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

Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

lse.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 209 posts

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#81

Post by manlymuppet »

vlovich123 wrote: post #40
manlymuppet wrote: post #6

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…

Can you describe the defensible policies of supply-side economics? That's as vague a term as trickle-down economics to me. 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 an…

Sure. I think supply-side economics deserves more nuance than simply thinking we need to make the tax rate arbitrarily low. The Laffer curve isn't the only thing you should look at, since where you tax can be just as important as how much you tax.

Take corporate taxes for example. If one were to advocate to get rid of corporate taxes, you might think that person unabashedly biased. What kind of person would want to give breaks to the richest people (corporations) when everyday people are the most in need of those kind of cuts, right?

But the reality is that when you tax corporations, that is one of the most economically damaging taxes you can do. How about then, rather than taxing corporations, you tax the benefactors of those corporations directly? When you tax Walmart, sure you tax the C-suite, but you also make it so that Walmart can hire less people, and invest less in the economy. Rather than taxing the corporation, what if you just taxed the C-suite directly? Tax the Walton family, or the highest earning employees directly, and you get to have your cake and it too since you get similar amounts of tax revenue without damaging the economy nearly as much.

You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states. This is supply side economics at work, and an example of how supply-side economics can be easily misrepresented.

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#82

Post by manlymuppet »

j16sdiz wrote: post #72
manlymuppet wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One is a policy. The other is not a policy. I can name you differences, but it's like comparing apples and oranges.

You are basically saying you can tell us, but you won't. If you are not going to tell us anything, why are you teasing us as if you will? Holding back discussion points is not a way to advance a discussion

You are right. I should be more forthright; I was answering elsewhere. Here's another comment I made that's relevant.

"""

I think supply-side economics deserves more nuance than simply thinking we need to make the tax rate arbitrarily low. The Laffer curve isn't the only thing you should look at, since where you tax can be just as important as how much you tax.

Take corporate taxes for example. If one were to advocate to get rid of corporate taxes, you might think that person unabashedly biased. What kind of person would want to give tax breaks to the richest people (corporations) when everyday people are the most in need of those kind of cuts, right?

But the reality is that when you tax corporations, that is one of the most economically damaging taxes you can do. How about then, rather than taxing corporations, you tax the benefactors of those corporations directly? When you tax Walmart, sure you tax the C-suite, but you also make it so that Walmart can hire less people, and invest less in the economy. Rather than taxing the corporation, what if you just taxed the C-suite directly? Tax the Walton family, or the highest earning employees directly, and you get to have your cake and it too since you get similar amounts of tax revenue without damaging the economy nearly as much.

You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states. This is supply side economics at work, and an example of how supply-side economics can be easily misrepresented.

"""

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#83

Post by thaumasiotes »

magicalist wrote: post #74
twoodfin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would incentivize the wrong things: All else being equal, you want to produce more with less labor and other inputs. It’s a good thing farming needs an order of magnitude fewer farmers than a century ago.

> All else being equal, you want to produce more with less labor and other inputs Is that actually true? Maybe I'm being dense right now but that's not completely apparent to me. More abundance per person does seem generally better (albeit there's eventually diminishing marginal utility), but that's not the same thing as society as a whole producing more with less labor. Maybe "all else being equal" is the operative…

> More abundance per person does seem generally better (albeit there's eventually diminishing marginal utility), but that's not the same thing as society as a whole producing more with less labor.

Yes, it is the same thing. There's no difference.

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#84

Post by maverwa »

lifestyleguru wrote: post #39
curiousgal wrote: post #19

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 Germany it's 90k EUR, in Poland it's a mere 30k EUR gross on employment contract. No it's not a coincidence, the government knows what they're doing. In short, they are not friends with those on employment contract in private sector. In UK though the salaries are fixed at 25k GBP annually until forever, they simply like this number.

Just for context: for an average single paying tax class 1 that’s 4.4k net per month, while the median working single earned 2.2k net in 2025.

Source: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Einkom...

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#85

Post by triceratops »

hunterpayne wrote: post #22

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…

> And you wonder why Mississippi is richer than the UK

Because Mississippi didn't have Brexit /s

All jokes apart I don't see any real evidence that Mississippi is richer than the UK. Their median household disposable income is pretty damn close ($49k vs $54k). The UK has a better social and health safety net (where would you rather be unemployed or disabled?).

Mississippi has much lower life expectancy than the UK (69 vs 79 for men). Crudely speaking a Briton makes $5k less/year but lives 10 years longer - a trade almost anyone would make in a heartbeat.

I won't bother digging into other quality of life indicators vs economic indicators but I expect Mississippi will be mostly equal or worse.

On average Mississippi may have higher dollar numbers on a spreadsheet. That doesn't mean squat for the ordinary person on the street. If anything this is an argument against trickle-down economics/the Laffer curve.

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#86

Post by anonymars »

watwut wrote: post #36
manlymuppet wrote: post #6

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 have literally seen it being defended, in all seriousness, after the economy crash. When the financial institutions were bailed out. 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.

I think a large part of the issue, ignoring the self-interest one (certainly those of money will argue that their taxes should be less) is that both the supply and demand side can interfere with the proper functioning of the economy

My quick take is that during the 2008-ish great financial crisis, those in power were children of the 1970s supply-side shocks (demand>supply resulting in shortages and inflation), and used precisely the wrong tool to handle the demand-side shock of the GFC: interest rates were zero-to-negative, indicating a surplus of investable cash and no place to put it to work, and policymakers responded by...cutting everything on their side to the bone as well (austerity). At a high level: the economy was literally trying to pay the government to spend money on productive investment, but this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity was largely squandered

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#87

Post by robinsonb5 »

twoodfin wrote: post #55
brightball wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always like to approach this conversation with a question: Should business that actually do create jobs in practice get bigger tax breaks? For example, if I by some miracle create a 1 man company that makes $100 million / year profit and somebody else creates a company that makes $100 million / year profit but has 2,000 employees...should the two companies be taxed differently? Walmart employees 1.6 million people…

It would incentivize the wrong things: All else being equal, you want to produce more with less labor and other inputs. It’s a good thing farming needs an order of magnitude fewer farmers than a century ago.

> All else being equal, you want to produce more with less labor and other inputs.

So what incentive structure would you suggest? How do you prevent the concentration of wealth that results from a business raking in millions of dollars per employee?

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#88

Post by neilwilson »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #47

The most effective economic policy to help the impoverished is to tax the rich and give the money directly to the poor. The only reason this isn't common sense is because the rich have fought it for millennia.

The poor will then give it back to the rich in higher prices for the same amount of stuff.

The only real way to tax the rich is to ensure that the rich have to compete for workers by paying competitive wages

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#89

Post by robinsonb5 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #83
magicalist wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All else being equal, you want to produce more with less labor and other inputs Is that actually true? Maybe I'm being dense right now but that's not completely apparent to me. More abundance per person does seem generally better (albeit there's eventually diminishing marginal utility), but that's not the same thing as society as a whole producing more with less labor. Maybe "all else being equal" is the operative…

> More abundance per person does seem generally better (albeit there's eventually diminishing marginal utility), but that's not the same thing as society as a whole producing more with less labor. Yes, it is the same thing. There's no difference.

More abundance per person isn't a good thing if only 1% of the population sees the benefit and everyone else is squeezed tighter.

Re: Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)

#90

Post by smallmancontrov »

loeg wrote: post #80
ghurtado wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as if it's something that needs to be debunked. When half the country has believed something for close to a half a century, across multiple generations, you bet your ass it needs to be debunked. The fallacy of the "precious job creators" is as American as "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" The fact that you and I were not dumb enough to fall for it doesn't really help anyone in the grand scheme of things. The…

No one believes in trickle-down economics. As GP said, it's a pejorative straw man invented by its opponents .

So you're saying that when the Fox News talking head drags out the Laffer Curve to smuggle into the conversation the assumption that the next round of tax cuts for billionaires will unleash enormous economic growth that net-benefits everyone, he doesn't believe what he's saying?

You know what, you might just be right.

Post reply on HN