cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/18200056
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.
Yup. And he was the model for politicians to this day. Even Obama made efforts to emulate that twat.
Everyone points to Nixon as the catalyst for today’s political climate, and maybe they’re right. But I personally rank Reagan as the top-dog for fucking this country up. After all, if it weren’t for Raegan‘s dirty tricks, we’d have had Carter for a second term. Who knows what kind of Utopia we’d be in today if Carter had won.
https://youtu.be/VjCyVfBiwpE?si=8MLekJhcSOHIWsdk
Reaganomics baby!
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
If you just deploy the guillotines, then new rich people will crop right back up. You gotta change the underlying system so that the situation where rich people rule over others is impossible.
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.
Its all about who received it, man.
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.
I disagree. The taxpayer money could be better used in other welfare programs.
True but the more money that gets spent, the more people need to be taxed.
In certain situations it could be beneficial for some people but I don’t think it should be applied to everyone. If you have an autistic person who went to college but is working low income jobs because they struggle with finding jobs and doing job interviews, then they could be good candidates for such a program. Of course I think it would be better to have a program that helps teach people in that position how to look for jobs and do job interviews.
