Can’t wait to see what the next MAGA endorsed GOP tax plan looks like.
The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King’s College London, examines 18 developed countries — from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn’t, and then examined their economic outcomes.
Per capita gross domestic product and unemployment rates were nearly identical after five years in countries that slashed taxes on the rich and in those that didn’t, the study found.
But the analysis discovered one major change: The incomes of the rich grew much faster in countries where tax rates were lowered. Instead of trickling down to the middle class, tax cuts for the rich may not accomplish much more than help the rich keep more of their riches and exacerbate income inequality, the research indicates.
Oh look an attack on “trickle down economics” a theory that doesn’t even exist. This is nothing but main stream media fake talking points.
Listen and learn if you dare.
If your attention span can last a full seven minutes, you can find the full interview of Mr. Sowell online easily too. If you can’t make it a full seven minutes, you can start around 4 minutes where Mr. Sowell addresses the fake theory of “trickle down” economics.
This is what the American people vote for every time. The R party campaign that they are better for the economy, get elected, cut taxes on the rich and corporations, run up the deficit and crash the economy. Then the D’s get elected, somehow get the economy back in shape while talking about progressive social policies, all while the R’s are telling people that they are the one’s who are good for the economy and that that social crap is costing them too much. And the stupid people vote again for the R’s because they said they are good for the economy
My wife’s friend told here that she had to vote for Trump because she votes for her 401k. Michelle to her to look where it has gone in the past 4 years. The woman had great growth but still gave credit to the R’s
So now we have a new crackpot scheme, they’ll cut the taxes on the rich again and put tariffs on all imports (is china going to pay them all?
This is what the American people vote for. This is what they want. I don’t really care any more, I’ve done so well through the Biden years that when Trump crashes the economy again, it can’t really hurt me.
Quite a devious plan I hatched, commissioning an economic study through London School of Economics to study 50 years of economic growth to feed to the mainstream media just to attack the GOP on an Internet forum. So give credit where it’s due.
I’ve not watched your video yet, but thanks for your contribution.
What is sought by those who advocate lower rates of taxation or other reductions of government’s role in the economy is not the transfer of existing wealth to higher income earners or businesses but the creation of additional wealth when businesses are less hampered by government controls or by increasing government appropriation of that additional wealth under steeply progressive taxation laws. Whatever the merits or demerits of this view, this is the argument that is made - and which is not confronted, but evaded, by talk of a non-existent “trickle-down” theory…
I have never heard anyone argue that this is how TDE is supposed to work. Ever.
Edit: and if you’re going to nitpick about the term Trickle Down, yes I am aware that the phrase was created as a criticism but at least be honest in that the Rising Tide Reagan era tax theory describes effectively the same idea and that is what the study appears to address in analysis.
You can take your short attention span insults and shove them in your large intestines. Communicate like an adult or don’t bother engaging. Thanks.
If you don’t think supply side economics theory exists, I have a bridge to sell you.
You’d have to dig up Jude Wanniski and tell his corpse that he promoted a theory that doesn’t exist.
Sowell advocated that Biden would end the country.
"“If the election goes to [Joe] Biden,” he added, “there’s a good chance that the Democrats will control [Congress] and considering the kinds of things that they’re proposing, that could well be the point of no return for this country.”
(It’s from Fox - you probably read it.)
I’m happy to listen to what he’s saying but take it with a large pinch of salt and understanding his very clear bias: he proposed Trump over Biden in 2020; and prior to that said Trump was better than Obama. He offered no metric to qualify either of this statements.
Many people say that Biden and the Democrats did in fact ruin the country. Our economy is in the dumps and the budget deficit just keeps getting larger. We are at the point of no return and the only way to save us is to put Trump back in office.
Hogwash. Chicken Little was overly dramatic about a Biden presidency and wrong. He stated it would be the “point of no return”. He has a clear agenda, you seem determined to try to ignore.
‘Many people’ saying something doesn’t mean it’s true. ‘Many people’ prescribe to the nonsense that the Earth is flat; that doesn’t lend that idiocy any shred of credibility because the window lickers all club together and say it. It’s still idiocy.
Sowell says that during his four examples, revenue increased every year. Guess what? Fed revenue has increased nearly every year for the past 100 years. Spending buys votes and drives revenue. He also says to look at Reagan’s budget. Under Reagan, revenue increased, but the deficit increased by 53%. Compare the 8 years under Clinton to the 8 under Reagan. There was a total surplus of about $60B for the 8 years under Clinton.
