Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich: debunking trickle-down economics

It's always interesting to be presented with the bubble you are in. I was under the impression that nobody seriously believed in trickle-down economics anymore.

Even if it would work, what trickes down are the whims of the rich: I want a yacht, I want a leather bag, I want diamonds on my car and so on. So a lot of people will have unfulfilling jobs. They are esentially slaves (again). This is in contrast to working on future shaping projects, like a bridge, a new type of airplane and so on. When was the last time a billionare wanted a bridge?

The problem with debunking trickle-down is that the vast majority of people who still buy it also discredit economic professors and their research.<p>It’s not a problem of knowledge; it’s a problem of belief.

“Trickle down” economics is an intentionally misleading metaphor. Water trickles down (but not up) because of gravity. Money, on the other hand, circulates. When working class people buy gas at the pump, it benefits the likes of ExxonMobil. When they buy groceries, it benefits the likes of Cargill and ADM. A rising tide on the _demand_ side also raises all boats. Same logic. Trickle down economics makes no more sense than trickle up economics. Each one prioritizes one demographic over the other. I think a more holistic view is what is needed.

Giving your money to the government doesn&#x27;t magically help the poor either. With rampant waste and managerial arrogance in the public sector, we should be calling for sweeping reform that spends what tax is there for more efficiently and disincentivises waste and unnecessary spending.

If anything this has gotten even uglier as cumulative productivity gains have utterly shattered any legitimate scarcity or want.<p>Scarcity is scarce, we make it so that some people can be better.<p>“In the sunset of dissolution, everything is illuminated by the aura of nostalgia, even the guillotine.”

Tax according to the diminishing marginal utility of money and progressive taxation becomes obvious. Don&#x27;t listen to people who want to undermine it. If the rich want tax cuts and the budget permits it, couple it to tax cuts for everyone.

I don&#x27;t think people voted for Trump because he promised tax cuts for the rich. I think it was the other stuff like building a wall and appointing anti abortion judges to the Supreme Court.<p>I hope no one other than a strange fringe minority believes in trickle down. I haven&#x27;t seen it argued often. I think most people agree that tax schemes favoring the rich are unfair

I guess I&#x27;ll ruin the bandwagon.<p>Everyone here believes in trickle-down economics to the extent that they agree with the statement, &#x27;mass starvation is bad,&#x27; or to the degree that they believe in benefits from specialization of labor or the economic vibrancy of cities.<p>I would expect, in this &#x27;debunking&#x27; paper, to find conclusions based on short timelines (certainly less than one generation) and no compelling analysis of taxes paid beyond income and payroll taxes, meaning that the overall taxes paid are not dealt with. It&#x27;s doubtful that the data explains regional variations.<p>In reality, upon skimming the paper, the authors make the unstated assumption that income inequality has a static equilibrium. Much like psychology papers, where most conclusions should be appended with, &quot;... for social science undergrad students in Western universities,&quot; this one should be given the caveat, &quot;..in rich Western countries that have below-replacement fertility.&quot; The longest horizon of analysis is 5 years.<p>This paper attempts something unachievable, fails, and then proclaims success.