Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 444 posts

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#151

Post by romwell »

koheripbal wrote: post #125
bottled_poe wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I want to agree with you, you’re comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance.

The article is also hyperbole. They use 2020 as a key data point, despite it obviously being an outlier due to covid. Moreover, the only people talking about trickle down are people on the left. No one on the right has mentioned trickle down since Reagan was president. It's a complete strawman.

As I said in my other comment:

—2017 was an outlier due to Solar eclipse. You need to justify what issue you have with 2020 as it pertains to the conclusion of the study.

—Just because the Republicans don't call "trickle down" by its name doesn't mean they aren't pushing for it.

In particular, we already are doing "trickle-down" — have been, since Reagan. To not do it would mean to increase taxes, by a lot. Obstructionism is trickle-down.

Of course the right wouldn't mention "trickle down" after implementing it.

It sounds like you're reasoning in bad faith; consider shaping your thoughts differently.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#152

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

ianai wrote: post #43
q1w2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen a politician advocate for trickle down since the early 1980s. Why is this strawman still the target for low-effort articles?

Because it absolutely has been used by politicians and pundits since the 1980s into the present day and you’re the one spreading falsehoods.

It is talked about by its opponents. No one on the right uses the phrase except in response.

Try and find some examples

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#153

Post by JKCalhoun »

netcan wrote: post #52

In college, I studied Ronald Coase's famous 1920s papers. The major application ATT was infrastructure stuff. Coase's argument was that "given 0 transaction costs," it doesn't matter who owns what property or right. The market will achieve efficient solutions as firms sell each other radio spectrum or whatnot. Policy should focus on minimizing transaction costs and let the market organize itself. Circa 2005, I heard…

> It doesn't really matter where the money starts, the market will deal with allocation efficiently.

Interesting take. I haven't ever heard trickle down proponents suggest we give the money to the working class. It's like they don't really believe that.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#154

Post by nickpp »

Is trickle-down strictly about money or about value in general?

Because during the last 20 years, just (for example) the access to computing power and information did in fact "trickle-down" to almost everybody on earth in the form of smartphones and Internet. This value was worth a king's ransom in the past.

But indeed, the number of TSLA stock in one's pocket did not trickle down from Elon Musk to the rest of us. Not sure why that matters though.

In fact, looking in the article, they talk define trickle-down as "cutting taxes on the rich [...] eventually benefiting everyone" then complain about "very high level of income inequality and an extreme level of wealth inequality". You can have both true at the same time.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#155

Post by bottled_poe »

throwaway98797 wrote: post #115
bottled_poe wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should we trust the government to spend the money more wisely than the folks who earned it? Yes. > Or said another way, how do you combat the almost inevitable corruption you see with large government spending? Transparent auditing of taxpayer funds. Presumably this exists to some degree in your country. > 2. What will incentivize people to work at insane rates if the vast majority of their income and wealth is tax…

Not all people aiming for $1m+ in earnings are doing it for a safety net. Some people like to compete for the heck of it.

sadly true. It’s a lot easier to think like an individual than as a member of a community.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#156

Post by bottled_poe »

romwell wrote: post #116
bottled_poe wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I want to agree with you, you’re comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance.

While I want to agree with you , it so happens that your comment is just hyperbole/rhetoric and no substance. The substance of my comment is a simple model that explains why trickle-down doesn't work. If it helps, I'll add some references to support my argument: [1] TFA Thank you for the effort you put into providing your feedback.

It’s untrue. My comment is fact, which is easily verifiable on isolated inspection.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#157

Post by xondono »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #153
netcan wrote: post #52

In college, I studied Ronald Coase's famous 1920s papers. The major application ATT was infrastructure stuff. Coase's argument was that "given 0 transaction costs," it doesn't matter who owns what property or right. The market will achieve efficient solutions as firms sell each other radio spectrum or whatnot. Policy should focus on minimizing transaction costs and let the market organize itself. Circa 2005, I heard…

> It doesn't really matter where the money starts, the market will deal with allocation efficiently. Interesting take. I haven't ever heard trickle down proponents suggest we give the money to the working class. It's like they don't really believe that.

> I haven't ever heard trickle down proponents suggest we give the money to the working class.

Because that would require taking from some people and giving to others through government, which is a very inefficient way to do it.

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#158

Post by spencerflem »

chii wrote: post #75
yorwba wrote: post #26

The article makes a weird jump between pointing to global wealth inequality and claiming that this disproves trickle-down effects. But trickle-down doesn't claim that wealth differences between rich and poor should decrease! Rather, it's about absolute gains, where poor people get higher incomes the richer other people are. (I.e. increasing wealth inequality is good if it is the rich getting richer, instead of the po…

an excellent point. I think over all, people are much richer today than 2 decades ago - even those who are poor relative to the rich. Richness doesn't just include cash in hand, but the availability of goods and services. The fact that the internet is available (to be purchased) is a form of wealth, but this is often not counted.

But wages have stayed the same while housing, medicine, college, have gotten massively more expensive and & via inflation everything else is somewhat more expensive.

I honestly find it absurd to suggest that we're somehow 'richer' while most young people have no hope of a stable life.

Technology has made us much more productive but all that added value has been captured by the ultrarich

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#159

Post by romwell »

q1w2 wrote: post #44
romwell wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I haven't heard a politician advocate trickle-down since the Reagan era Which country are you from? Certainly not the US, are you? It's called "cutting taxes" these days, with the tax cuts being mostly applied to the ultra rich. The entire Republican party economic agenda still preaches trickle-down. If only because they are doing everything they can to prevent Reagan's trickle-down policies from being reverted. > 2…

Any tax cuts are trickle down? So the Democrat's push to reinstate the SALT tax credit (cut) are trickle down also? Are tax cuts in any bracket trickle down? When the GOP raises taxes - do they implode?

>Any tax cuts are trickle down?

No, just the ones that benefit the massively wealthy individuals and corporations.

>So the Democrat's push to reinstate the SALT tax credit (cut) are trickle down also?

Irrelevant.

>Are tax cuts in any bracket trickle down?

You have asked this question already.

>When the GOP raises taxes [for the massively wealthy corporations and individuals] - do they implode?

Almost certainly.

Any further questions?

Re: 20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’

#160

Post by jpadkins »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #136
jpadkins wrote: post #117

One observation I have on this topic and how the corp. media (vox, et al) handles the topic: The proposed solutions are always along the lines of increased income taxes, which impact people who are getting wealthy (high earning doctors, execs, entrepreneurs, etc). I rarely see discussion from corp. media on wealth taxes, which would impact the already wealthy. It is not widely known that billionaires don't have large…

what you're missing here is that discussions of higher marginal income taxes also often come with discussions about higher capital gains tax and higher estate tax which are the two main ways wealth is hoarded.

might be my personal selection bias, but I see it rarely being pushed as the solution. If you think about it, the right order of operations is to consider higher income taxes only a decade after you instituted ultra high wealth taxes and seen the effects on concentrations of wealth. You only need higher marginal income taxes if there is too much 'flow' to the ultra concentrated wealth bucket (and does active harm if you don't have an effective 'drain' to the ultra concentrated wealth bucket)
Post reply on HN