doubled (and it’s now required if you want to earn significant money, where it wasn’t in 1970) and the cost of a home has roughly doubled as well.

Link

We have less buying power, and things cost more. Except food, apparently, but hey "give them bread", right?

In order to get a good-paying job you need an education, BUT that education will keep you in debt well into your 50's even after you got that good-paying job.

Inequality in the US has increased dramatically over time. During the 80s, we can see that the living standards of the poorest half fell while they increased for the richest. Throughout the 90s there was a sustained period of improvement at all levels of society, but without any real reduction in inequality. From the year 2000 onwards we observe a period of stagnation for the lower income groups accompanied by increased inequality as the richest capture most of the gains from growth. In 2013, approximately 60% of the population were better off in than the year 2000.

Link

TL;DR: inequality has always been a problem in the US for decades, but it went bad in the late 2000's and just get's worse and worse every year.

They defend it because they've been sold the American Dream, which is a sham. In other words, they don't want to support taxes on the obscenely wealthy because they have convinced themselves into thinking they will be obscenely wealthy someday.

Fear also plays a role as well; people are told if you tax the rich, they'll take their business to other countries, they will lay off workers, etc.

No, if we haven't learned by now, we won't learn ever. Something catastrophic needs to happen, for better or worse. Either that, or some Christ-like person will come along and say "Free internet for everyone!" or they develop a fuel that is simply too perfect to not use or something like that.

As a joke

About Reaganomics.

It was clearly a policy made to further enrich rich people, not the poor. It was merely sold to the poor.

Will Rogers died in 1935. How would he have known about Reaganomics to make a joke about it?

Is this supposed to be a rebuttal? If so, on what grounds?

Well now you're just arguing semantics rather than the facts and economics. You're going to have to debunk the study that was posted, or I consider you accept and agree with it.

Here is a quick/partial summary,

Governments shouldn’t be worried that raising taxes on the rich will harm their economies when deciding on how to pay for COVID-19. Our new research on 18 advanced economies shows that major tax cuts for the rich over the past 50 years have pushed up inequality but have had no significant effects on economic growth or unemployment.

These findings shed new light on a debate that has long divided policymakers, with one side claiming higher taxes on the rich could raise revenue and reduce inequality, and the other arguing that low taxes on the rich are the best route to wider economic prosperity.

The data suggests that low taxes on the rich bring economies little benefit, and this suggests there is a strong economic case for raising taxes on the rich to help repair public finances following the pandemic.

Thread successfully sidetracked to a purely subjective semantics/nomenclature debate rather than attempting to debunk the study (and several studies that agree with it.) Mostly because it doesn't paint conservatives economics in a good light (but what ever does?)

"Many analysts and policymakers believe that taxes will need to rise in the coming years to ensure the sustainability of public finances. Higher taxes on the rich could help to fund the substantial and potentially long-lasting expansion of government spending and social protection seen during the pandemic. They could also help address health and economic inequalities, which have only been exacerbated by COVID-19 and its economic fallout.

Such tax rises after crises are not unprecedented. Historically, the main drivers of taxes on the rich were wars and economic catastrophes. The COVID-19 crisis might have a similar effect.

Our recent research shows that the economic case for low taxes on the rich is weak. Major tax cuts for the rich since the 1980s have worsened income inequality without boosting economic performance. This might be welcome news for supporters of higher taxes on the rich in the wake of the pandemic."

I'm not sure I understand what he's trying to say. It sounds similar to the following hypothetical:

Pat Robertson: "If you send Pat Robertson money, the holy spirit will heal you of all afflictions!"

Critics: "Studies continually demonstrate that the 'Sending Pat Robertson cash heals you of your ills' theory is incorrect."

Pat Robertson: "That's never been an actual theory."

Critics: "Yeah.... that's kind of the point."

uh, it's an actual theory:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp

People who assume they too will be filthy rich someday, and so don't want to rock the boat. I know that seems bizarre, but I'm convinced there are at least some folks out there who think this way.

@ogvampire: Perhaps his point is that it's proponents prefer to call it other names such as "Supply Side Economics" (or, in the past, Horse and Sparrow Theory).

@zaryia:

Wow. I was just curious how LJ came to the determination that Will Rogers was making a joke about Reaganomics. I made no comment on the efficacy of trickle down economics.

Sorry if I made you upset because you think I am trying to derail the thread. Rest assured, that was not my intent. Just looking for clarification from another poster, not you.

Conservatives ITT talking about anything but the TC's data. I know why, you know why.

Those "rich people" you seem to hate so much spend way more in taxes every year than any of you ever will in a life time, at a higher percentage as well. They already pay for most the "free" crap people receive now. Fantasies about some kind of wealth redistribution carried out by a huge increase in tax percentages at upper brackets isn't going to pay off your college debts you've brought on yourself, and it's not going to make poor people any better off.

So much envy and greed breeding hate and contempt for people you know absolutely nothing about just so you don't have to take responsibility for your own problems in life but blame some faceless group of people for it all.

And those people are more likely to become rich some day, because instead of sitting around, pissing and moaning because someone else, somewhere else has more money than them, they'll actually be trying, and taking the risks necessary to be successful. Just because I am not rich, doesn't mean I have to hate them and want them to be robbed because of some misguided idea that I would somehow benefit from that.

I was expecting you to cite data directly debunking the study instead of this fiction filled opinion-piece, but then I saw the user name and said "oh".

Man no wonder the GOP sucks at the economy.

It only covers the last 50 years, when we have had out of control welfare spending. Supply-side economics worked best before we even called it that. The Coolidge tax cuts in the 20's and Kennedy tax cuts in the 60's worked well for prosperity for everyone.

Now, I'm not denying the rise in income inequality, I deny that it's "tax cuts for the rich" that are behind it. We spend a stupid amount of money on a shoestring safety net where we basically just pay people to stay poor. Increasing taxes isn't going to change that, it will only change where companies choose to do business.

From the article

Trickle-down economics is political, not scientific. Although it is commonly associated with supply-side economics, there is no single comprehensive economic policy identified as trickle-down economics.

So basically, it's correct for modern history, for making policy decisions now. Not last century.

@zaryia: Not only. Remember the 90's growth period you love to drool over? We cut hundreds of billions from Medicare and the military.

Since you are denying it, do you have the numbers for this to refute the claims by the study in the TC?

https://theconversation.com/footing-the-covid-19-bill-economic-case-for-tax-hike-on-wealthy-151945

He has a point in that we could take the alternate route and reduce pre-tax income and wealth inequality by reducing the (pretty staggering) rents built into our system via pre-tax policy decisions. This would entail policy objectives such as reducing monopoly power, reducing monopsony power, and increasing collective bargaining power. This could be done a lot of different ways such as reducing the length of patents and copyrights, implementing sectoral collective bargaining, increasing the minimum wage, and enforcing antitrust measures more effectively, but the right balks at those measures as well.

The increased inequality is the goal. The methods used to get there are largely irrelevant for the party.

@vl4d_l3nin: If you are going to argue in favor of Coolidge era policy, I have some bad news about how that turned out.

As for Kennedy, he cut the top bracket from 90% to 70%, which even I would say was a reasonable thing to do. Right now top bracket is 35%, and I would argue the benefits of cutting this further would be minimal. Not to mention it would exacerbate our already out of control debt.

Still fit Reaganomics which came to be called trickle down so I don't know what you're complaining about.

As usual, you attempt to discuss a topic you have no idea about.

the top 1% make as much money as the bottom 90% COMBINED, but on average they pay LESS percentage-wise in taxes than we do. you see, you're just looking at tax graph (which is mostly based off of W-2 wages) and think this gives you the whole picture. nope.

Despite the fact that different sources of income are taxed at different rates, the rich also take advantage of deductions that reduce their EFFECTIVE tax rate. for an example, look at what Mitt Romney pays percentage-wise in taxes. when he ran against Obama, he showed his tax returns for 2011... his final tax rate on making over $13 million: 14.1%. if you look at the tax bracket, he should have paid 37%... yet he didn't. this is why they pay for those pricey accountants that know how to take advantage of loopholes and tax laws that disproportionately benefit the rich.

us regular folks pay our fair share... the top 1% don't

the term 'trickle down' may be political, but the theory behind it isn't. later in the same article:

"Any policy can be considered “trickle-down” if the following are true: First, a principal mechanism of the policy disproportionately benefits wealthy businesses and individuals in the short run. Second, the policy is designed to boost standards of living for all individuals in the long run."

in the end, you're just arguing semantics.

So we've gotten bogged down in semantics over the term 'trickle' and and arguing about taxing the rich from a moral standpoint now. Figured this would most likely happen.

Not complaining. Just pointing out the obvious.

The obvious that Reaganomics was trickle down which doesn't work...............

I'm not rich either, and don't hate those who are due to jealousy or anything like that. Just recognise the very reasonable point that the top earners should shoulder their fair share of the tax burden relative to the amount of wealth they possess.

Progressive tax is not robbery, and would in fact benefit the vast majority by reducing income inequality. In what way do you feel that you benefit from trickle down economics?

Trickle down economics definitely works. I feel trickled down upon all the time! There's definitely something trickling down all over my face. If I don't think too hard about it I can pretend it's wealth.

The shower/rain is golden coloured dude. Couldn't get that without trickle down economics :P

Because Will Rogers said so, right?

No. I mentioned him to tell you where the phrase originated as opposed to your false statement. Trickle down doesn't work but it's a failed economic policy.

"The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King's College London, examines 18 developed countries — from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn't, and then examined their economic outcomes."

Like...did you even read the Original Post?

@HoolaHoopMan: I thought this was obvious.

In the last recession, Obama used QE to boost the stock market. Stocks are primarily held by the rich. Hence when the rich make losses on their investments the government bails them out. But if a sole trader goes bankrupt, “it’s capitalism baby.”

As Noam Chomsky said, “the US is communist for the rich and capitalism for everyone else.”