21–30 of 209 posts
I mean I'm perfectly fine with people who work hard making a lot of money. But that changes once that money is used against me. From that moment on I want to be compensated for damages, and the best way to do it is through taxes.
PS And you wonder why Mississippi is richer than the UK.
PPS The Laffer curve is real, has a mountain of evidence and disproves this paper.
In other news, the pope is catholic
The thing I don't like about this is that it treats trickle-down economics as if it's something that needs to be debunked. Trickle-down economics has never been a real economic policy, and never been seriously advocated by federal policy-makers. It is an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics. The policies of supply-side economics, however, are much more defensible, but it seems peopl…
You're right, it's not one lie, it's a pack of lies, trotted out every time congress needs to justify another capital gains tax cut or rationalize why the next tax hike needs to target work not wealth.
I think it’s been decades by now.
The thing I don't like about this is that it treats trickle-down economics as if it's something that needs to be debunked. Trickle-down economics has never been a real economic policy, and never been seriously advocated by federal policy-makers. It is an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics. The policies of supply-side economics, however, are much more defensible, but it seems peopl…
I mean, when I googled supply-side economics it said it was another name for trickle-down economics. I'm interested in how you'd say they differ, honestly, not trying to be argumentative. I found at least found one analysis (by a left leaning think tank, so take it for what you will) https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-failure-of-supp... that seems to show that supply-side economics hasn't panned out. It see…
Much of Reagan’s trickle down stuff was based on the idea that we were on the wrong side of the peak.
Also just because someone benefits, that doesn't mean that other people have to suffer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, it's not one lie, it's a pack of lies, trotted out every time congress needs to justify another capital gains tax cut or rationalize why the next tax hike needs to target work not wealth.
It's much more than a set of lies, it's an entire cultural phenomenon 100% USA made. Unlike many of our worst ideas, I'm actually surprised this one didn't become more popular around the world.
I suspect that were I to learn about the industrial revolution I would find that the US Robber Barons didn't invent their talking points either and that they simply took British Industrialist talking points and, err, gave them 3 minutes on the stove.
The thing I don't like about this is that it treats trickle-down economics as if it's something that needs to be debunked. Trickle-down economics has never been a real economic policy, and never been seriously advocated by federal policy-makers. It is an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics. The policies of supply-side economics, however, are much more defensible, but it seems peopl…
Most of the nation (and world) never took any economics. This stuff is all magic or religion or whatever to them. Ronnie Raygun is as good as a saint to much of the US.
Giving tax cuts to public companies allows anyone to invest in them and benefit from that. Also just because someone benefits, that doesn't mean that other people have to suffer.
If basic needs aren’t being sufficiently eased, there’s no money left to invest.
The scientists who worked for the cigarette companies couldn't find a link to cancer. Economists who work in academia can't find working economic policies for the same reason. Private sector economists on the other hand...actually place bets and get rewarded or punished for being wrong. Not shockingly, they have very different opinions from the academic economists. PS And you wonder why Mississippi is richer than the…