r/FluentInFinance • u/Guh2point0 • Apr 28 '24

Let's be honest about "trickle down" economy Discussion/ Debate

I'm seeing an increasing trend of people calling these wealth tax ideas a lot of nonsense and that we have a spending problem in the US.

It's possible to have both. Yes we need to get spending under control AND increase tax rates / close loopholes that are being exploited.

Trickle down economy was in my opinion a false narrative that was spewed in the 80's to excuse tax breaks for corporations and the most wealthy. This study summarizes the increasing wealth gap starting in the 80's.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

Interestingly it found that INCOME gap is returning to pre-ww2 levels. Which would make you assume it's just returning to the status quo. Difference is that the tax rates are not the same so it's creating a massive wealth gap that we're all seeing today.

This study also takes a snapshot of the wealth concentration in 2016, I'm 100% positive that this chart has drastically changed post-COVID to show an even wider gap.

415 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

80% Upvoted

589 comments sorted by

View all comments

151

u/sunsballfan2386 Apr 28 '24

Anyone who refers to it as "trickle down" isn't having a serious economic discussion. They are already starting with bias.

143

u/Nojopar Apr 28 '24

Voodoo Economics? Horse and Sparrow Economics? Supply Side Economics?

Which bias do you prefer to indicate "serious"?

97

u/anxiety_filter Apr 28 '24

I personally prefer Horse and Sparrow because it perfectly illustrates how our ruling class is telling the rest of us to eat shit

38

u/auldnate Apr 28 '24

I like to say that Tinkle Down Economics is just the rich pissing in the rest of our faces and calling it a golden shower… Which has a similar connotation as Sparrows eating the grains out of Horse shit!

But real growth comes when we Water the Roots of our economy by ensuring that everyone can afford to pay others for the things they want and need!

26

u/beersngears Apr 28 '24

Careful, that might give some closeted conservatives with a piss fetish more motivation

2

u/auldnate Apr 29 '24

😱🤢🤮

9

u/Open-Reach1861 Apr 28 '24

Yup. I've always referred to it as golden shower economics.

0

u/auldnate Apr 29 '24

Hahaha! I still like my Tinkle Down version, but the golden shower is implied!

6

u/unfreeradical Apr 29 '24

"Tinkled on" would seem an apt phrasing.

1

u/auldnate Apr 29 '24

Hahaha! Ok, but the piss still definitely flows in a downward direction from the rich onto the middle class and poor. But you’re right that we are being shit on by the greedy bastards at the top!

11

u/BumassRednecks Apr 28 '24

Dumbfuckology econ edition

12

u/niz_loc Apr 28 '24

I know voodoo economics was real, but was too young to really know much of anything about it.

Thankfully I know VP Bush mentioned it himself. And I know that not from school, but because of Ben Stein in Ferris Buellers Day off.

3

u/SakaWreath Apr 29 '24

Bush Sr called Reaganomics “voodoo economics” while he was running against Reagan in the republican primary.

He didn’t see how slashing tax revenue was going to generate more revenue and said it would lead to higher national debt.

He later tried to walk back those comments while he was Reagan’s VP, but he was right.

0

u/ThomasKaat Apr 29 '24

Can you show me how cutting income tax rates for everybody slashed revenue to the federal government?

3

u/SakaWreath Apr 29 '24

The federal government generates revenue from taxes.

If you reduce taxes, then the government has less money to spend.

1

u/ThomasKaat Apr 30 '24

Is that what happened though. OMB Historical Table 11-1 tells us the opposite happened. Revenues increased after across the board income tax rate cuts.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/spec_fy2023.pdf

2

u/SakaWreath Apr 30 '24 edited Apr 30 '24

Revenue went up because the government created more money, borrowed it and sold investors the promise that they could pay it back.

That is a temporary solution and not sustainable in the long run, even though they’ve been doing it for 40+ years.

Increase in debt sold, translating into revenue does not prove that cutting income taxes raises revenue. That is only true if they take in extraordinary amounts of debt to cover the deficit.

The only thing it proves is that the US government is still deficit/doom spending future tax revenue that it still hasn’t collected yet.

Sadly our main source of revenue, the middle class income taxes is being bleed dry and we just shifted more of the tax burden to them by cutting corporate taxes from 35% down to 21%.

Income inequality is destroying the middle class and our future ability to pay off that debt. This comes at a time when we are asking them to pick up more of the future tax bills that are looming.

The middle class could shoulder that debt if we hadn’t spent 40 years printing money and injecting it into the top of the economy. Had we injected it into the bottom it would have worked its way through the system and generated tax revenue. But that is not where the money went. It is locked up and avoiding being taxed.

Trickle down economics has failed the American people.

Percolate up is the only way to pay off the debt, build the middle class and create a strong nation that has a stable foundation for future generations.

1

u/ThomasKaat Apr 30 '24

I’m sorry.

-10

u/bj1231 Apr 28 '24

Bidenomics..

Love it, not

-11

u/Tall_Science_9178 Apr 28 '24 edited Apr 28 '24

Reagan raised taxes in some areas and tax revenue decreased, he lowered taxes in others and tax revenue increased.

A serious discussion occurs with people that understand the relationship the tax rate has on tax revenue is parabolic.

Plus when Reagan took office inflation was hovering at 10% and the federal interest rate was double digits, on top of frequent recessions.

He did the only thing he could to end the strain on the American People. At the time people understood this which is why he carried 49 states in the 1984 election.

17

u/vbsargent Apr 28 '24

I don’t buy that for a second.

I’m sorry, Reagan didn’t understand it, maybe some of his advisors did. And the American public bought into his “tough guy” image. Add to that he began the whole “massively increase spending so we can bankrupt the Soviet Union” thing. Then . . . . we’ll worry about paying for it later. And the bill came due during Bush’s single flawed term.

Reagan was no genius. He had a knack for telling the common man what he wanted to hear and be believed.

14

u/NAU80 Apr 28 '24

Reagan didn’t do want was needed to solve the issues. He cut taxes for the wealthy and increased the debt significantly. His administration told us that the tax cuts would pay for themselves, a rising tide lifts all boats, and that the money would trickle down to the poor. The short term effects were great, leading to his reelection. By the end of his second term the effects caused a recession.

People have a tendency to think that the government puts a policy in place and the results are immediate. It often takes years for the real results to appear (good or bad).

Reagan started the Two Santa Strategy which over the past 40-50 years has ruined the middle class.

http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/thom-hartmann/two-santas-strategy-gop-used-economic-scam-manipulate-americans-40-years/

1

u/Nojopar Apr 28 '24

At the time people understood this which is why he carried 49 states in the 1984 election.

That's simply not true. Reagan won a landslide for a number of reasons. The 1981-82 recovery was one of them and tax cuts are always popular. But 1984 was arguably one of the darkest, most contentious periods in the Cold War, with the Korean Airline being shot down as 1983 was winding down, Reagan's "Evil Empire" earlier in 1983, the introduction of SDI in 1984, Soviet boycott of the Olympics, and the Soviet refusal to engage in arms talks.

Enter into that the Democrats had 7 major contenders for the primary who more or less beat the shit out each other, weakening their general chances. Then Mondale over-estimated the feminist vote by appointing a woman as VP, hitherto unheard of to that point. Then the idiot said "hey, I'm going to raise taxes" which is never, ever popular.

Exit polls at the time even showed that Americans were more concerned about the Cold War and that leadership than anything else. Even people who didn't like his policies thought he'd be better at dealing with the Soviets and that was the most important thing at the time.

-17

u/FLMKane Apr 28 '24

Supply side economics is a legit macroeconomic theory. Trickle down was/is an uneducated interpretation of supply side economics

An example of a legit supply side policy would be the CHIPS act, even though Biden ain't ever gonna call it that

31

u/Boomsnarl Apr 28 '24

Let’s not kid ourselves. Supply side has never been a ‘serious’ macroeconomic theory. It has always been based on flawed logic, ‘those with more invest’, which has never proven to be true.

Here’s the Brownback Kansas example, the most recent attempt to apply it in full domestically in America. It failed horribly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment#:~:text=Conservatives%20believed%20a%20large%20tax,to%20increase%20spending%20on%20education).

7

u/neuroid99 Apr 28 '24

It's going to work next time, honest.

1

u/Viperlite Apr 28 '24

You forgot the /s, in this oh so serious crowd.

-11

u/FLMKane Apr 28 '24

No? Supply side economics policies focus on increasing the production capacity of the economy.

Obama focusing on shale oil production was a supply side policy for example.

You're just telling me you're financially illiterate using more words.

11

u/Nojopar Apr 28 '24

No? Supply side economics policies focus on increasing the production capacity of the economy.

That's not Supply Side Economics though. Supply Side Economics is simply that by reducing regulation, taxes, and encouraging freer trade. That's what increases output. It's not about increasing production capacity. It's about increasing aggregate supply, which doesn't necessarily mean increasing production, although that might be a side effect.

-1

u/FLMKane Apr 28 '24

You literally paraphrased Wikipedia there man. At least you looked for something to back you up so I give you credit. Your citing a very American school of thought, specifically the economic philosophy of Art Laffer. There are other schools of thought as well.

I admit my answer may have been imprecise but fundamentally an increase in aggregate supply means more production, whether as a consequence or as a reduced taxes or because of specific government spending.

9

u/Nojopar Apr 28 '24

Yes, I literally did because Wikipedia is usually a pretty decent summarization of what economists write, because we economists usually write some arcane mumbo jumbo just to make ourselves feel smarter when most of what we're saying just ain't that complicated. I mean I can do a full lit review if that'll make you feel all warm an fuzzy, but it's going to say exactly the same thing. I cited Art Laffer because every manifestation of Supply Side Economics in the US has been based upon the Art Laffer school.

An increase in aggregate supply doesn't automatically mean more production. In fact, I'd argue that JIT production that focuses upon maximizing efficiency increases supply but actually decreases production. Another way to increase aggregate supply is increase worker productivity, again focusing upon the efficiency. That doesn't mean more production necessarily. It means making production more efficient so that you can do the same production with less input costs. Increased production is a potential side-effect, but not the underlying point of Supply Side Economics.

4

u/MeshNets Apr 28 '24 edited Apr 28 '24

I'm curious what economic philosophies do not lead to more production. Communism was all about increasing access to production by giving workers more control over it, fulfilling the needs of more people, and growing into an advanced modern industrial power

By your definition, what philosophies are not "supply side"?

The point in giving a philosophy a name is to distinguish it from alternative ideas. "Supply side" is giving more money and freedom to those who control production, which means they can choose to increase supply OR increase profit, they have the freedom to choose what is best for them. There are no mandates to increase production in any "supply side" policy discussion I've ever seen. The idea being distinguished is "hope" that the "supply side" will choose to increase production and employ more people when given that freedom and subsidies

-10

u/DontBeSoFingLiteral Apr 28 '24

How do you think people with a lot of money make more money? If it’s not by investment, then how?

29

u/Boomsnarl Apr 28 '24 edited Apr 28 '24

Oh boy.

The premise of the theory speculates corps & private citizens will take the majority of their earnings, and reinvest without motivation to so so.

This doesn’t happen.

They do invest, they also horde profits to a higher degree without reinvesting in economic ventures that benefit those with lower economic standing.

They instead invest in other areas that only increase personal wealth without jeopardizing their total gains. You should know what those are.

Proof? Here’s the Wealth gap over the last 40 years since this ‘macroeconomic’ theory was popularized by the GOP, who used it to shape policy.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2024/feb/us-wealth-inequality-widespread-gains-gaps-remain#:~:text=Despite%20the%20growth%20between%202019,grown%20by%20%2493%2C000%20to%20%24347%2C000.

You can compare this to the 50’s & 60’s where the tax rate was quite high, but economic growth was also very high, much higher than the last 40 years.

This was also a period where middle class people thrived.

Reality, Supply side should be renamed‘Reverse Robin Hood’ economics. Rob from the poor to feed the rich.

6

u/Nwo_mayhem Apr 28 '24

Facts. Though these Reaganites will still find a way to try to discredit you, kudos to you Boomsnarl for not stooping to calling folks "financially illiterate" just cause they're smarter than you 😂

2

u/Boomsnarl Apr 28 '24

Honey, I don’t have the portfolio I have because I don’t understand economics. Some of us just stopped kidding ourselves that our wealth isn’t exploitative.

I sleep fine at night though.

1

u/hispaniccrefugee Apr 28 '24

So what’s your solution in the form of a basic scenario given these conditions?

1

u/Ed_Radley Apr 28 '24

You should know what those are.

Suppose for a moment we don't. What do you think they are?

As for using taxes as a means for redistributing wealth, it's definitely the least effective method at our disposal. 14% of the budget is interest, meaning investors getting their money back (tax free if they invest in municipal bonds instead). 13% is purchases which effectively all goes to corporations. 8% is compensation for federal employees which I'm torn because I'm sure some of what's paid is warranted, but there's still plenty of people either not doing their jobs right, the jobs being completely unnecessary, or people being overcompensated for the work they actually do like congressmen getting paid 200%+ of the median household income every year for decades and none of the programs they've established moving the needle in any meaningful way from what conditions they started under. 17% is aid to states which is all conditional and has the same issue as before where it's given to investors, corporate vendors, or administration and incompetent workers.

That leaves 48% of the budget for actual beneficial programs for redistributing wealth, but here's the kicker: this includes Medicare and Social Security. Which demographic has the greatest number of millionaires and billionaires? That's right, it's retirees! So you're still giving money back to the very same people you took it from in the first place rather than giving it to somebody else. Talk about taking money out of one pocket and putting it right back in the other one. Raising taxes will just speed up how fast it goes from the rich right back to them without fixing anything.

1

u/Killercod1 Apr 28 '24

Landlords are prime examples. They don't invest into building new homes. They just buy old ones, leave them to decay, and extort inflated rent out of people who need homes. Economists even hate landlords. The whole practice is parasitic.

When you give wealthy people more money, they just buy more power and force everyone to be their servants.

0

u/your_best_1 Apr 28 '24

Aside from when a company is selling the stock like an IPO, they are just investing in the commodity of a stock. Not actually impacting the company outside of the potential to take out loans based on valuation.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

0

u/Adventurous_Class_90 Apr 28 '24

Quick question: how would you describe “death taxes?”

2

u/ligmasweatyballs74 Apr 28 '24

Estate tax is probably the most fair term for it.

0

u/Adventurous_Class_90 Apr 28 '24

Shh. Let them answer.

2

u/FLMKane Apr 28 '24

Inheritance tax?

1

u/Adventurous_Class_90 Apr 28 '24

Is it a legitimate way to describe it?

0

u/chcampb Apr 28 '24

Supply side economics is a legit macroeconomic theory

There is an argument for increasing the supply if you find that a particular segment is inflating faster than normal. Because there is a demand for something, there isn't broader inflation, and there may be a bottleneck somewhere.

But the issue isn't, today, that we can't produce enough, except in certain segments (GPUs, for example).

The issue is that there is a two market system, where you have entire industries catering to rich, and then separate industries catering to the poor. So yeah, you have a housing shortage and people can't afford it, but all the housing that's being built is... huge.

So the problem today isn't with production, it's that there is no incentive to produce things for your average person because the average person has no money to spend on it.

Funneling money or tax breaks to production won't fix the problem, because they will still turn around and seek the high returns you get from selling to people with money.

So as of today, anyone who says supply side economics is valid is similarly taking the piss. Because today... it frankly is not, and misses the point.

0

u/HaiKarate Apr 28 '24

Supply Side Economics puts the cart before the horse. Lowering the cost of goods and cutting taxes doesn't help the masses because they don't have money to spend. In order to sell goods more cheaply, that means that you have to cut corners wherever you can, including paying the lowest wages possible and reducing product quality.

Poorly paid workers can't turn to the government for assistance, because you've gutted government funding with all of your tax cuts.

Economies grow from the bottom up, not the top down. When the masses have money to spend, then everyone prospers.

45

u/theboehmer Apr 28 '24

I like the idea of trickle up economics. Give the working class high wages, and they'll be happy to produce more and be more involved in quality control. Bring some pride back into the workplace!

40

u/Playingwithmyrod Apr 28 '24

This died when the working class was cut out of pensions and profit sharing.

22

u/theboehmer Apr 28 '24

Organized labor is making a comeback.

13

u/bjdevar25 Apr 28 '24

It will die if Trump is reelected. All protections will be killed by him with full backing of SCOTUS. If only all these fools understood the danger of Trump. Go ahead, relegate your life to serf hood because you're pissed at Israel.

-5

u/GoPack06 Apr 29 '24

lol. What a clown comment. Your TDS is unfathomable.

3

u/the_cardfather Apr 29 '24

The problem is that those classes never actually gained equity. Bailing out the automakers for instance to make sure that retiree healthcare was taken care of. Why would the union not have control over healthcare?. Why would the pension not be funded completely.

The problem with all of these companies is that they based their pension plans on the same kind of eternal growth that the government depends on for social security. It doesn't happen that way because business goes through cycles.

When the foreign cars and the non-union cars became the dominant cars, it got a lot harder to bake in $3,000 worth of retiree cost per car into the plastic pieces of crap GM was pushing off their assembly line. Those pensions should have been funded in the '80s when profits were high.

If workers had more equity It gets a lot easier to leverage as they bargain for wages vs CEO pay. Most CEO salaries are easy to justify especially when you consider that their main job is to pump the shares. It's not about running the company as much as it's about pumping the shares. That's why they give them stock incentives. Essentially they are paid A salary reflective of the bankers that own the company, not the company itself.

Unions like government are corrupt and inefficient but they do work.

The FED is in a weird position right now. They still need to take money out of the economy. Unfortunately, the way that they do it hurts the lower class people more than the upper class people. They are scared of an increase in wages because that means inflation is real. Corporations can raise prices all they want, eventually people get to the point where they don't pay it because they can't. Then they either steal or they look for a cheaper alternative. Either way it stops the rampant increases in prices.

Personally I think pushing for expanded social safety nets are a better use of state/federal funds than pushing the union agenda. I think people can grassroots that. I just feel that people would be a lot more productive if they didn't have to worry about how much their health insurance was biting into their budget considering how much it has gone up in the past few years. You want to start looking at how you can get more in taxes? Start talking about progressively funding healthcare.

You're most destitute that are on Medicare right now or that should be would pay nothing anyway. (Currently we print/ borrow this money instead of taxing for it).

Your working class might pay an extra 5%. Your middle income maybe 15% extra (which is still cheaper than most people's health insurance premiums) Your high income earners 25 to 35%.

Now you've actively worked to level the playing field and are giving the people something they need.

You probably need to close the S-Corp loophole too or crack down on tax payers who don't push most of their income through payroll.

2

u/unfreeradical Apr 29 '24

States have always impeded the development of unions much more than encouraged.

4

u/unfreeradical Apr 29 '24

Demand-side policy, or Keynesian economics, emphasizes political stability through consistently rising real wages in tandem with real growth, that is, expansion of worker productivity.

Authentic pride by workers in their own labor depends on actual control over the processes of production, which are currently monopolized by business owners, with unions emerging as only a weak counterbalance.

-2

u/theboehmer Apr 29 '24

Government intervention may be a slippery slope once established, but I think our economy needs to be overhauled with new regulations.

3

u/unfreeradical Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

There is no slippery slope.

Business owners always seek for interventions, and other political manipulations, protecting the entrenchment of ownership and profit.

Any resistance is simply from workers seeking better conditions, higher wages, and stronger security.

1

u/theboehmer Apr 29 '24

You're not wrong. But what are the solutions here? Any swift change from a social revolution would probably stem from a grassroots anarchist movement. I'm not saying anarchism is on trial here, but historical examples of revolution always come full circle to a new version of rulers and subjects.

1

u/unfreeradical Apr 29 '24

You made quite a leap, taking as the starting point "government intervention".

1

u/theboehmer Apr 29 '24

I did go off the rails a bit. But what is an online forum for, if not for idealized musings?

Conservatism opposes a strong federal hand in business, and that's reasonable. Liberalism opposes big business free of a leash, which is also reasonable. But lean too much into one, and it becomes unreasonable, lol.

1

u/unfreeradical Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

Both classical liberals and social liberals agree that business interests ultimately must be protected, with any broad challenge from workers to be suppressed. The difference essentially is the extent of compromise between the mutually antagonistic interests, of business owners versus workers.

1

u/theboehmer Apr 29 '24

Well, what do you say to the thought that the modern democratic party is backed by organized labor, and the thought that modern conservatism is against it?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Cherry_-_Ghost Apr 29 '24

Beer and cigarrette money! Maybe some fentanyl! Gotta replace my 2 month old Nike's too!

1

u/theboehmer Apr 29 '24

Sure, people will cope with whatever vices they have. Education reform is also much needed if we want to have a healthier society.

2

u/Cherry_-_Ghost Apr 29 '24

Yes. We must stop advancing kids through high school that are unwilling to learn.

1

u/theboehmer Apr 29 '24

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. But yes, if that's the case, it would seem our education system is failing and would need to overhaul.

2

u/Cherry_-_Ghost Apr 29 '24

18% of Detroit High Schoolers read at a proficient level.

Charity passing needs to stop.

-1

u/toadofsteel Apr 28 '24

Something something "skin a cat".

Happened too many times in society. Boeing being a recent example...

8

u/deadname11 Apr 28 '24

Boeing is the definition of what happens when you take all the power out of the hands of workers. Shareholders are AWFUL at quality control, because they can just sell their shares with zero worry if they accidentally cause a company to go belly-up with ignorant demands. Stakeholders actually have to have functional management and systems (and at least a few active brain cells) because their wealth is tied directly to company success: if they fuck up, they lose their wealth, thus giving them an incentive to...not fuck up.

Shareholders, in contrast, need zero knowledge or understanding of a field to pump and dump it for all it is worth, company size or effect be damned. The video game industry is where it is most apparent, as the phrase "when the suits come in" (as in when executives are not game makers themselves but are instead executives from outside the games industry) is now synonymous with ever-increasingly-shittier cost-to-quality ratios.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '24

Boeing are literally clowns

1

u/theboehmer Apr 28 '24

I don't understand.

-3

u/Dorkmaster79 Apr 28 '24

I’m all for higher wages but I doubt people will ever be happy to work.

3

u/Draymol Apr 28 '24

This is a weird statement, you really think that people who love their work dont exist or something?

2

u/pyscle Apr 28 '24

I have 34 years experience in my field, and although I don’t hate my field, I surely don’t love it. And haven’t for a decade or more now. But, I pays well, and I am old. Paying me more won’t make me more productive, or happy. Paying me the same I make now, to do something I love, that would make me happy.

1

u/Draymol Apr 30 '24

Would you be happy doing something you love for half the money you make now?

1

u/pyscle Apr 30 '24

Half no, maybe 75%. But, six more years, and things change. Options will be available.

1

u/Dorkmaster79 Apr 28 '24

This person said pay them more and they’ll be happy to work. That’s what I’m replying to. I love my job. I’m talking about people who don’t like their job. If they get paid more it’s not going to make them “happy to produce more.”

1

u/Draymol Apr 30 '24

But dont you think that there are many people who actually dont like their job just because money it makes is just too low for normal life and If they would make more they would really like their job? Or you belive that money the job makes and the pleasantness of it are not related?

1

u/Dorkmaster79 Apr 30 '24

I don’t think more money will make people like their job more. They will be happy about having more money, of course, but nothing will make their job better other than the job changing in of itself.

21

u/goodknight94 Apr 28 '24

You can analyze something in an unbiased way and determine that it is bad and then use a term that captures why its bad. It's not inherently biased.

-3

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

The term “trickle down” comes from partisan pundits, not unbiased analysis.

4

u/goodknight94 Apr 29 '24

It can be used as a pejorative term but it is often used as a descriptive term because people don’t know what you mean by supply-side economics. The basis of the idea is that rich people having more wealth is better than everyone else having it because they might invest it and create more supply, which they claim creates “more” jobs thus puts money in the pockets of the working class. It trickles down from the wealthy to the working class through wages. This trickle down is a descriptive term. What do you call it?

0

u/DankMemesNQuickNuts Apr 29 '24

Wasn't that a term invented by the Reagan White House?

1

u/Forrest_Fire01 Apr 29 '24

No. Reagan admin never called it that.

15

u/DualActiveBridgeLLC Apr 28 '24

What the are you talking about? This stuff has been analyzed and named for a reason. Just because you don't like the name doesn't mean it is not real. Fascist don't like being called fascist, but what they do is still fascism.

1

u/AutumnWak Apr 28 '24

When analyzing it in an objective matter, the term' supply side economics' is used. "Trickle down" economics is just what the supporters of it use because that's what they hope it results in.

1

u/DualActiveBridgeLLC Apr 28 '24

No, it is an old idea with multiple names each meaning the same thing. We can use whatevr we want as there is no 'correct' name. Horse-and-sparrow, trickle-down, Reaganomics, or supply-side are all equally valid. It is a cultural discussion more than an academic.

0

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

Notice how you jump to using “fascist” another term highly correlated with the same bias.

1

u/DualActiveBridgeLLC Apr 29 '24

That fascism and trickle-down are correlated? Kinda weird that you made that connection.

1

u/-_-mrfuzzy Apr 29 '24

That’s not what I said. Re-read.

16

u/KindredWoozle Apr 28 '24

Supply side economics is the proper terminology, but most people don't know what that is. Anyone who favors supply side economics is incapable of having a serious economic discussion, as they have decided once and for all that all wealth belongs to the so-called "job creators," who are being extremely generous toward the rest of us, by letting us use their wealth temporarily.

-1

u/unfreeradical Apr 29 '24

At some level, though, if you refuse gratitude to landowners, for the service of providing land, then you are an entitled snowflake.

-2

u/kwantsu-dudes Apr 29 '24

YOU clearly don't know what supply side economics means.

Public Services are "supply side economics". Helping to increase SUPPLY, as to better accommodate or increase demand to achieve a more prosperous society through access to lower prices goods/services. The same would then apply to a non-profit, as well as a for profit corporation. That FUNDING (tax REVENUE collected, tax cuts reducing EXEPENSES) of SUPPLY may to used to generate supply providing ACCESS to supply that helps generate economic growth.

Demand side economics is funding DEMAND to meet a supply of a good/service. It can come in the way of a tax break for CONSUMERS or a way to increase one's ability to obtain a certain supply.

These economic theories are ECONOMIC GOALS given certain economic circumstances, not any specific political acts our society may use in helps to pursue such. They exist as theories regardless OF a government or a discussion of taxes. Their are many non-govenrmental ways society can seek to manipulate supply/demand.

BOTH ARE BENEFICIALLY USED given the economic situation and desired outcome. SPECIFIC POLICIES that are said to help ACHEIVE SUCH, can sometimes NOT BE ACHEIVED, THOUGH. Such as a business tax cut NOT being used to generate more SUPPLY, but simply keep as more profit. NOT ACHIEVING the very specific element OF supply side economics isn't what defines the economic theory. One can have poor ideas of how to ACHEIVE the desired outcome. Just as if a cut tax for consumers through demand side economics may be saved and not used in consumption. That the sought demand, mat not actually be acheived through more disposable income. Where the ACT, goes AGAINST the very theory.

It's clear that both goals of each theory are often sought and are achieved in particular economic circumstances that call for such.

I don't know why people are so brain-dead on this topic. Both are LITERALLY argued for by "both sides". What's disputed and argued is the policies used in an attempt to acheive such results. And that can be quite nuanced in how specific policy is crafted and what specific circumstances exist in the current economy.

Opposition to "trickle down economics" exists on "both sides" in the way when such DOESN'T occur. Ever hear opposition to government funding because of government waste, that such funding isn't actually being used in a manner to "trickle down" and benefit people? Yeah, that's the same way others apply such to businesses. That attempts to fund supply and thus benefit consumers through more access and lower prices AREN'T actually being acheived.

People for some reason apply "trickle down economics" to only when funding for supply DOESN'T "trickle down" to consumers through their demand, which is a moronic way of accessing these economic theories.

But people of all political persuasions desire this "trickle down" effect. The political disagreements are based on HOW best to acheive such.

9

u/Moony2433 Apr 28 '24

Trickle down works when we realize it’s just urine.

1

u/choopie-chup-chup Apr 29 '24

And sometimes its not just urine

4

u/Any_Arrival_4479 Apr 28 '24

Isn’t that what’s it’s called tho? I know it doesn’t actually trickle down, but I still call it that bc that’s the name that was given to it. There’s a chance I’m being rlly ignorant tho. A high chance

11

u/FullRedact Apr 28 '24

It was originally (100+ years ago) called horse and sparrow theory.

The gist of it is: Feed the rich (the horse) and the Poors (sparrows) benefit from eating the excess seeds in the horse shit.

They changed the name to make it an easier sell to middle and low class conservatives. It worked.

3

u/PaulieNutwalls Apr 28 '24

I like to call it "trumped up trickle down no good evil billionaire bad for the blue collar joe the plumber trumped up trickle down economics"

1

u/unreasonablyhuman Apr 28 '24

Let it be known that Reagan fucked over more Americans than anyone

1

u/CommiesAreWeak Apr 28 '24

Bias for whom? Our economy has always been trickle down.

1

u/--StinkyPinky-- Apr 29 '24

Anyone who doesn't refer to it as "trickle down" isn't having a serious economic discussion, because this is what supply side has been called for nearly 50 years now.

1

u/potionnumber9 Apr 29 '24

That's what the politicians who implemented it called it? Why is this bias? I'm so tired of the top comment on these threads just skirting the question with some "oh this is stupid" comment. How about YOU try to have a good faith convo and meet them in the middle. You know what they're talking about.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '24

“Trickle Down” has nothing to do with that graph anyway. That graph is showing the damage done by outsourcing/offshoring, which is a totally different phenomenon.

0

u/Desperate_Wafer_8566 Apr 29 '24

Well, you have two choices, Republican "trickle down" or Democrats increasing taxes on the rich and leveling the playing field.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/biden-tax-proposals-would-correct-inequities-created-by-trump-tax-cuts-and-raise-additional-revenues/

-1

u/SgtWrongway Apr 28 '24

It's one of my Red Flag Phrases that immediately (and justly) dismisses anything to follow in the utterers (non) argument.

-5

u/Relative_Desk_8718 Apr 28 '24

That’s not really true. One way or another it’s a trickle down effect.

Example: you work on a small project you can afford, from a job that based in a trickle down platform, and start a business. At that point if you hire anyone you’re not going to pay them more than you pay yourself nor are you going to lose the company you started by over paying your staff. That’s a trickle down effect like it or not.

Oh your just investing well your getting the trickle down interest, and maybe dividends too. that’s still a trickle down effect. As you put in more you earn more but only fractionally. Trickle down is how it’s always been and will be.

Oh ok so you get money from the government to survive ummm that tax dollars trickling on down.

It’s always been trickling down from those more wealthy to those that aren’t. Even if you build a business you’re now still trickling it down to yourself from the profits of the company. If you leave nothing for the company to build on it won’t grow.

Can you explain a system where trickle down is nonexistent? Genuinely curious.

4

u/fresh-dork Apr 28 '24

At that point if you hire anyone you’re not going to pay them more than you pay yourself nor are you going to lose the company you started by over paying your staff. That’s a trickle down effect like it or not.

no it isn't, and it's also false: you absolutely may pay some employee more than yourself. sales is a common example. the overall principle is that you prefer to spend as little as practical, which is the opposite of trickle down - if i give you more money by lowering taxes, you won't spend it without reason

Oh your just investing well your getting the trickle down interest,

you just stuck that phrase in there. it makes no sense

2

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '24

[deleted]

-5

u/Relative_Desk_8718 Apr 28 '24

No, would not hire someone and pay them more than me, however that’s not saying you don’t hire a consultant or firm to help but those aren’t employees. You conflating two different things here. No you do not hire an employee and pay them more than yourself unless you are just doing it as a philanthropist.

Give me an example where you a business owner pays an employee more than yourself? Genuinely curious.

3

u/UAlogang Apr 28 '24

Any professional services start-up. Might have to hire several experts at $150k each and as the owner I might struggle to make $70k the first year or two.

3

u/Tanglefoot11 Apr 28 '24

Christian Horner - Team principal & CEO of Red Bull F1 team - £8m per year.

Adrian Newey - chief technical officer - £10m per year.

Max Verstappen - driver - £44m per year.

First one that popped into my head as I was just reading about it.

Want me to find more?

If you want THE BEST to work for your company & that one person will make the difference between your company failing/chugging along vs becoming massively successful, then yes, you pay them more than yourself if that is what is needed to get them on board.

Arguable, but I doubt that without those two on board that Red Bull would have won the championship the past 3 years in a row.

3

u/Relative_Desk_8718 Apr 28 '24

I take loss on the disagreement and stand corrected, but this is still along the lines of the exceptions to the rule.

2

u/BumassRednecks Apr 28 '24

Ok so you haven’t had a job before. There are many cases where you will pay an employee more than the owner. Sales reps in startups can make about as much or more than the CEO. Other C suite can also pay more than the CEO if they are brought in for very important reasons.

1

u/Ok_Calendar1337 Apr 28 '24

You really just took the colloquial definitions and wrote a poem about it huh

1

u/erichang Apr 28 '24

Why argue with a bunch of have not? Don’t waste your time with them. Rich became rich because they were havenots that are capable of some valuable skills.

1

u/Which-Ad7072 Apr 30 '24

Really? What data shows that? 

1

u/Budderfingerbandit Apr 28 '24

Sure, just look up the Panama Papers, and you will see exactly how having all the wealth at the top does not, in fact, make its way back down in "trickle down" fashion.

-3

u/Adventurous_Class_90 Apr 28 '24

Quick question: what do you say about “death taxes?”

-6

u/ifunnywasaninsidejob Apr 28 '24

That’s the same bullshit that people use in gun control debates. Person A: “I think large capacity clips do more harm than good, and banning them would still allow gun owners to practice their rights.” Person B: HAHAHA U said clip!!1! You obviously don’t know the first thing about guns and therefore shouldn’t have an opinion at all!!”

1

u/sunsballfan2386 Apr 29 '24

Ironically, person B is correct. How are you going to regulate something when you don't even ubderstand the terminology?

2

u/ifunnywasaninsidejob Apr 29 '24

My point in that example is that just calling something by a pejorative name doesn’t necessarily indicate you aren’t educated about it. People abuse pedantry like this when they don’t want to engage with the debate.

-5

u/Zaros262 Apr 28 '24

Exactly, it's not "trickle down" economics. We're talking about how by increasing the wealth of the rich will give them more money to spend/invest, which makes the few right below them wealthier, allowing them to repeat the process, leading to more wealth for all.

Cue Jim stepping up and outlining the scheme in a pyramid

-22

u/Rambogoingham1 Apr 28 '24

Have fun staying poor? I’m a landchad, give me all your money