i mean, it kinda is tho.

democrats: when they cut taxes most of the taxes are for the rich and none of that tax savings actually trickles down.

in reality a tax cut for corporations causes jobs to increase, unemployment goes down, and the economy booms. the trickle down studies that are anti also rely on dated metrics for access to the stock market which are largely invalid today.

but overall, when u give tax cuts to the corporations, wealth does find its way into the average household. through jobs and also price stagflation of goods. P&G 2 years ago avoided a 20 cent increase on Oreos by moving the production to mexico partially and restructuring their domestic plants, i handled those jobs and installs. All during a time of inflation on the US $, which equates to a pretty substantial decrease in price. for an actual example.

on the stock market im speaking about no-minimum index funds and microtransactional retirement savings, which are far newer than any of the studies debunking trickle down that ive read. the truth is somewhere in the middle, the corporations make bank on tax cuts, but they also provide jobs to price savings to consumers with them.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 7 2019 11:54am

well, the criticism against trickle down usually is not that absolutely nothing trickles down, it's that far less than the tax cuts is trickling down and reaching the middle class, so that it's a money-losing business for society. basically, the argument is that trickle down policies are a net negative for, at the very least, the bottom 40% of society, and possibly for the lower 80 or so % of society.

the true issue, of course, is not on the revenue side of things, it's on the spending side where expenditures have gone out of control in recent decades.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 7 2019 01:12pm

I get that.

and i get that there are a wide range of factors the democratic studies don't take into account, because they dont have access to the internal workings of the corporations that get the cuts. price stagflation is a massive boom for the economy that trickle down causes. it's corporate savings that directly offsets the price they charge not increasing. in a time of inflationary dollar movement that's a really good thing for purchasing power. and we can all agree the top 20% of income earners don't notice a change of 20 cents on oreos (hypothetically extended to a whole grocery list worth of products) whereas the bottom 80% would, especially the bottom 10%.

but ive always been a bit bothered by the "trickle down doesnt work" narrative, its hogwash. it just doesnt work to give wealth to the bottom % of income earners they want. it's also why we've historically always had the best corporate meta in the world by a longshot, and without a rich history of tax cuts the US might not be nearly the goliath it is today.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/692436425/top-va-republican-senator-edited-1968-yearbook-with-blackface-photos-racial-slur

Yeah I think I'm on board with defunding NPR.

They're actually trying to deflect from Northam's blackface photo by saying that some random republican state senator was an editor for a high school yearbook alongside 6 other editors, and that yearbook contained some blackface photos, on other peoples pages, not his own.

yikes

Drain the swamp, bud. The best part of this situation imo are all of Virginia's black Democrats getting red pilled from the rampant corruption.



Not sure where you're going with this. Its just a vague platitude. Especially after JFK started Vietnam.

More importantly "trickle down" isn't even a Republican word. Democrats made up "trickle down" themselves. Republicans only argue that everyone gets wealthier as a result of their policy, which is true. High wealth inequality is correlated with high standard of living for the low and middle class everywhere in the world.

thats not causality though. countries like brazil, south africa or china are prominent examples of countries with high wealth inequality and a poor standard of living for the median citizen. (I'm using the concept of a median citizen to differentiate it from the ambiguous sociological term "middle class".)

China, Brazil, and South africa are better now than they would be if wealth inequality was low.