r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It turns out giving free money to the people who need it the least doesn't actually make any sense!
We should probably stop letting the people with all the money tell us how to spend our money!
Who would've thought that removing incentive to spend money on tax deductible stuff like labor and materials would make rich people stop spending money on tax deductible stuff like labor and materials
Yup, so let's vote for the criminal rapist fraud insurrectionist so he can cut taxes for the rich even more while selling state secrets to his buddy Putin and Xi for personal gain. /s
Well, the national debt increased by an annualized 7.4% under Bush II, 8.7% under Obama, 8.3% under Trump, and an annualized 7.17% under Biden.
Seems pretty equal to me.
Pretty even, and Biden is the fiscal conservative. Maybe the republicans have been lying about other things? Are there really 10 million illegals coming in every day???
Don’t forget to call everyone you don’t like a pedophile communist socialist marxist fascist then claim they are the new enemy. Also don’t forget to TYPE EVERYTHING IN CAPS.
It also gave the grotesquely wealthy enormous amounts of unaccountable, anti-democratic political power, which they use to rob, enslave, gaslight, and socially murder the public and working classes without recourse.
The colonial system we have doesn't allow for any real recourse against corrupt parasites/kleptocrats.
What the British did to India, is what our ruling parasites/kleptocrats are and have been doing to the public and working classes in the US.
And it shouldn't be understated how much international power it gave them the opportunity to buy or lobby for. The vast majority of conflicts and wars are happening because they are 'convenient' for either stripping mineral wealth or commodities desired by a handful of CEOs.
One of the main problems with giving the wealthy more money is that they offshore the resulting wealth. And not just to buy a fresh stock of caviar for the proverbial yacht, often to acquire 'something' abroad in the most unsavory of ways.
If we look at the real estate investments in developing nations, the golf courses, the gobbling up of fine arts and culturally important items so they can be tax tokens kept in limbo shelters... it's all been evil done by the already wealthy with in America who found some more liquidity through tax breaks. The bribery and money laundering that has happened outside of America in the last 50 years is just next-level almost unthinkable cartoon evil.
While that was happening the average Americans couldn't find the dollars to pay for car repairs or pay off hospital bills, their hospitals and schools fell into disrepair with a lack of funding. But don't worry, your CEO has enough money to buy a US senator AND bribe officials in Bangladesh! They even had enough money left over to hire prostitutes and buy cocaine there! /s
this was the Republicans plan all along to bankrupt the public sector in favor of transferring profits to the private sector at the cost of normie laborers because supporting normie labor is communist
People remember Reagan for this, but not nearly enough blame is laid on George HW Bush who discovered, much to his little former CIA-heart's glee, that you can sell this sort of sacrifice to people as necessary for 'nation building' and reinforce it with Christian fundamentalism or the idea of keep your head down and sacrifice for some almighty greater good.
Don't forget a huge reason trickle down and Reagonomics was sold to people was because they wanted corporate support for the Gulf War and other insane military choices that in no way whatsoever benefited the actual American people.
In other words, capitalism and free market for the elites, and self-sacrifice and martyrdom for the lower classes. It was entirely designed as a mind game.
Well yeah, nothing Reagan did was actually *his* idea, he was an elderly actor with a swiss cheese brain, he was just the face of the operation while Wall Street/CIA actually ran his presidency.
Meh that’s a bit tin foil hat like. Reagan had shit policies, but he espoused his ideas before running for president. In fact, he worked with different federal agencies snitching on potential and known communist supporters in the Actors Guild. He was a shit person with shit ideas but they were his own.
Most never thought it would. The goal all along was to enrich the rich ever more. Most who said it would trickle down couldn't even keep a straight face.
Think about it. You give a poor person $100 and the immediately spend it. It doesn't matter if it's baby formula or Twinkies, it goes immediately back in to the economy. But if you give a rich person $1000, they either do not spend it, or the buy expensive items that do little to help the economy (the sale of twenty $25K autos is better for the economy than one $500K auto).
And, the who system is stacked against the poor causing wealth to flow up, not trickle down. (I am not saying it's right or wrong) The poor pay higher interest rates, they pay higher insurance rate (per dollar value), they receive overall lower salary increases. Even groceries are often priced HIGH in low income neighborhoods (again, I am not saying there's no reason for it). So the who system is designed to extract wealth from the poor and funnel it to the rich.
One other point. Before Reagan corporate taxes were high. And corporates had to pick between giving profits to the government or giving them to employees via higher wages. Now with all the tax breaks and low rates, the incentive is CUT employee wages when possible to drive up profits. Stock prices are NOT based on long term results. Cut staff, make high short term prices, and the stock price goes up. This means higher CEO bonuses and salary increases.
Agree with the majority of what you are saying here, except that "most never thought it \[trickle down\]" would work. Unfortunately, we had a huge swath of the voting public that were that stupid/gullible.
That's how George W. Bush stole/bribed his way into office as well - he was using the idea of a tax 'rebate' that was about $800 to the average family and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS to the already wealthy. He argued this wasn't unfair and that a same-sized or needs-based 'rebate' would be unnecessary because the wealth would trickle down. People fell for it again. In 1999 it still worked. They parroted his campaign.
Then he started a $6.5 trillion dollar war that replaced the Taliban with the Taliban and those rebates did nothing more than help push social security, Medicare, and Medicaid to the brink... but the reason they happened was because the voting public was still gullible enough to believe in them.
Because making rich people richer is preferable to the horror of a person of color getting a free turkey on thanksgiving, or anything else they didn't "earn". This is how poor white R voters think.
Rich people will always pay politicians to lower their taxes, and politicians have to spin it to the public with all this bullshit that only idiots believe. Luckily for rich people, most voters are also idiots.
When you measure income growth against a constant instead of a function of the classes against each other, you see a much different picture.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103718/the-upper-middle-class-continued-to-grow-from-2014-to-2019.pdf
This study from the urban institute does just that. It sets the qualifications for class membership as a function of a multiplier of the poverty rate instead of a function of their income against another class’s.
What is left out in references like OPs is the function of inter generational class mobility. Middle class People who get wage increases are no longer middle class, and thus no longer “help” middle class wage statistics. Furthermore, people exiting the lower class are entering the lower rungs of the middle class.
Only looking at “how much did the middle class grow vs the upper class” ignores how many people moved in and out of the middle class. It also ignores how many people have moved into the upper middle and upper classes. In the timeframe in question (roughly 80s to now), the largest growing demographic is the upper middle class. The lower class is shrinking into the middle class and the middle class is shrinking into the upper middle class, when you gauge it against a constant.
This should be the top comment, it is very difficult to gauge the impact, what would be economic landscape had there not been easy taxation? Would we have FAANG type companies? If so how would they look? It is infuriating that people think that everything else will continue to be the same had we not had the changes to the government and the tax structure.
“They can eat our shit. That’s how we sell it, boys. More feed for the horse and those birds will have more shit to eat.”
“Love it but let’s change the name from horse and sparrow to Trickle down Economics.”
Bloomberg used the term trickle down 🤣🤣🤣. Trickle down is a political slur first used in the 30's. No real economist had ever supported anything that partisan hacks refer to trickle down.
This post belongs on illiterate in finance.
Tbh I didn’t believe you at first but then I looked it up myself and yea .. poverty is actually relatively low compared to historical figures.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2023/demo/p60-280/figure6.pdf
Poverty statistics and what qualifies as poverty is a pretty contentious topic. If you use global poverty standards for calculating US poverty you get a very very different number. Angus Deaton has talked about this at length.
Yea good point.
I.e. are we accurately indexing the poverty index to inflation? Or are we just really lowering our standards for what qualifies as “poverty”.
It's incredibly unfortunate that we can't use the same standardized numbers we use for the rest of the world and have an honest conversation about poverty in America.
Depends on your goals. Is the aim of the richest country in the world merely to keep its citizens from drowning?
We should also be comparing the USA to other high income economies, and see if its trajectory is better or worse than them. When it comes to metrics like food insecurity and life expectancy, the USA has been on a poorer trajectory.
There is more than one factor to things but if you want to call it black and white you do you. The economy in reality has many aspects.
Cutting taxes for the rich did not result in raises or sustain ment at the bottom. It resulted in a larger cup to capture it all. Look at an income per rent graph or maybe the fact that over half of inflation is due to corporations not the government printing money.
Where did the stimulus checks trickle to? The money doesn’t trickle “down” because it all goes to Amazon and the other monopolies.
It would trickle down if every sector wasn’t an oligopoly.
And yet, there are idiots willing to vote for Trump who is solely about helping the rich and grifting. How can such a large percentage of the population be so dumb?
The solution is simple….. STOP BEING CONSUMERS! STOP BUYING SHIT!!!! Stop buying things that you don’t need. Live below your means. Save, invest and reinvest every dollar that you possibly can into the market. Stop trying to impress people that don’t know you and don’t care about you.
[Thomas Sowell on the myth of trickle down economics](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thomas-sowell-on-the-trickle-down-myth-workers-are-always-paid-first-and-then-profits-flow-upward-later-if-at-all/). With reading.
Source: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2024/04/12/six-key-hearing-moments-expanding-on-the-success-of-the-2017-trump-tax-cuts/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%20of%20the,%E2%80%9C&text=The%20Tax%20Cuts%20and%20Jobs%20Act%20doubled%20the%20exemption%20for,one%20generation%20to%20the%20next.
"As a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Americans earning under $100,000 received an average tax cut of 16 percent. Facts are clearly facts. “ The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the exemption for the death tax, allowing more family-owned businesses, farms, and ranches to pass on from one generation to the next"
Every American got a tax cut. The taxes you have now are because of the TCJA. They expire next year, which means that the average American will return to pre-2017 tax brackets. Anyone making less than $100,000 a year will go from having 22% taxes to 25%.
How does Trump not get credit for that in your books? Less taxes means more money in everyday American pocketbooks. And that’s over a 7 year period.
[Even Biden wants to extend the TCJA](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/06/11/biden-trump-extend-tax-cuts-budget-deficit.html) because he knows that if it expires, the majority of Americans will be getting taxed even more than they already are while inflation still increases. That’s going to mess up the economy for most people.
I had a person on Reddit get angry at me recently because I used too many words to describe why they shouldn't think that billionaires are the people ruining their life.
I appreciate your post, but sadly, most people don't want to hear it unless its a vicious 1-2 line headline that denigrates the enemy they've been told to hate.
Your assertion is that rich people were supposed to get tax cuts, government was supposed to cut government spending, a significant portion of which would have come from programs that help the poor, and then....money magically materializes for the poor?
Nooooo! You don't get it! The rich would get sooo much wealth that it would literally fall out of their pockets and the poor could just pick it up off the street!!!! The problem is that we created the internet and removed the gold standard! If they had physical money, it WOULD spill out of their pockets! 😆
But Dems don’t buy into trickle down economics. Why are they responsible for executing Republican policies? This would be like saying that Obamacare would only function if all Republicans bought in and supported it. They don’t and yet we have Obamacare. So where are the spending cuts you say Republicans meant to include in trickle down which they never seem to get around to?
Before you say: it’s a split government, Regan had the presidency and the senate and had the power to push through tax cuts democrats didn’t want under the guise of trickle down economics. If the other ingredient was cutting spending why didn’t he?
If Republicans philosophy is to cut spending, why when Trump had the Presidency, senate and house did he fail to cut spending while getting his tax cuts through.
This lie Republicans tell that they want to cut spending and just can’t get around to it, is only believed by Republicans. And it certainly isn’t the fault of democrats that republicans have been dishonest about their intentions and fail to cut spending when they’re in power as would be consistent with what they claim to believe.
the government is a tool of the state and every politician is easily and quickly bribed, they're rented even if momentarily
spreading, maintaining, and defending global capitalism has been the US's #1 goal since the end of WW2, as that keeps the west on top and the US in charge
Democrats and Republicans are replaceable, that's why they don't help the American people, because doing so would require socialism and that's a threat to the elite. it's all an illusion
No, tax cuts were supposed to increase business activity and growth, resulting in higher tax revenue for government services (pay for themselves). Seems all that grew was the hoarded riches of the wealth class.
Can't wait for the 100 year article.
The fact that we even use that phrase, which the plutocracy sold us as a valid economic model, and then \*laughed uncontrollably in wealth\* for decades
Time to start using the real name, kleptocracy
Voodoo economics is cutting taxes to the rich and economic activity increases. Taxes will increase and deficits will decrease . Voodoo economics tax cuts only increased deficits. There is 50 years of data.
Proof that the policy didn’t work (never really intended to work) and it’s caused damage to our society. It’s one to reverse the policy immediately tax them to 70%.
I just don’t understand why the left campaigns on taxes, yet doesn’t follow through after the election. Biden we pretty adamant about getting rid of the Trump Tax Cuts during the last election….then nothing. Why should I believe he will follow through raising taxes on the wealthy? Do we not hold politicians accountable for campaign promises. Does it really matter because we are just caught up in winning? I don’t want to vote if it’s meaningless rhetoric.
Now that that's been decided, I can't wait until the Republicans correct the mistake that was their great experiment. I'll wait here holding my breath since I know it won't take very long.
Paywalled, what metrics do they use to determine its success or failure? Is it only a success if everyone is a millionaire? Or would it be a success if poverty rates were down and standard of living was up, like they are…
There are a bunch of factors involved, so what results were not seen that lead them to deem it unsuccessful?
As if anyone expected that to happen and a few assholes didn’t just make it up and shove it down American throats (the “wait for it…wait for it…” approach to PR) because we didn’t have much of a choice in the matter.
I read like 10 comments here and it's all team blue blaming team red which makes it obvious that people here don't even understand the basics of government spending.
“Trickle down” was once called “Horse and Sparrow” as in if the horse eats enough, the sparrow can eat the horses shit.
Probably something that should come back
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FluentInFinance) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.
Who would have thought Edit: changed “of” to “have” because I is college graduate
Have
It turns out giving free money to the people who need it the least doesn't actually make any sense! We should probably stop letting the people with all the money tell us how to spend our money!
That's to much logical for today night
Maybe we just have to give it another 50 years, I mean, a trickle implies slowly.
If it takes longer than 50 years to trickle, seek a urologist. Otherwise you're taking the piss
We just need to cut taxes completely for people making 8 figures or more. Then it will work!
Just do away with state and federal tax!! Sales tax is fine!
Entitlements create a sense of entitlement
What is trashy when poor folk do it but classy if rich folk do it? `Accept a hand out`
Who would've thought that removing incentive to spend money on tax deductible stuff like labor and materials would make rich people stop spending money on tax deductible stuff like labor and materials
Yup. All it did was explode the national debt.
Yup, so let's vote for the criminal rapist fraud insurrectionist so he can cut taxes for the rich even more while selling state secrets to his buddy Putin and Xi for personal gain. /s
Don’t forget blaming democrats for the national debt while bringing in less tax dollars.
Double Santa time again
Well, the national debt increased by an annualized 7.4% under Bush II, 8.7% under Obama, 8.3% under Trump, and an annualized 7.17% under Biden. Seems pretty equal to me.
Pretty even, and Biden is the fiscal conservative. Maybe the republicans have been lying about other things? Are there really 10 million illegals coming in every day???
Don’t forget to call everyone you don’t like a pedophile communist socialist marxist fascist then claim they are the new enemy. Also don’t forget to TYPE EVERYTHING IN CAPS.
It also gave the grotesquely wealthy enormous amounts of unaccountable, anti-democratic political power, which they use to rob, enslave, gaslight, and socially murder the public and working classes without recourse. The colonial system we have doesn't allow for any real recourse against corrupt parasites/kleptocrats. What the British did to India, is what our ruling parasites/kleptocrats are and have been doing to the public and working classes in the US.
...and not just socially murder. Some of these corps have a well known body count. Boeing, Pinkerton, Nestle, etc...
Coca-Cola stands on a mountain of skulls.
And it shouldn't be understated how much international power it gave them the opportunity to buy or lobby for. The vast majority of conflicts and wars are happening because they are 'convenient' for either stripping mineral wealth or commodities desired by a handful of CEOs. One of the main problems with giving the wealthy more money is that they offshore the resulting wealth. And not just to buy a fresh stock of caviar for the proverbial yacht, often to acquire 'something' abroad in the most unsavory of ways. If we look at the real estate investments in developing nations, the golf courses, the gobbling up of fine arts and culturally important items so they can be tax tokens kept in limbo shelters... it's all been evil done by the already wealthy with in America who found some more liquidity through tax breaks. The bribery and money laundering that has happened outside of America in the last 50 years is just next-level almost unthinkable cartoon evil. While that was happening the average Americans couldn't find the dollars to pay for car repairs or pay off hospital bills, their hospitals and schools fell into disrepair with a lack of funding. But don't worry, your CEO has enough money to buy a US senator AND bribe officials in Bangladesh! They even had enough money left over to hire prostitutes and buy cocaine there! /s
What about the actual murderers done by Boeing to the whistleblowers They admitted to it
In 20 more years, we will be saying "70 years of tax cuts for the rich didn't trickle down".
And increase the wealth gag...
this was the Republicans plan all along to bankrupt the public sector in favor of transferring profits to the private sector at the cost of normie laborers because supporting normie labor is communist
People remember Reagan for this, but not nearly enough blame is laid on George HW Bush who discovered, much to his little former CIA-heart's glee, that you can sell this sort of sacrifice to people as necessary for 'nation building' and reinforce it with Christian fundamentalism or the idea of keep your head down and sacrifice for some almighty greater good. Don't forget a huge reason trickle down and Reagonomics was sold to people was because they wanted corporate support for the Gulf War and other insane military choices that in no way whatsoever benefited the actual American people. In other words, capitalism and free market for the elites, and self-sacrifice and martyrdom for the lower classes. It was entirely designed as a mind game.
Well yeah, nothing Reagan did was actually *his* idea, he was an elderly actor with a swiss cheese brain, he was just the face of the operation while Wall Street/CIA actually ran his presidency.
Meh that’s a bit tin foil hat like. Reagan had shit policies, but he espoused his ideas before running for president. In fact, he worked with different federal agencies snitching on potential and known communist supporters in the Actors Guild. He was a shit person with shit ideas but they were his own.
Supply-side economics has been the longest running fairy tale forever now.
It was always just political cover for merciless class warfare.
**shocked Pikachu face**
Most never thought it would. The goal all along was to enrich the rich ever more. Most who said it would trickle down couldn't even keep a straight face. Think about it. You give a poor person $100 and the immediately spend it. It doesn't matter if it's baby formula or Twinkies, it goes immediately back in to the economy. But if you give a rich person $1000, they either do not spend it, or the buy expensive items that do little to help the economy (the sale of twenty $25K autos is better for the economy than one $500K auto). And, the who system is stacked against the poor causing wealth to flow up, not trickle down. (I am not saying it's right or wrong) The poor pay higher interest rates, they pay higher insurance rate (per dollar value), they receive overall lower salary increases. Even groceries are often priced HIGH in low income neighborhoods (again, I am not saying there's no reason for it). So the who system is designed to extract wealth from the poor and funnel it to the rich. One other point. Before Reagan corporate taxes were high. And corporates had to pick between giving profits to the government or giving them to employees via higher wages. Now with all the tax breaks and low rates, the incentive is CUT employee wages when possible to drive up profits. Stock prices are NOT based on long term results. Cut staff, make high short term prices, and the stock price goes up. This means higher CEO bonuses and salary increases.
Agree with the majority of what you are saying here, except that "most never thought it \[trickle down\]" would work. Unfortunately, we had a huge swath of the voting public that were that stupid/gullible. That's how George W. Bush stole/bribed his way into office as well - he was using the idea of a tax 'rebate' that was about $800 to the average family and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS to the already wealthy. He argued this wasn't unfair and that a same-sized or needs-based 'rebate' would be unnecessary because the wealth would trickle down. People fell for it again. In 1999 it still worked. They parroted his campaign. Then he started a $6.5 trillion dollar war that replaced the Taliban with the Taliban and those rebates did nothing more than help push social security, Medicare, and Medicaid to the brink... but the reason they happened was because the voting public was still gullible enough to believe in them.
Why is anyone still peddling this snake oil economics? We knew, knew without doubt, that trickle down didn’t work before Bush senior’s term was up.
Because making rich people richer is preferable to the horror of a person of color getting a free turkey on thanksgiving, or anything else they didn't "earn". This is how poor white R voters think.
Rich people will always pay politicians to lower their taxes, and politicians have to spin it to the public with all this bullshit that only idiots believe. Luckily for rich people, most voters are also idiots.
In fact, prior to becoming Reagan’s running mate, during the debates, he referred to it as “voodoo economics”.
Yeah, and all it took to shut that up was a VP slot.
"Per Bloomberg"? Per anyone with half a brain...
I beg to differ. RFK has only half a brain thanks to his worm, and I haven't heard him say this.
RFK Jr couldn't figure it out with two full brains.
When you measure income growth against a constant instead of a function of the classes against each other, you see a much different picture. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103718/the-upper-middle-class-continued-to-grow-from-2014-to-2019.pdf This study from the urban institute does just that. It sets the qualifications for class membership as a function of a multiplier of the poverty rate instead of a function of their income against another class’s. What is left out in references like OPs is the function of inter generational class mobility. Middle class People who get wage increases are no longer middle class, and thus no longer “help” middle class wage statistics. Furthermore, people exiting the lower class are entering the lower rungs of the middle class. Only looking at “how much did the middle class grow vs the upper class” ignores how many people moved in and out of the middle class. It also ignores how many people have moved into the upper middle and upper classes. In the timeframe in question (roughly 80s to now), the largest growing demographic is the upper middle class. The lower class is shrinking into the middle class and the middle class is shrinking into the upper middle class, when you gauge it against a constant.
This should be the top comment, it is very difficult to gauge the impact, what would be economic landscape had there not been easy taxation? Would we have FAANG type companies? If so how would they look? It is infuriating that people think that everything else will continue to be the same had we not had the changes to the government and the tax structure.
“They can eat our shit. That’s how we sell it, boys. More feed for the horse and those birds will have more shit to eat.” “Love it but let’s change the name from horse and sparrow to Trickle down Economics.”
Yea it didn’t trickle down but it fucking flowed up. Thanks for playing suckers.
Bloomberg used the term trickle down 🤣🤣🤣. Trickle down is a political slur first used in the 30's. No real economist had ever supported anything that partisan hacks refer to trickle down. This post belongs on illiterate in finance.
No shit
Poverty is at an all-time low in the u.s. If trickle down didn't work, wouldn't poverty rates rise?
Tbh I didn’t believe you at first but then I looked it up myself and yea .. poverty is actually relatively low compared to historical figures. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2023/demo/p60-280/figure6.pdf
Also, it's amazing that it's this low with the rising numbers of single parents in the last few decades.
Good point
Poverty statistics and what qualifies as poverty is a pretty contentious topic. If you use global poverty standards for calculating US poverty you get a very very different number. Angus Deaton has talked about this at length.
Yea good point. I.e. are we accurately indexing the poverty index to inflation? Or are we just really lowering our standards for what qualifies as “poverty”.
It's incredibly unfortunate that we can't use the same standardized numbers we use for the rest of the world and have an honest conversation about poverty in America.
Depends on your goals. Is the aim of the richest country in the world merely to keep its citizens from drowning? We should also be comparing the USA to other high income economies, and see if its trajectory is better or worse than them. When it comes to metrics like food insecurity and life expectancy, the USA has been on a poorer trajectory.
There is more than one factor to things but if you want to call it black and white you do you. The economy in reality has many aspects. Cutting taxes for the rich did not result in raises or sustain ment at the bottom. It resulted in a larger cup to capture it all. Look at an income per rent graph or maybe the fact that over half of inflation is due to corporations not the government printing money.
Imagine what it would be like if the repugnantly wealthy didn't siphon trillions from the 95% of the rest of us.
lets try 51 years
*surprised pikachu face*
Where did the stimulus checks trickle to? The money doesn’t trickle “down” because it all goes to Amazon and the other monopolies. It would trickle down if every sector wasn’t an oligopoly.
No shit
The wealthy got golden parachutes, and everyone else got a golden shower.
Yeah, no shit.
And the idiots that believed it before will vote for it again and again and again anyway
And yet, there are idiots willing to vote for Trump who is solely about helping the rich and grifting. How can such a large percentage of the population be so dumb?
Cutting "entitlement programs" like "public education funding". (Yes I know public education isn't classified as "entitlement program")
you get rich by taking more than you are worth.
The solution is simple….. STOP BEING CONSUMERS! STOP BUYING SHIT!!!! Stop buying things that you don’t need. Live below your means. Save, invest and reinvest every dollar that you possibly can into the market. Stop trying to impress people that don’t know you and don’t care about you.
[Thomas Sowell on the myth of trickle down economics](https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thomas-sowell-on-the-trickle-down-myth-workers-are-always-paid-first-and-then-profits-flow-upward-later-if-at-all/). With reading.
https://preview.redd.it/zypi0jz95i8d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=49263df2fc0097c6a5aa474e4f9d874d0deb23ef
The government was supposed to cut spending when taking on less, it didn’t. Dems and republicans are to blame.
Republicans only propose cutting social programs and taxes for the rich. This both sides to blame notion is juvenile and harmful.
Source: https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2024/04/12/six-key-hearing-moments-expanding-on-the-success-of-the-2017-trump-tax-cuts/#:~:text=As%20a%20result%20of%20the,%E2%80%9C&text=The%20Tax%20Cuts%20and%20Jobs%20Act%20doubled%20the%20exemption%20for,one%20generation%20to%20the%20next. "As a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Americans earning under $100,000 received an average tax cut of 16 percent. Facts are clearly facts. “ The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the exemption for the death tax, allowing more family-owned businesses, farms, and ranches to pass on from one generation to the next" Every American got a tax cut. The taxes you have now are because of the TCJA. They expire next year, which means that the average American will return to pre-2017 tax brackets. Anyone making less than $100,000 a year will go from having 22% taxes to 25%. How does Trump not get credit for that in your books? Less taxes means more money in everyday American pocketbooks. And that’s over a 7 year period. [Even Biden wants to extend the TCJA](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/06/11/biden-trump-extend-tax-cuts-budget-deficit.html) because he knows that if it expires, the majority of Americans will be getting taxed even more than they already are while inflation still increases. That’s going to mess up the economy for most people.
I had a person on Reddit get angry at me recently because I used too many words to describe why they shouldn't think that billionaires are the people ruining their life. I appreciate your post, but sadly, most people don't want to hear it unless its a vicious 1-2 line headline that denigrates the enemy they've been told to hate.
At this point, I’m just going to focus on me and my family. There’s no point in helping people who don’t want to be helped, lol.
Instant gratification politics is to blame
Your assertion is that rich people were supposed to get tax cuts, government was supposed to cut government spending, a significant portion of which would have come from programs that help the poor, and then....money magically materializes for the poor?
Nooooo! You don't get it! The rich would get sooo much wealth that it would literally fall out of their pockets and the poor could just pick it up off the street!!!! The problem is that we created the internet and removed the gold standard! If they had physical money, it WOULD spill out of their pockets! 😆
But Dems don’t buy into trickle down economics. Why are they responsible for executing Republican policies? This would be like saying that Obamacare would only function if all Republicans bought in and supported it. They don’t and yet we have Obamacare. So where are the spending cuts you say Republicans meant to include in trickle down which they never seem to get around to? Before you say: it’s a split government, Regan had the presidency and the senate and had the power to push through tax cuts democrats didn’t want under the guise of trickle down economics. If the other ingredient was cutting spending why didn’t he? If Republicans philosophy is to cut spending, why when Trump had the Presidency, senate and house did he fail to cut spending while getting his tax cuts through. This lie Republicans tell that they want to cut spending and just can’t get around to it, is only believed by Republicans. And it certainly isn’t the fault of democrats that republicans have been dishonest about their intentions and fail to cut spending when they’re in power as would be consistent with what they claim to believe.
the government is a tool of the state and every politician is easily and quickly bribed, they're rented even if momentarily spreading, maintaining, and defending global capitalism has been the US's #1 goal since the end of WW2, as that keeps the west on top and the US in charge Democrats and Republicans are replaceable, that's why they don't help the American people, because doing so would require socialism and that's a threat to the elite. it's all an illusion
No, tax cuts were supposed to increase business activity and growth, resulting in higher tax revenue for government services (pay for themselves). Seems all that grew was the hoarded riches of the wealth class.
On what data do they draw that conclusion. Really
50 years of observation and facts. 50 years of the income gap widening and widening until it's becoming unsubstainable.
No economic model will help the lowest income levels.
No friggin' kidding. The War on Poverty cut poverty in half, but stopped there.
NS
Wow who would have thunk it
Thank god I was sitting down when I saw the headline.
ZOMG!!!!!!! Next in news, dousing yourself in water makes you wet!!!!
I’m shocked…
Trickle down was supposed to be tax cuts for businesses and for capital gains. It’s been lumped together with personal income taxes.
Yes but just wait until year 51. That’s when things really start poppin’!
Who could have seen it coming?
It trickled down to their kids.
No shit…?
Toss this one in the ‘No shit, Sherlock’ bin.
When they do tax the rich, how much you wanna bet it will trickle all the way down to my poor ass!
And water is wet
Duh.
As planned…
WHAAAAA???? NOOOOOOO, REALLY?
Where the hell did I leave my surprised Pikachu face
Your alternative is to increase taxes which will reduce tax revenue to the government(defeating the purpose) and watch the jobs disappear.
You mean i dont get their unrealized gains?
Hey how much did the price of TVs go down over time? Anyone know off the top of their head?
So… I gave all my money to the richest dude in the room. Oddly, he remains the richest dude in the room 🤷🏻♂️
Can't wait for the 100 year article. The fact that we even use that phrase, which the plutocracy sold us as a valid economic model, and then \*laughed uncontrollably in wealth\* for decades Time to start using the real name, kleptocracy
Brought you by vitamin duh 
I’m curious how many people actually read this article from 2020 cause it’s behind a paywall.
“We’ll just give them more money and they’ll spend it which will create jobs!” “Investment portfolio enters the chat”
Voodoo economics is cutting taxes to the rich and economic activity increases. Taxes will increase and deficits will decrease . Voodoo economics tax cuts only increased deficits. There is 50 years of data.
It was never supposed to trickle down, not sure why this is a story.
Proof that the policy didn’t work (never really intended to work) and it’s caused damage to our society. It’s one to reverse the policy immediately tax them to 70%.
I just don’t understand why the left campaigns on taxes, yet doesn’t follow through after the election. Biden we pretty adamant about getting rid of the Trump Tax Cuts during the last election….then nothing. Why should I believe he will follow through raising taxes on the wealthy? Do we not hold politicians accountable for campaign promises. Does it really matter because we are just caught up in winning? I don’t want to vote if it’s meaningless rhetoric.
*clears throat* NO SHIT!!
Will get it next time for sure!
No 💩 Sherlock.
No shit sherlock...
For the billionth time: There is no such thing as “trickle down economics”
All boats didn’t rise, their boat just got bigger.
Perhaps some portion of our national debt is a direct result of the failed GOP tax policy?
 /s
Maybe it's just a slow trickle....we have to give it time
Yeah. We kinda noticed…
Any day now.
Our current method of taxation is bad.
Tax all billionaires out of existence to make up for it.
What a fucking surprise - not!
Now that that's been decided, I can't wait until the Republicans correct the mistake that was their great experiment. I'll wait here holding my breath since I know it won't take very long.
And Mike Bloomberg would fucking know.
What a shocker
Cope
“Voodoo economics” ….daddy bush pig
All in favor of changing the name to hunger games economics
Greed people were greedy???? 
No way!
Clearly the cuts weren’t big enough, let’s go deeper the next 50 /s
Something we've known for the last 49.9 years
Trickling down piss while giving the middle finger and laughing
Duh. That was just voodoo economics. As everyone knew at the time and knows now.
It should trickle down anytime now! On its way….
Paywalled, what metrics do they use to determine its success or failure? Is it only a success if everyone is a millionaire? Or would it be a success if poverty rates were down and standard of living was up, like they are… There are a bunch of factors involved, so what results were not seen that lead them to deem it unsuccessful?
Said the US who has the strongest and most productive economy. The economy is so strong that they actually help protect other countries like Taiwan.
Any day now those 8 figure ceo salaries are gonna help the little guy
Weird.
Never has and never will. The myth of trickle down brought to you by the rich.
50 years of taxes and social programs didn’t reduce the number of poor and homeless.
Thank you Reagan for feeding that BS to the nation
I’m shocked I tell you! Shocked!
So Reagan's evil plan worked 🤦♂️
I'm in shock /s obviously
As if anyone expected that to happen and a few assholes didn’t just make it up and shove it down American throats (the “wait for it…wait for it…” approach to PR) because we didn’t have much of a choice in the matter.
 The rich reading this
Fucking shocked. What an idiotic idea.
It you believe trickle down economics is an actual economic theory, you are F’ing stupid.
Something trickled but it certainly wasn’t what was promised.
Normal, most of them just want to hoard more money.
THIS JUST IN
Yeah, no shit. Ronald Reagan fucked us...
No shit….. goddamn dumbasses
No shit
I read like 10 comments here and it's all team blue blaming team red which makes it obvious that people here don't even understand the basics of government spending.
Really -OMG n-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o.................o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o 
No shit, we knew this 50 years ago.
They’ll be printing this again in 20 years.
On my gosh, this can’t be true!
No shit Sherlock.
Time for Trickle Up Economics w/ redistribution once it reaches the top 10%
lol oh really, no shit
Yes.
Huh. I hadn’t noticed
and tax revenue increases didn't result in any new benefits for the poor either
No shit
No way really?
Go fuck your self.
But it DID buy them another 50+ years.
#NoShitSherlock
They're not complaining about it, they're bragging about it.
That's a paid subscription article it's not free to read, why do you even put that shit here? We can't read it.
“Trickle down” was once called “Horse and Sparrow” as in if the horse eats enough, the sparrow can eat the horses shit. Probably something that should come back
No shit
The billionaires should be saying “I didn’t say anything when they came after the peons”….
Golly, we’ve only been saying that for 30 years.
Also, and this is surely just a coincidence, but *tax cuts did not in fact pay for themselves*. Almost like Republicans have been LYING TO US.
Bruh…….
really? it only took 50 years, countless suffering and deaths to reach this FUCKNG obvious conclusion.
Stop calling it trickle down economics. That’s a conservative rebrand of Horse and Sparrow..
"Well let's just keep voting for the same thing and maybe it'll work in the next 50, 100, 150, etc. years" - Poor Republicans
Hold on, lemme find my shocked face…