31–40 of 209 posts
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.
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.
When is the last time either of those things (capital gains rate cuts, tax hikes on the lower 90% of income earners) happened? I think it’s been decades by now.
Can we please tax the negative effect that big money has on the rest of us? 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.
I don't want to be personally compensated. I just want to live in a society where people's basic needs are easily met: clothes, food, medicine, housing. The current landscape is, by the day, increasingly dystopian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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've been reading about the US progressive era of 100 years ago and I am seeing from Robber Barons many of the same arguments that I heard growing up from my Reagan-worshipping parents. It's both frustrating and encouraging to know that we soundly defeated these at one point before the pendulum swung back. They didn't invent a new pack of lies, they just put the old one in the microwave and gave it 30 seconds. I susp…
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…
I thought the scientist who worked for cigarettes companies did find a bunch of links but the companies squashed the results. It’s pretty famously known that they knew cigarettes were bad for you decades ago.
And in the late 70s, they launched Operation Berkshire as a bulwark against negative press and government regulation.
They have literally been found guilty of conspiring to suppress the health risks.
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…
Maybe not the name, but the literal idea that the money given to them will flow down. There were even graphics gping with it. Again, in all seriousness.
So yes, it needs to be debunked.
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…
So do %s/trickle-down/supply-side/g , then, if it's the term that's bothering you. Doesn't "debunking" trickle-down economics then, by extension, debunk supply-side economics? I'm not clear on the meaningful difference
One is a policy and the other is basically the name of a common criticism for that policy.
For example, the Cartesian circle does not refer to any of the many mathematical advancements Rene Descartes discovered. Instead, it's the name of a common criticism for an argument he made. You can think of it like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You’re describing the Laffer curve. Much of Reagan’s trickle down stuff was based on the idea that we were on the wrong side of the peak.
I think the real issue in the UK is the definition of "wealthy". The government seems to think it's people making more than 50k...
In UK though the salaries are fixed at 25k GBP annually until forever, they simply like this number.
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…
Supply-side economics is based on a flawed premise of looking at only the Laffer curve and saying if taxes are too high the economy suffers, therefore we must make the tax rate arbitrarily low. In reality though there are more nuances to making the tax rate arbitrarily low (e.g. high inflation and cost of living for starters).