20 year study of global wealth demolishes the myth of ‘trickle-down’ • Hacker News Board

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

#351

Post by imtringued » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #126

forinti wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long before we get to something like a 90% tax bracket, we could have the very wealthy pay the same rates as regular folks. Anyway, I don't see why a billionaire shouldn't have a 90% bracket.

>Long before we get to something like a 90% tax bracket, we could have the very wealthy pay the same rates as regular folks. Flat tax for all! >Anyway, I don't see why a billionaire shouldn't have a 90% bracket. Lets ignore the economics and how going off the gold standard removed the government's ability to tax and taxation will trend toward 0% for everyone until we figure out a new standard. However, let me tell yo…

What happens? Everyone works 40 hours.

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

#352

Post by esarbe » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #344

temp10298385 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving people more money (i.e tie wages to increase in productivity) is demand side economics. Supply side economics is increasing the amount of available goods regardless of demand. The lagging wages are mitigated by credit, i.e. debt.

You’re taking the words to literally. “ Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that postulates economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade”

No, you are being fallacious.

There are many thousand ways of "giving people money". Supply-side economics prescribes exactly one way of "giving people money", that's by lowering taxes.

You cannot claim that because supply-side economics supports one way of "giving" people money that every way of giving people money is supply-side economics.

You see that, right?

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

#353

Post by eqth » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 4:20 PM UTC

If the US didn't have their weird death laws with inheritance and 0% loans trickle-down would work.

It's very simple. A billionaire can do 3 things with their money:

1)spend it reinserting it into the economy- this 'trickles the money down'.

2)invest it- this funds projects and/or decreases yield ratios (thus making capital cheaper) which in the longer-term reinsterts the money into the economy.

3)burn it - this creates disinflation which increases the value of every other dollar thus reinserting money into the economy.

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

#354

Post by refurb » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

esarbe wrote: post #352

refurb wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re taking the words to literally. “ Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that postulates economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade”

No, you are being fallacious. There are many thousand ways of "giving people money". Supply-side economics prescribes exactly one way of "giving people money", that's by lowering taxes. You cannot claim that because supply-side economics supports one way of "giving" people money that every way of giving people money is supply-side economics. You see that, right?

Grandparent said “giving people money is demand side economics”.

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

#355

Post by gaganyaan » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #250

skywal_l wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Piketty showed that wealth inequality peaked right before WWI and was very low in the 60/70s. The amount of wealth between these two periods does not even compare.

We have to thank socialism and communism for reducing wealth i equality in western Europe and in the US. But no, make no mistake, NOT because they are good , but because they're so disastrously bad , as was demonstrated by the USSR, that western elites did a lot to improve the working conditions of their workers, so they would put aside the comminust manifesto and would start caring about their nice car and a cosy ho…

Is this parody?

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

#356

Post by sokoloff » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 4:27 PM UTC

opportune wrote: post #309

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In any case, the "wealth disparity" discussion is almost always badly anchored. The first thing to understand about wealth disparity is that it maps pretty much to wealth. More wealth, more wealth disparity... almost universally. Many or most people have no wealth, depending on your semantics of "wealth." Therefore, if the value/quantity of wealth rises, wealth disparity rises. I agree with you but it remains a pro…

This is not necessarily true because wealth parked in such a manner doesn’t enter the economy. We have a general problem in that people do not consume enough to grow our economy. Now, endlessly increasing consumption sounds bad, but it’s basically required for the economy to keep growing in real terms, since it’s the main component of GDP. Most wealthy people, not even billionaires but lots of run-of-the-mill hundred…

There’s a lot of folks living an upper-middle class lifestyle who need to accumulate a handful of millions to support that lifestyle in retirement. (Raise capital gains taxes and they might need two handfuls to sustain their lifestyle in retirement.)

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

#357

Post by refurb » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 4:27 PM UTC

esarbe wrote: post #349

refurb wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. Supply side economics is exactly giving more people money to spend” . You even admit that. Real wages grew and unemployment was at record lows during the 80’s. Even for the lower class. Please stop getting your information from social media. Are you saying that’s wrong?

> Huh. Supply side economics is exactly giving more people money to spend”. You even admit that. What, no! Here, let me quote myself from the previous answer I gave you. >> But "Give people more money and they spend it" not supply-side economics, actually, is it? Here, have a look at what supply-side economic is[0]. Supply-side economics is basically just lowering taxes. > Real wages grew and unemployment was at reco…

Sorry your not discussing this in good faith.

Yes unemployment skyrocketed in the early 80’s followed by the biggest economic expansion in decades.

The 70’s were a morass of stagflation. To argue Regans policies didn’t bring the economy out of that mess is just being dishonest.

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

#358

Post by paulryanrogers » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 4:32 PM UTC

xondono wrote: post #312

romwell wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A billionaire wont be "impoverished" by that. I'll play my tiniest violin to their loss.

The issue is that there’s an amazing amount of overlap between the people who pay and the people who receive, making the exercise quite pointless. Even if you took all the wealth of billionaires and found a way of liquidating that at that price (you can’t, but let’s assume you can), then divide by all US citizens , you’ll see a pretty insignificant number.

Who says the hoarded bounty has to be evenly distributed? IMO it should go to those who need it most.

And even if the individual bump is small there's also one less thumb tipping the scales. Combined with campaign finance reform, more rigorous enforcement of bribery laws, and dropping first-past-the-post elections and things could really turn the corner.

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

#359

Post by sleepysysadmin » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #351

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Long before we get to something like a 90% tax bracket, we could have the very wealthy pay the same rates as regular folks. Flat tax for all! >Anyway, I don't see why a billionaire shouldn't have a 90% bracket. Lets ignore the economics and how going off the gold standard removed the government's ability to tax and taxation will trend toward 0% for everyone until we figure out a new standard. However, let me tell yo…

What happens? Everyone works 40 hours.

>What happens? Everyone works 40 hours.

The people who work 20 hour weeks are upset and certainly dont work any additional amount. Daycare probably booms as a business.

Productivity plummets to tremendously low levels, economies collapse, massive numbers of people die, etc.

Less than half of doctors work 40 hours or less. Pretty significant number above 60 hours/week. Same for nursing and much of the medical field.

Firefighters have very long hours.

Truck driving and logistics pretty much depends on truck drivers maxing their hours at around 70 hour weeks.

Lawyers pretty much cant work 40 hour weeks without the legal system collapsing.

So right away, we are going to have people working different amounts of hours per week. It's unavoidable. This alone means you can never have 'equal outcome' A doctor who works 60 hours a week and still paying off med school loans cannot have the same outcome as a part time mcjobber.

That's the failure of the progressive tax. The progressive tax is some wierd attempt to make the rich less rich but instead generates significantly more income inequality as a consequence.

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

#360

Post by sokoloff » Wed, Dec 08, 2021, 4:37 PM UTC

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #318

Jensson wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> huge predictor, if not the single biggest predictor, of wealth is still just whether or not your parents are wealthy, especially at the top. If you count top 10% as wealthy, sure then you need to be wealthy to make it big. A kid with top 10% parents has everything they need to succeed and create a top company. A poor kid doesn't, true, but a poor kid in USA still has everything they need to get to top 10%, and then…

> a poor kid in USA still has everything they need to get to top 10% Generally, after a lifetime of honest, hard work, you'll make it 1, maybe 2 tax brackets higher than your parents. To make it further than that you have to be especially talented, lucky, or both. I just looked it up: as of 2016, 7.5% of kids born in the bottom quintile make it to the top quintile, so it is indeed possible , though quite rare. [1] I…

> as of 2016, 7.5% of kids born in the bottom quintile make it to the top quintile, so it is indeed possible, though quite rare. [1]

Is 7.5% “quite rare”? That’s around (and between) the portion of the population who is left handed and the portion of the US population that has naturally blond hair, neither of which would I describe as “quite rare”.