So-called Trickle Down Economics omits, which were made popular back in the 1980s by Ronald Reagan. For anybody who is too young to remember, the idea was that if you gave the top-earners the tax breaks, then they would be inclined to turn around and reinvest it in their workers (so the top would then send money down to the bottom). Sure, sounds great in theory (as most things do), but in practice that did t happen. In fact, if anything, what we have today is a direct result of trickle down economics, and we know (we already knew) that it ain’t working.
I'm curious, is there a consensus that Reaganomics was faulty entirely?
Intuitively I feel like a little bit of both is true.
If a business owner is taxed out the yin yang then he just has less capital to spend on growing his business. If he wants to grow his business by hiring more people, or other local spending, perhaps that is an undesired effect (If you believe a small business in growth mode is a more powerful engine than a government allocating spending to low bid contractors somehow)
On the other hand if he doesn't want to grow his business by hiring people, for example by buying AI powered robots to do the jobs instead, and then laying off all the staff, then I say tax away.
Your fundamental mistake here is assuming any SMEs have the scale and creative accountants to truly take advantage of this. In practice, SMEs have their lunch eaten while the mega corps really take advantage. Those large companies don't even buy robots with these handouts, generally. They use it for stock buy-backs to enrich shareholders.
First of all, I want to address those who are downvoting you: this poster asked a genuine question in good faith. It’s okay to disagree with them, but downvoting seems a bit harsh.
Ok, I feel better. 😊
Now, they have done extensive research into the failures of TDE. Also it should be pointed out that high-income earners ($216k at the time) were taxed at a marginal rate of 70%, but was drastically reduced to 38% in 1986, and of course it’s gone down since then (albeit nominally).
Because it's the rich who set the narrative
Time to sharpen the guillotines.
I've wanted to start a "guillotine society" for years... Just make little guillotines and leave them outside the corrupt rich people's homes and businesses... Not necessarily a threat, just a reminder.
Also for shills that support the corrupt super rich... Spray then with watered down honey and then blow feathers all over them... Good old tar and feathering but without burning their skin off
In practice, cancelling student debt would be a great stimulus since people would have more money to spend, whereas tax cut money is pretty much gone.
Yeah I've been trying to figure out why republicans want to cancel student debt forgiveness so bad as it literally taking money out of the economy. Even worse, that money is already spent. I guess they assume people just hold onto all that extra money, now the government wants it back... Like what the duck. My credits already shot because of this mess.
I was waiting for student loan forgiveness to buy a house. Now my down payment goes to debt.
I'm sure there are many like me.
Overall I side with debt forgiveness, not because I am in student debt, but because I saw first hand how school admins abuse the money for lavish paychecks and nice things.
Subsidies for universities should transparently be enriching the universities or reducing tuition.
Tax cuts for big companies helps regular people and students in debt too, as they're now able to create more jobs and innovate further! They're definitely not going to use the money to enrich themselves further and buy new yachts while still exploiting their workers and laying them off when it suits them, that would NEVER happen.
Also, even when it does work "like it should", it's not like the company is giving away free money to its workers and the community. That money is used to pay for goods or labour.
Or maybe it is given for free as a bonus, but if any is given to the grunts, I'd assume much more is given to the execs.
Businesses shouldn't be given bailouts. If the government is providing money to support a business that is "too big to fail" but incapable of keeping itself going, that money should be compensated with shares of the business that remain in public holdings. That should be what late stage capitalism looks like, not this "as business fail due to perpetual growth hitting a ceiling, whichever survives the longest gets to enshitify its market due to lack of viable competition and rent seeking, gets bought by someone else who thinks they can do better (often via tyranny), or just fails with current investors and employees left holding the bag. Or the government gives them free money instead of or in addition to this."
Its all about who received it, man.
And how much they paid off the relevant (conservative) lawmakers.
"When the government wants to incentivize rich people, it gives them money. When it wants to incentivize poor people, it stops giving them money."
Because regular people don't have the means to control the narrative.
Well one helps the general population, and the other helps rich people.
Because it's the same rich people that own the media.
Because thoughts and prayers.
Something something... "job creators"
They are both bad.
Why? Because we're headed here.
My thought is this is the twentieth time I'm seeing this on lemmy
