A quick explainer of how “trickle-down economics works”…
The top 1% hoard all the wealth.
That’s it. That’s the whole con.
That’s it. That’s the whole con.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Captainjackass · 31-35, M
JonUK41 · 36-40, M
@Captainjackass Nobody would suggest the rich care about others. Most people need to work for somebody else - ie somebody who's starting or expanding a business. Such people are either wealthy now or have the ability/motivation to be wealthy in the future. Poor people don't provide employment.
The more business activity taking place at the top the more jobs available. That's trickle down. Not perfect but the only game in town, nobody ever called it gush down.
The more business activity taking place at the top the more jobs available. That's trickle down. Not perfect but the only game in town, nobody ever called it gush down.
iamthe99 · M
@JonUK41 Nope, it does not lead to more jobs. Trickle-down economics promises that giving tax breaks and incentives to the wealthy and corporations will lead to job creation and broader economic benefits.
But.
When top earners and large companies receive tax cuts, they just don’t spend that extra money on creating more jobs, or preferably raising wages. Instead, they tend to save it, invest in stocks, or buy back shares, which benefits them, and associated shareholders and executives. Overwhelming evidence has shown that income growth over the last several decades has gone overwhelmingly to the top 1%, while wages for the average worker have stagnated.
That's a fact.
Reduced tax revenue then leads to cuts in education, infrastructure, and social programs, which are actually the areas that create jobs and support economic mobility. When money is concentrated at the top, it circulates less in the broader economy. Working- and middle-class people spend a higher portion of their income, so putting more money in their hands is more likely to boost demand and drive job growth.
Real economic growth comes from investing in people, not just padding the accounts of the already wealthy. A healthy economy lifts everyone, not just those at the top. Trickle-down policies just don’t do that.
We know it. It doesn't work.
But.
When top earners and large companies receive tax cuts, they just don’t spend that extra money on creating more jobs, or preferably raising wages. Instead, they tend to save it, invest in stocks, or buy back shares, which benefits them, and associated shareholders and executives. Overwhelming evidence has shown that income growth over the last several decades has gone overwhelmingly to the top 1%, while wages for the average worker have stagnated.
That's a fact.
Reduced tax revenue then leads to cuts in education, infrastructure, and social programs, which are actually the areas that create jobs and support economic mobility. When money is concentrated at the top, it circulates less in the broader economy. Working- and middle-class people spend a higher portion of their income, so putting more money in their hands is more likely to boost demand and drive job growth.
Real economic growth comes from investing in people, not just padding the accounts of the already wealthy. A healthy economy lifts everyone, not just those at the top. Trickle-down policies just don’t do that.
We know it. It doesn't work.
iamthe99 · M
@JonUK41
Investing in people means education, healthcare, job training, affordable housing, which equip individuals to contribute more effectively to the economy.
And who typically funds those investments? Well, that would be society at large via governments, institutions, and yes, even through taxes (including those paid by the wealthy). So ironically, the answer to your question might be: everyone, including the people you seem to think can’t help.
Of course, wealthy people could invest in people too in areas such as philanthropy, ethical business practices, fair wages, startup funding, but mostly, they don't, because they don't want to. Instead they invest in stock buybacks and tax havens.
We're not relying on "the poor" to fix systemic inequality. Instead, we should recognise that real growth comes from broad opportunity, and not from making the rich even richer.
Investing in people means education, healthcare, job training, affordable housing, which equip individuals to contribute more effectively to the economy.
And who typically funds those investments? Well, that would be society at large via governments, institutions, and yes, even through taxes (including those paid by the wealthy). So ironically, the answer to your question might be: everyone, including the people you seem to think can’t help.
Of course, wealthy people could invest in people too in areas such as philanthropy, ethical business practices, fair wages, startup funding, but mostly, they don't, because they don't want to. Instead they invest in stock buybacks and tax havens.
We're not relying on "the poor" to fix systemic inequality. Instead, we should recognise that real growth comes from broad opportunity, and not from making the rich even richer.
JonUK41 · 36-40, M
@iamthe99 Fine in theory but as noted you'd have to rely on government spending the money wisely.
In the UK we've never had a government that effectively implemented a tax and spend policy in the last 50 years. There's no sign we'd ever have a government I'd trust with more of my money.
So best that government takes less of our money. If you're a wealthy person you can always give more of your money to worthy causes - you don't need to wait for government to tax you more.
In the UK we've never had a government that effectively implemented a tax and spend policy in the last 50 years. There's no sign we'd ever have a government I'd trust with more of my money.
So best that government takes less of our money. If you're a wealthy person you can always give more of your money to worthy causes - you don't need to wait for government to tax you more.