11
55

[–] l-emmerdeur 11 points 55 points (+66|-11) ago 

I don't even think the people in power who support these policies believe it. They know it's self serving, and only serves to further pillage the lower economic classes. But, they have to feign like they believe in its benevolent outcome so that the oppressed who support their oppressors continue to do so.

2
11

[–] CobraStallone 2 points 11 points (+13|-2) ago  (edited ago)

People on voat defend them though I've seen them; it just smells of communist anything else to some people you know?

2
28

[–] jaceame 2 points 28 points (+30|-2) ago 

Everyone that sides with trickle down economy either is profiting from it or thinks they will beat the system and profit from it in the future.

2
3

[–] Iforgotmy_other_acct 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Supply-side economics has more in common with Stalinism than Communism.

53
38

[–] Candygram_for_Mongo 53 points 38 points (+91|-53) ago  (edited ago)

Democrat trickle up looks like this...Gov raises taxes to expand welfare. Families have $4000 less in disposable income. They stop going out to eat. The cafe is losing money, cuts staff hours. Staff don't earn enough money to pay their bills. Go on welfare. Govt raises taxes. Brilliant!.

Every transaction in capitalism is trickle down.

13
59

[–] canbot 13 points 59 points (+72|-13) ago 

People who pay $4000 more in taxes aren't making their dining decisions based on taxes. The 400 people who got $100 in assistance can now afford to eat at that restaurant. That is a 40,000% increase in business. When people go shopping the money trickles up. When you give money to people in the hope that they will create more products for those that can't afford to buy what is already out, you are a Republican.

Every transaction in capitalism is trickle up.

4
25

[–] jimmyrussel 4 points 25 points (+29|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Exactly, it's a well known fact (and studies back this up like this one) that the wealthy save more money per dollar. That's money not immediately being reinvested in the economy via purchases that drive business. The implication that somehow these saved funds thrown into bank accounts or other assets like government bonds results in job growth is ludicrous.

Edit: I need to clarify some things here. I made some incorrect arguments in downstream comments. Relevant clarification below.

The argument that I should be making instead is one of job creation and how it happens. I can't believe I got through a discussion of trickle-down econ without it. The assumption with trickle down is that it assumes that money to the higher income levels will result in more jobs being created than if it went to lower incomes. Here's why it's not true:

The first point is lower income levels have a higher propensity to spend (as opposed to invest). Businesses take revenue and use it to reinvest in the company, ideally creating more jobs. Since lower income people spend more, this is at a higher rate since more money is spent. The companies receive more revenue and reinvest it to create jobs.

The second (and the part I missed) is that money that the higher income people invest typically does not result in job creation, but instead furthers their own wealth (i.e. goes to their personal bank account or personal investments as opposed to a job creating investment/capital). The argument here is that in order for jobs to be created more via higher income people, they have to make investments that create more jobs than the potential jobs that could've been created through a company gaining more revenue from spending.

The difference then is that giving to higher incomes just results in personal wealth accumulation, that may or may not be used to create a job. The lower income tax break route results in more money going to companies via revenue directly which is more likely to be reinvested and create a future job.

1
12

[–] bob3333 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

It's called marginal propensity to consume if you've never taken economics. It's the reason we KNOW that money tends to flow up, not down.

9
25

[–] scrotums 9 points 25 points (+34|-9) ago 

Republican trickle down looks like this... Gov cuts taxes, increases military spending, start a couple wars. Deregulate financial industry. Recession. Lose your job. Go on welfare. Brilliant!

0
15

[–] Skeletor 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is the sad truth. Real trickle down hasn't happened in the states for awhile.

Deregulate financial industry. Recession....

You might want to look into why banks were giving out home mortgages that wouldn't be paid back. Hint: it started before Reagan.

0
7

[–] Kenyan_Fried_Bats 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

B-b-b-but republicans!

1
3

[–] MCVoat 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Then blame it on the black guy...

1
1

[–] Dark_Shroud 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

start a couple wars

Obama much?

Deregulate financial industry

Who was it that removed the Glass–Steagall Legislation again?

Yeah keep pointing the finger at Wall Street while the government continues to fuck up everything.

0
5

[–] yeahrich 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

OP's Post does not bring up welfare. I agree that the economy slows when Families have $4,000 less in disposable income. However, Trickle down does not work because it is not all American families that reap the rewards from the usual tax rate changes. it is usually mostly corporations and people that do not reinvest in the economy that reap the rewards.

0
3

[–] bob3333 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The people who's taxes would return to where they were before Reagan aren't the people eating at the local cafe.

[–] [deleted] 19 points 29 points (+48|-19) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

4
11

[–] l-emmerdeur 4 points 11 points (+15|-4) ago 

If you completely ignore post-war prosperity, then yeah, Keynesian economics failed.

5
28

[–] CallASpadeASpade 5 points 28 points (+33|-5) ago  (edited ago)

According to the Keynesians, the post-war economy was supposed to collapse. They said it was all being propped up by war spending. But the opposite happened, government spending collapsed, and the economy boomed.

Government as a % of GDP during the post war era was somewhere around 15-17%. Today it's 24%. The regulatory state is massive compared to back then and the various welfare programs have increased 4 times over.

Everything you say is the opposite of the truth. We are living in a progressive utopia and it sucks.

[–] [deleted] 6 points 7 points (+13|-6) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

4
-1

[–] BoiseNTheHood 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Post-war prosperity? You mean when the towering wartime deficit (25% of GNP) was replaced by a surplus, when government spending was slashed by 61%, hundreds of government regulators were fired, industries were largely deregulated, and tax reforms such as joint returns were instituted? Keynes would have gone ballistic, but we did the exact opposite of what his vaunted theories said to do and it paid off massively.

As always, Keynesians have somehow managed to revise history and spin it as a victory for military Keynesianism by attributing the economic turnaround to the war itself instead of the policies put in place after it ended.

0
8

[–] jimmyrussel 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You are right in that Keynesian economics has failed and prominent economists in academia are overwhelmingly in favor of use of monetary policy.

I do want to point out however that trickle down economics, supply side economics and monetary policy are not the same. The contentious assumption of trickle down economics that people argue has been debunked (especially on the Democratic side) is that lowering marginal tax-rates at higher levels of income (as opposed to lowering marginal tax-rates at lower levels of income) is not the best way to encourage growth. As for what economic consensus does say is that Keynesian economic policies are widely condemned by economists and that fiscal policy is a more reckless approach to encouraging economic growth. This is what was settled in the 80s.

Where the lowered marginal tax rates should go is where most people point to trickle-down is wrong, as high incomes generally see higher savings ratios (thus decreasing the effect the intended investment incentives would have).

0
5

[–] kahing 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Except most of the recipients of that wealth have been the privileged few rather than the masses. You see record levels of income inequality, with the rich getting richer while wages remain stagnant.

2
1

[–] CallASpadeASpade 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago  (edited ago)

US immigration over time

US inequality over time

Notice the correlation? Amazing what happens to inequality when you import a bunch of poor people.

0
2

[–] BrianFellow 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

So, he says that trickle-down has not generated more wealth for the middle class, and your response is to point out how much it made for the wealthy. Are you high?

15
15

[–] BoiseNTheHood 15 points 15 points (+30|-15) ago  (edited ago)

"Trickle-down" is not and has never been a legitimate economic theory. It's a strawman, and the only time I've ever heard the phrase used is by leftists to smear successful businesses and pro-business policies.

Furthermore, even if we accept the myth of "trickle-down economics" being a thing, it was clearly lost on Reagan. He raised taxes numerous times, grew the national debt significantly, and was so pro-spending that in his final years in office, the Democrat-controlled Congress actually passed smaller budgets than he originally proposed. His time as governor of California played out similarly. In practice, "Reaganomics" was just a cutesy rebranding of the same old Keynesian deficit-spending that the left adores. You'd think liberals would love Reagan.

3
15

[–] bob3333 3 points 15 points (+18|-3) ago 

It's a strawman, and the only time I've ever heard the phrase used is by leftists to smear successful businesses and pro-business policies

You should learn the difference between a strawman and a pejorative.

Reaganomics" was just a cutesy rebranding of the same old Keynesian deficit-spending that the left adores

Except that Keynes never advocated for cutting taxes on the rich and making up the difference by increasing taxes on the middle class and poor, nor did he advocate for deficit spending on the military-industrial complex. Keynes advocated for deficit spending on infrastructure because that actually has a return on investment. Military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy have no returns.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 4 points (+7|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

7
-5

14
4

[–] flimflamedthezimzam 14 points 4 points (+18|-14) ago 

Your revisionist history is bad and you should feel bad.

2
7

[–] Iforgotmy_other_acct 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

He's known for it.

1
0

[–] bob3333 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Not as bad as people who still hold on to the "less regulation and less taxes will give us a better economy" delusion. Every time they get a little bit of what they clamor for we end up in a depression or major recession.

[–] [deleted] 14 points 9 points (+23|-14) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

3
11

[–] Skeletor 3 points 11 points (+14|-3) ago 

Sadly I've only come to understand this a few years ago. So much wasted time getting mad at those who have more. Most of my 20's was spent yelling and screaming for a higher minimum wage. Soon i put 2 & 2 together. I went out and learned a needed trade skill in my area. I hope to be running my own business by the end of next year.

You will be paid what you're worth to your boss's.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

4
0

[–] fuck_communism 4 points 0 points (+4|-4) ago  (edited ago)

You don't make any money because you're not worth any money

This is the hard truth that many people refuse to face.

Get your fucking lives together.

But it's so much easier to sit on the couch smoking pot, playing video games, and blaming my shortcomings on other people.

10
9

[–] ninjajunkie 10 points 9 points (+19|-10) ago 

This has proven to be a fairy tale on par with the founding of the world's religions.

I think you nailed it right there.

3
3

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_ESSENCE 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

The cult of the "Invisible Hand"

[–] [deleted] 3 points 7 points (+10|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] Pwning4Ever 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Why would they stay, when they can pay a vietnamese person $1/day. The reason why nafta fucked the US is because we need those tarriffs to protect american workers from competing with slave wages.

Ill tell you what will happen, we cut taxes, they pocket the extra money, and keep the cheap labor and not change a damn thing. Bush cuts brought back how many jobs??? And the US is too large for a business to just "ignore".

[–] [deleted] 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] yeahrich 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I agree with you OP, It is literally the worst thing we can do for the economy and job market. Corporations just post record profits when the taxes are cut. Rich Entrepreneur do not always create more jobs when they have more capital from tax savings, they also save it.
What drives the market is Demand plain and simple. Supply and demand..

What does work historically to raise the economy, job market, and general living standard in a sustainable (non-bubble) way?

Economic stimulus to the entire working class, Public works projects. lower taxes on all Americans so they can spend it at American businesses.

load more comments ▼ (35 remaining)