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

151–160 of 209 posts

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

#151

Post by smallmancontrov »

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.

In r>g world, this is cosmically incorrect.

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

#152

Post by manlymuppet »

notahacker wrote: post #144
manlymuppet wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I extend an olive branch anyways? I really believe in good faith, civil conversation, and I'd love the opportunity to make amends here. You've said you won't respond further, but seeing your passion, I think it would be great if we could have a civil conversation. I genuinely believe that trickle-down and supply-side economics are meaningfully different things, and I think there would be much to gain from hearing…

There are supply side policy arguments that make sense. But that's separate from the linked article, which was a discussion of an empirical paper that claims to find evidence that "tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich" A good faith way of addressing the argument would have been to look at examples where evidence appears to contradict this, or potential flaws in the academic paper, rather than dismiss the id…

My problem is not the article saying that tax cuts for the wealthy are bad. Although this moves us into normative territory, I'd actually personally agree that tax cuts for the wealthy are not we need.

But my problem is that "take from the poor and indiscriminately give to the rich" is a mischaracterization of supply-side economics.

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

#153

Post by cindyllm »

hunterpayne wrote: post #149
triceratops wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (6…

Mississippi has far better food and better weather so I don't think life is better in the UK. Also, I have no idea where you got the life expectancy number from, but its not current. I suspect its just a bit old. Its currently like 74 and mostly that's the effect of the Oxy epidemic which is going away with time. I have been to the UK and I have been to Mississippi. Quality of life in Mississippi is far higher unless…

[dead]

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

#154

Post by greenie_beans »

hunterpayne wrote: post #149
triceratops wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (6…

Mississippi has far better food and better weather so I don't think life is better in the UK. Also, I have no idea where you got the life expectancy number from, but its not current. I suspect its just a bit old. Its currently like 74 and mostly that's the effect of the Oxy epidemic which is going away with time. I have been to the UK and I have been to Mississippi. Quality of life in Mississippi is far higher unless…

fwiw, we get bad hurricanes more than that and also the mid-south is the new tornado alley. there was a very bad ice storm this past winter. natural disasters happen everywhere. and it's hot AF in july and august, like so hot that you stay inside all day.

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

#155

Post by expedition32 »

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 why all the tax cuts? Sure the GOP are evil bastards who don't believe in it but apparently their voters do.

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

#156

Post by charcircuit »

t-writescode wrote: post #29
charcircuit wrote: post #26

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.

You have to have enough liquid to be able to invest. If basic needs aren’t being sufficiently eased, there’s no money left to invest.

Enough liquid = $1. That is not insurmountable barrier. It's 25% of the price of a single burger at McDonald's.

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

#157

Post by hunterpayne »

hunterpayne wrote: post #149
triceratops wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (6…

Mississippi has far better food and better weather so I don't think life is better in the UK. Also, I have no idea where you got the life expectancy number from, but its not current. I suspect its just a bit old. Its currently like 74 and mostly that's the effect of the Oxy epidemic which is going away with time. I have been to the UK and I have been to Mississippi. Quality of life in Mississippi is far higher unless…

Oh, and post-war British music wouldn't exist without Mississippi. Pink Floyd is literally named after 2 musicians from Mississippi. The Beatles musical style started out by copying music from Mississippi. And the list goes on from there. Just saying, large chunks of British culture are copied from Mississippi and the surrounding areas.

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

#158

Post by smallmancontrov »

manlymuppet wrote: post #152
notahacker wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are supply side policy arguments that make sense. But that's separate from the linked article, which was a discussion of an empirical paper that claims to find evidence that "tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich" A good faith way of addressing the argument would have been to look at examples where evidence appears to contradict this, or potential flaws in the academic paper, rather than dismiss the id…

My problem is not the article saying that tax cuts for the wealthy are bad. Although this moves us into normative territory, I'd actually personally agree that tax cuts for the wealthy are not we need. But my problem is that "take from the poor and indiscriminately give to the rich" is a mischaracterization of supply-side economics.

It mischaracterizes the mask but accurately describes the face beneath it.

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

#159

Post by hunterpayne »

greenie_beans wrote: post #154
hunterpayne wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mississippi has far better food and better weather so I don't think life is better in the UK. Also, I have no idea where you got the life expectancy number from, but its not current. I suspect its just a bit old. Its currently like 74 and mostly that's the effect of the Oxy epidemic which is going away with time. I have been to the UK and I have been to Mississippi. Quality of life in Mississippi is far higher unless…

fwiw, we get bad hurricanes more than that and also the mid-south is the new tornado alley. there was a very bad ice storm this past winter. natural disasters happen everywhere. and it's hot AF in july and august, like so hot that you stay inside all day.

Tell that to someone from Oklahoma and be prepared to run. Also, AC is cheap and available everywhere.

PS We had bad ice storms where I live (certainly far worse than MS) 2 winters ago. I wouldn't call it a natural disaster.

PPS Remember we are comparing the weather to the UK, not Hawaii or San Diego.

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

#160

Post by TitaRusell »

bena wrote: post #66
manlymuppet wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know regex, but to be clear: trickle-down economics and supply-side economics are very different things. I don't blame you for conflating them since they are intentionally very confusing. 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'…

What's the actual difference, because you haven't actually supplied one. You've just said "They're different. One is a thing, and one is a criticism of a thing". So, does the criticism not hold value? Because a large part of "supply-side economics", a term coined in the 70s, is reduction of taxes and regulations. With the idea that that extra capital will then be used to create jobs. And if that is not what's happeni…

It has worked though. This policy created millions of jobs in China, Cambodja and Mexico.

The mistake that Republicans made is thinking that the nobles are loyal to the kingdom instead of their own personal greed.

Post reply on HN