972
Shit I didn’t need an economist to tell me that.
It's almost like every word a conservative (and neoliberal) says is deception or manipulation.
This cannot be solved peacefully.
Economists have written the same article for years.
This is like that Onion school shooting article that just changes the location except they count how many years it's been since Reagan
Well, not the same article. They have to find/replace the name every couple years. Horse and sparrow, supply side, trickle down, ...
Because the plan all along is generational theft.
I have two words: Fuck Reagan.
Reagan, both Bush's, Clinton, Obama, Trump, and even to some extent Carter. It's been a long dirty project. President Biden is the first to even start the project of reversing the wealth transfer, though it's worth mentioning that Senator Biden was as bad as any president on this score.
Shocked. I am shocked to the core.
XKCD: Todays 10000 is just as relevant for this topic as it is for mentos and diet pop.
we should not stop bringing this up until it isnt relevant anymore. Which isnt going to be in my life time, likely, so you people everywhere who are either just reaching a point in your life where this IS news to you, or you have people in your circles that havent got the message yet, this seems like a good report to reference.
It's not enough to know or believe a thing.
It's being able to get that info the heads of people who don't know or haven't accepted it yet, by hook or crook, that we must be diligent for and this article, helps us do that.
Don't be only be bitter and cynical, if you are, also be part of the needed majority of people who will champion the bed to take down this flawed policy. Even if you only carry the torch to pass on to those that come after us.
It's s fight with fighting. Spread the knowledge don't make people feel bad for not already knowing this or believing it. Maybe this is the straw that breaks the supply side camels back
That just sounds like regular corruption ?
with extra steps
Is this going to be like UBI studies, where the news pretends every one of hundreds of studies is the one that is breaking this news for the first time? My economics professor was taking the piss out of supply side economics over a decade ago.
Endorsement of trickle-down is usually made for the same reason as criticisms of UBI... Conservative voters are ignorant of the concept of elasticity in economics, and their politicians know it.
Some people are either unaware or like being trickled upon. Somehow there still seems to be widespread support for tax cuts to the wealthy. Somehow people seem to remember “tax cut” while either being unaware or not remembering whose taxes were cut. Somehow they already forgot when Warren Buffet made a big deal of his tax rate being lower than his secretary’s and that we should fix that. As recently as this summer I found someone surprised that the Trump tax “cuts” increased my taxes
"Trickle-Upon Economics" really does capture the vibe and the reality of the experience.
The goldfish memory of news organizations doesn't help. If they reported this accurately it would be, "Another Study Confirms Trickle Down Doesn't Work"
No. It doesn't seem to me that the article pretends this one study is breaking any news for the first time. It cites other studies and individuals that have expressed the same idea for a long time. Possibly this is the first rigorous study of the 50 years from 1965 to 2015, I dunno.
This is what's before the fold. Combined with the headline, most people are not going to come away with the sense that this is a long known thing.
Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will "trickle down" and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.
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.
When it does get into it below the fold it talks about the pandemic. When it could talk about how we've known this for literal decades. (I love the second one. It's six years after Reagan is elected and written by a pro-trickle down economist whose having to move the goal posts to keep defending it.)
How about now?
I am Jacks complete and utter disbelief. I lead him to depression, and he dies of malnutrition and liver failure.
Yeah, no shit. Something anyone remotely educated on the topic has known since the policies went into place. The problem isn't that the information wasn't there, it's that no one with enough power to benefit from it is willing to do anything about it.
What do you mean, corporations that have a legal obligation to maximize value for shareholders weren't passing money on to consumers out of the goodness of their hearts? Nobody could have seen that coming! /S
😲
I will never get why it is the most well off of us that they give the tax cuts too. I mean, other than bribery of course. Even if it did work, how long were they supposed to wait? "I know little Timmy needs braces, and you can't afford to feed them them, but just wait a little longer! Musk is almost done with dicking around with the election. I'm sure it'll trickle down then!"
Also: water is wet
This, and other thought provoking commentary in this month's upcoming edition of "DUH!!!".
I remember Ross Perot talking about the lack of trickle-down back in the 90s, but he was old, had funny big ears, showed a lot of confusing charts and was a billionaire, so why listen to him.
Quells surprise
"Trickle down economics"
They're literally saying, "we're pissing on you."
How about we try some trickle up economics for a while? That's where you give money to people who actually need it, and let businesses compete for them as customers, and the revenue will trickle up to successful companies.
Might as well, right?
The biggest criticism is hilarious. They say poor people don't use the money responsibly. It just passes right through their hands. They neglect to mention that's because they're buying needed goods and services and that money trickles up far more reliably than money trickles down.
It just passes right through their hands
Plus a general illiteracy for economics where that should be the goal because the economy grows with money spent, not money saved
My personal theory is they're also trying to normalize the money not moving into the economy.
It's almost like you can have a monetary system and trade without all the crony klepto bullshit of the current system.
load more comments
(2 replies)
They spent those 50 years convincing half the voting population that evidence doesn’t matter, unfortunately.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Saw this earlier today, just saying.
Wealth isn't held, or taxed, in income. Taxes on the wealthy are dodged or gamed away. Cut them or raise them, the actual wealth won't be targeted through income.
Looks great but it always comes down to the details. The Trump tax “cuts” were a spiteful attack on high tax, high cost of living “liberal” states by capping the deduction for state and local taxes. Yay double taxation. Yay higher taxes because a different part of government takes more. Yay using government regulation out of spite
load more comments
(3 replies)
Oh no ... it did work ... it worked spectacularly ... for the top wealthiest people in the world
They figured out that they could cut the amount of taxes they had to pay, collect even more wealth for themselves and convince everyone around them and all the poor people out there like you and me that it was all perfectly acceptable, and sensible and that we should all keep electing government officials to keep that system going while we all paid for it. The wealthiest figured out how they could keep their money and make us all pay for it. And they did it for 50 years. And they're still doing it.
I think it worked fantastic ..... for them.
load more comments
(4 replies)
And they used that money as a cudgel to make political bribery perfectly legal in Citizens United, as if it wasn't already rampant. They own this fucking place above board now.
We get a vote on how to, or if we even should address the social issue symptoms of our oligarch class rigging the economic game, ie who to blame or what to spend on the ever dwindling crumbs left for the Commons.
We don't get a vote on the economy itself, that's above our paygrade. From Pelosi to McConnell, "herp derp the free market we're bribed to rig for capital is working just fine... For our portfolios! 🤣"
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
972 points (99.4% liked)
politics
19100 readers
5414 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS