[mu_killnine]

  trickle down economics and the myth of tax cuts automatically generating enough economic growth are just that: myths, that have been debunked.

I'm just heading out the door, so I apologize for this being a very lazy reply. But does anyone have any semi-academic reading (I'm not an economist..., but I don't want pundit talk) that thoroughly debunks these points?

[Ididntdothis]

“tax cuts automatically generating enough economic growth”

This one is easy to debunk. Deficits have gone up with every tax cut since Reagan and they never came down much. Trickle down also doesn’t seem to work with upper incomes rising while lower incomes are stagnating.

[caseysoftware]

But you're one step removed.

Deficits are income minus expenditures.

If expenditures are increasing faster than income (regardless of how fast income is growing), then there will always be deficits. A better measure would be to look at income (aka tax revenues) which usually come from productive economic activity.

Your analysis is closer "eating vegetables makes you fat!" while ignoring that you're eating three desserts after each meal.

[NeedMoreTea]

Trickle down economics was coined in a depression era joke by Will Rogers.

You might want to start your reading with this very widely reported 2015 IMF report: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf

First article about this report search brought up, in case you want a slightly lighter introduction is, though you should find dozens of other media articles on the report: https://psmag.com/economics/trickle-down-economics-is-indeed... Never encountered this site before so know nothing of their editorial stance, though I can conclude they are not pushing the boundaries of the laissez-faire right. :)

[mpweiher]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Critici...

[stevenwoo]

Not replying but questioning your question - why isn't the results of multiple attempts at tax cuts at state (Kansas) and federal level(Reagan/Bush/Trump in USA) enough evidence, would someone in favor of such tax cuts be coming at the facts with something like "No true Scotsman"? All of the top matches for stories about tax cut results end up on progressive or non libertarian sites. The architect (maybe the author for the textbook on Reaganomics) for trickle down tax cuts wrote an editorial which is not academic but still: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/09/27/tax-cut-fe...

[rpiguy]

Because every major tax cut, except George W Bush's lead to an economic boom that people felt. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Trump all pushed through major tax cuts. Each time it was followed by economic growth (except W).

Now most economists (including a recently published and definitive 65 year study of tax cuts) will tell you that those tax cuts did NOT cause the economic growth.

This is a case of academics fighting what people saw with their eyes and felt with their pocket books, so this argument will never die no matter how many papers are published "debunking" it. I have a hard time believing the economists myself having lived through all but Kennedy's tax cut, but it may be so.

Also, the person above was not talking about trickle-down, which is easier to debunk. I would definitely agree it is pretty clear that in most all cases the rich get richer when taxes are substantially lowered and very little trickles down. Trickle down is easier to "disprove" than a connection between tax cuts and growth.

Kennedy's tax cut and resultant economic growth appeared to help the middle class more than the others, but that was before we went off the gold standard and productivity and wages rose together.

And yes what happened in Kansas is sad. You can have very low taxes, but without something to attract talented people and businesses to your state, they don't do much good. No one is going to relocate to the middle of nowhere just to enjoy a modest tax benefit, and if you are a corporation you will likely just incorporate in Delaware anyway so why bother with Kansas?