Live data from Hacker News

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

lse.ac.uk

171–180 of 210 posts

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

#171
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tilting the scale towards capital is a good idea when capital is the limiting factor on economic growth. A dollar invested rather than consumed brings two dollars in a few years time. Here's the thing: this is only really true in developing economies because, well, they develop. Inevitably, the amount of available capital outgrows the available investment opportunities. Expected rates of return and interest rates fall. At this point, subsidizing capital is every bit as foolish as subsidizing demand in any other ~fixed supply market. However, the enormous incentive to pretend otherwise remains.

Foolish: policies that favor capital are good

Smart: let's check interest rates to see if policies that favor capital are good

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

#172
post #62

Take the inverse stance: take a country that taxes its citizens to death, like France or Belgium. How are they doing? Very badly. France is concerned that the IMF main jump in and take things under control because the government's public deficit is out of control. With a GDP of about $3.6 trillion (american trillion, not french) and public spending representing, officially, 57.2% of those $3.6 trillion, that's a cool…

You should include other countries for reference. The US has approximately 390x that amount of debt (only 5 times the population) and the average person is economically much worse off than all the European countries you just mentioned. We literally spend more government money per person on healthcare than France does while having less public healthcare, precisely because of the "help the rich" policies causing most o…

> the average person is economically much worse off than all the European countries you just mentioned.

Where on earth did you get this idea? US Households have much higher disposable income (~50% higher than the Western European average) and much lower household debt levels than the average Western European country. See OECD links below.

> We literally spend more government money per person on healthcare than France does while having less public healthcare, precisely because of the "help the rich" policies causing most of that public money to go to subsidizing insurance companies.

Is this shocking display of government incompetence supposed to be an argument for increased spending, more government involvement, or both?

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/household-debt.html

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/household-financial-...

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/household-savings.ht...

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/household-disposable... (Select 2024 to see US data included)

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

#173

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…

> 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…

> 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.

It dates back to the late 1890s (and has been criticized since then):

> In 1896, United States Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan claimed in his Cross of Gold speech that his opposition based their policies on the idea that the success of the rich would "leak through" to the lower classes, stating: "There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below."[8][9][10]

> In 1932, humorist and social commentator Will Rogers wrote a column criticizing Herbert Hoover's policies and approach to The Great Depression and stated: "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot."[11] In 2007, political commentator William J. Bennett credited Rogers for coining the term "trickle down" and observed its persistent use throughout the decades since.[12]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

so I'm not hopeful it will ever go away.

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

#174

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…

> The policies of supply-side economics, however, are much more defensible, but it seems people would much rather pick on the strawman.

Lowering taxes is one of the policies of supply-side economics:

> Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory postulating that economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade.[1][2]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Along with decreasing regulation and allowing free trade, so you've just knocked down one of the reasons to think about supply-side stuff seriously.

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

#175
post #80

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 .

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

Except the folks that implement it:

> The cuts were based on model legislation published by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC),[8][9][10][11] supported by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer,[12] anti-tax leader Grover Norquist,[13] and the influential industrialists Charles and David Koch.[14][15]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment

The term was invented by its opponents, but it was a label that was put on actual policies, like Hoover's:

> In 1932, humorist and social commentator Will Rogers wrote a column criticizing Herbert Hoover's policies and approach to The Great Depression and stated: "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot."[11] In 2007, political commentator William J. Bennett credited Rogers for coining the term "trickle down" and observed its persistent use throughout the decades since.[12]

And Reagan's:

> Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign for the presidency on a platform advocating for supply-side economics. During the 1980 Republican Party presidential primaries, George H. W. Bush had derided Reagan's economic approach as "voodoo economics".[16] Following Reagan's election, the "trickle-down" reached wide circulation with the publication of "The Education of David Stockman", a December 1981 interview of Reagan's incoming Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman, in the magazine Atlantic Monthly. In the interview, Stockman expressed doubts about supply side economics, telling journalist William Greider that the Kemp–Roth Tax Cut was a way to rebrand a tax cut for the top income bracket to make it easier to pass into law.[17] Stockman said that "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[17][18][19] Reagan administration officials including Michael Deaver wanted Stockman to be fired in response to his comments, but he was ultimately kept on in exchange for a private apology.[20]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

It is pejorative, but it is not attacking a straw man, but actual policies that right-wing folks want implemented (and have).

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

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Supply-side economics" is a technocratic rebranding of trickle-down economics, adding just enough nuance to force the draw rhetorically while advocating policy that is completely indefensible to anyone who has enough time to properly examine the nuance.

Again, "trickle-down economics" was created by Will Rogers. He was never a policy maker, just a comedian trying to tell funny stories. Nor did he accidentally create a policy in a 10 minutes of rambling standup routine. If you listen to the routine you will realize that he was talking about things that had already happened. He wasn't some kind of hidden political visionary. We can accept that "supply-side economics"…

> We can accept that "supply-side economics" is a policy rebranding, but it is not a rebranding of "trickle-down economics".

Reagan's people would disagree:

> Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign for the presidency on a platform advocating for supply-side economics. During the 1980 Republican Party presidential primaries, George H. W. Bush had derided Reagan's economic approach as "voodoo economics".[16] Following Reagan's election, the "trickle-down" reached wide circulation with the publication of "The Education of David Stockman", a December 1981 interview of Reagan's incoming Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman, in the magazine Atlantic Monthly. In the interview, Stockman expressed doubts about supply side economics, telling journalist William Greider that the Kemp–Roth Tax Cut was a way to rebrand a tax cut for the top income bracket to make it easier to pass into law.[17] Stockman said that "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[17][18][19] Reagan administration officials including Michael Deaver wanted Stockman to be fired in response to his comments, but he was ultimately kept on in exchange for a private apology.[20]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

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

#177

Take the inverse stance: take a country that taxes its citizens to death, like France or Belgium. How are they doing? Very badly. France is concerned that the IMF main jump in and take things under control because the government's public deficit is out of control. With a GDP of about $3.6 trillion (american trillion, not french) and public spending representing, officially, 57.2% of those $3.6 trillion, that's a cool…

Well said. People won’t like to hear it but it’s true. If you seized the wealth of every billionaire in the US you could fund the federal government for about a year. Of course most of it is not liquid so in reality much less. So when people talk about how we need to “tax the rich” and our problems will be solved I assume they're lacking in political knowledge. Or they just see it as a form of punishment for daring t…

Wealth of this nature is not accumulated; it is extracted.

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

#178
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I intentionally referenced the Laffer curve. Essentially I think folks use it to only argue for less taxes, but I think it applies both ways.

I think there's also the consideration that the Laffer curve is very Ceteris Paribus.

In reality higher taxes implies higher spending, and different countries spend differently. It's entirely possible that the peak of the curve moves based on where you plan to spend the money. If you proposed a 5% tax increase to build the supports to take on Taiwan in semi, then you probably have a curve that looks different than a 5% tax increase to start a war.

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

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. People won’t like to hear it but it’s true. If you seized the wealth of every billionaire in the US you could fund the federal government for about a year. Of course most of it is not liquid so in reality much less. So when people talk about how we need to “tax the rich” and our problems will be solved I assume they're lacking in political knowledge. Or they just see it as a form of punishment for daring t…

Wealth of this nature is not accumulated; it is extracted.

It’s actually created.

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

#180

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…

> 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. It dates back to the late 1890s (and has been criticized since then): > In 1896, United States Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan claimed in his Cross of Gold speech that his opposition based their policies on the idea that the success of the rich w…

I had no idea the idea was so old!
Post reply on HN