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

11–20 of 210 posts

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

#11

Post by iso1631 »

ratelimitsteve wrote: post #7
numbers_guy wrote: post #4

No shit. If you want a tax cut to have an economic impact, cut taxes for the poorest, the ones with the least disposable income. EDIT: Seems like the article is suggesting that giving more disposable income to the rich, results in them using that extra income to buy capital rent seeking assets. So it is a double fuck you to the poor. Because not only do the rich end up paying proportionally less in taxes, but they al…

it really does trickle up, and the greater percentage of their income the beneficiaries spend on consumables the greater the upward benefits.

More "vacuumed up" than trickled

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

#12

Post by ghurtado »

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…

> 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. There's still an insane amount of work left in educating the public, and we may even be regressing at this point.

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

#13

Post by diob »

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 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 seems obvious that there is an optimal tax rate, too much or too little is bad. But I'd definitely say right now we are far far on the too little side of things.

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

#14

Post by dasil003 »

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…

When you are rich, it allows a lot more time and funding to come up with arguments supporting policies that will make you even more rich.

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

#16

Post by diabeetusman »

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…

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

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

#17

Post by ghurtado »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #9
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…

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.

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.

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

#20

Post by manlymuppet »

diob wrote: post #13
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 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…

I don't know where you're looking, but if you go to the first result for trick-down economics, the Wikipedia page, within the first few lines it mentions how the term is used, and how it was created by detractors of supply-side economics. It's never been a real policy.

    "the term 'trickle-down economics' was popularized by Democrats in the US to derogate Reaganomics"
If you similarly look up supply-side economics, at the top of the Wikipedia page it says

    "not to be confused with trickle-down economics"
I'll happily take you on your word that you're not trying be argumentative. It's certainly not your fault that this strawman has been so widely spread that people think it's a real policy idea now. It is confusing to me too.

As for whether supply-side economics actually works, to say it "hasn't panned out" I think, is really oversimplifying. Has capitalism (efficient markets but also environmental decay) worked? Has socialism (universal healthcare but also the military) worked? It depends on who your asking and in what regard. In some ways yes and in other ways no. The category is too broad.

Also, just as important as how much we tax is where we tax. Carbon tax (very good) vs stamp duty tax (very bad). Competent policy often allows you to have your cake (supporting government services) and eat it too (not sacrificing growth).

Post reply on HN