50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by soared » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:11 PM UTC

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #36

This is only tangentially on topic, but I genuinely wonder about this. When people state that they want the wealthy to pay their fair share, the first two questions I have are, what constitutes wealthy and what constitutes fair? Let's take a specific person as an example of wealthy (let me know if you don't agree), and I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts: Wealthy Person X: - CEO, 55 years old, University of Illinoi…

This doesn’t seem like a question inviting genuine discussion. Tax laws don’t take into account how hard someone works, where they went to school, or a taxpayers character.

Unless your argument is that taxes should be based on factors outside of income/etc, it seems like you might be trying to bait people with some version of “Look how hard Steve works - you can’t possibly support raising taxes on him.”

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

#42

Post by pwinnski » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

johndevor wrote: post #39

durnygbur wrote: post #32

The rich prefer to hire armies of accountants and lawyers to design the most hermetic pipeline funelling out everything they consider to be an excess. There is not a single droplet dropping, how could anything tricke down?

Cars, computers, cell phones, rockets to mars, etc... all exist because rich people bought the super expensive first versions or funded their development. We all benefit from those things greatly.

You seem to radically misunderstand the history of cars, computers, and cell phones, and I fail to see how we're all benefiting from rockets to mars--which don't yet exist--at this time.

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

#43

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #26

Someone wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics ) say he used it in 1932, and says the idea is even older (“leak through” in 1896; “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.” in the 1890s)

> If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows Funny enough in that analogy: you're feeding the horse because you care about its well-being and it's doing something helpful in return, whereas the sparrows are actually a nuisance providing no value to anybody and just taking without giving anything in return.

It's a good analogy. The rich don't care about the sparrows.

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

#44

Post by bearjaws » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

johndevor wrote: post #39

durnygbur wrote: post #32

The rich prefer to hire armies of accountants and lawyers to design the most hermetic pipeline funelling out everything they consider to be an excess. There is not a single droplet dropping, how could anything tricke down?

Cars, computers, cell phones, rockets to mars, etc... all exist because rich people bought the super expensive first versions or funded their development. We all benefit from those things greatly.

A lot of early model cars were very affordable, the first iPhone was $600, nobody who is poor has concerns with Mars...

This really isn't a compelling case.

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

#45

Post by ogre_codes » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:13 PM UTC

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #36

This is only tangentially on topic, but I genuinely wonder about this. When people state that they want the wealthy to pay their fair share, the first two questions I have are, what constitutes wealthy and what constitutes fair? Let's take a specific person as an example of wealthy (let me know if you don't agree), and I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts: Wealthy Person X: - CEO, 55 years old, University of Illinoi…

If he makes $1.5m/ year and his net worth is only $8m, he's not very good with money.

My feeling on taxes is likely overly simple. Take the median price of a home in the area and divide it by 4. If people make less than that, they shouldn't pay any taxes. Then people should pay flat rate for every dollar above that.

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

#46

Post by t-writescode » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #36

This is only tangentially on topic, but I genuinely wonder about this. When people state that they want the wealthy to pay their fair share, the first two questions I have are, what constitutes wealthy and what constitutes fair? Let's take a specific person as an example of wealthy (let me know if you don't agree), and I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts: Wealthy Person X: - CEO, 55 years old, University of Illinoi…

Ignoring edge cases like selling a house, I would argue ‘fair share’ is for capital gains tax to have brackets that eventually equal regular income tax brackets, such that a CEO that makes $1 / year and 4 million in stocks, if he sells all 4 million in stocks 2 years later, isn’t paying only 15% income tax.

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

#47

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #22

ardy42 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has, but half the country still hasn't gotten that message. That's at least partially because the wealthy have the means to hire lots of smart people to create sophisticatedly misleading propaganda for them, and make sure it's widely disseminated and influential.

Social media may turn out to be part of the explanation for the Great Filter.

When I see social media I remember the Krell Big Machine in Forbidden Planet.

We built something that brings out our worst demons.

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

#48

Post by hannob » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #36

This is only tangentially on topic, but I genuinely wonder about this. When people state that they want the wealthy to pay their fair share, the first two questions I have are, what constitutes wealthy and what constitutes fair? Let's take a specific person as an example of wealthy (let me know if you don't agree), and I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts: Wealthy Person X: - CEO, 55 years old, University of Illinoi…

There's no objective, fair way to answer that question. This is something that can only be answered by a societal discussion and hopefully some democratic way of decision.

I'm not sure this is what you're trying to do, but it sounds a bit you want to imply that because there's no objective measurements of "fairness" we shouldn't even try.

FWIW I think your question doesn't give me enough information to form an opionion, because the tax should depend on needs of the authority that does the taxing (e.g. if there's an obvious lack of healthcare in a country that causes many people to die needlessly - that'd be a good reason for higher taxes).

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

#49

Post by bovermyer » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

johndevor wrote: post #39

durnygbur wrote: post #32

The rich prefer to hire armies of accountants and lawyers to design the most hermetic pipeline funelling out everything they consider to be an excess. There is not a single droplet dropping, how could anything tricke down?

Cars, computers, cell phones, rockets to mars, etc... all exist because rich people bought the super expensive first versions or funded their development. We all benefit from those things greatly.

That's false equivalence. The luxury goods market does not equate to the general economy, nor wealth distribution.

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

#50

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #21

mikestew wrote: post #4

Perhaps I'm having a Mandela Effect moment, but hasn't "trickle down" been debunked before this study...repeatedly? Not just "no shit", but actual studies and stuff? Regardless, Will Rogers is credited with the phrase "trickle down" to refer to supply-side economics, so it has gone on longer than 50 years. Mr. Rogers also did not mean the turn of phrase to be complimentary.

> hasn't "trickle down" been debunked before this study...repeatedly? Not just "no shit", but actual studies and stuff? Regardless, it's still the central dogma of the politics of a large part of population.

We desperately need to educate these people because they'll continue to vote against theirs and our interests.