[spoiledtechie]

I sense your a pretty emotional person and are quite upset at your current economic decision.

So lets start with your point.

Trickle down economic does work in its truest form. It starts with a person who creates a business. This business makes money through the work it does. The owner gets paid more and decides they can create another business. A business larger with more employees. Overtime, the owner creates many more businesses and employs more. Providing its employees with cash, to spend at restaurants, on boats, on houses, on daycare and many other businesses that the employees like to spend money on. Therefore jump starting more business owners to spend more.

This is trickle down economics and its working. I think the thing your upset about is the idea that these business owners, the wealthy are not creating and doing more. I disagree and the US economy would disagree. You simply might just be detached from the economy. So your quite upset about it.

[Renaud]

It works as long as the value created in opening more businesses actually trickles down to creating more decently paid jobs.

The fact that many people are forced to handle more than one job just to survive shows that part of this argument isn't working. These types of businesses are creating precarity, not wealth for the workers for them to pass on to others.

[BoiledCabbage]

Trickle down does not work period.

First of all your usage above is not trickle down. Someone opening a business is not trickle down economics. Trickle down economics is specifically the idea that tax-cuts for the wealthier and highest income earners is more effective for stimulating the economy that tax cuts for poorer and low income earners.

And when this concept is studied it is shown to be clearly false. [1]

Being against trickle down economics is not "hating businesses", nor being against entrepreneurship, or anything else it's sometimes accused of. Being against trickle down economics is simply promoting the fact that it was a failed theory. The most effective way to stimulate the economy is by giving it to the people with the least income.

Whether you want to enact is as your govt policy is a separate question - but here we're simply discussing what is the most effective way to make the economy productive and it's putting it in the hands of lowest income people. The secondary and tertiary effects simply make it the most effective method.

Separate from the paper linked above showing the effect of the impact of tax-cuts at different levels of income, there is also a pretty readily available intuition (not in the paper).

When people who have little to no money receive tax cuts they spend it. They spend it on food, they spend it on transportation, they spend it in businesses. By spending it in businesses they increase demand which drives opportunities to open new businesses and and increase the labor pool which also drives more demand.

When people with high incomes and high wealth receive tax cuts they frequently spent it in inflating valuations of existing assets. Ex real estate goes up and there is more rent seeking (no effect on economic production), stock prices go up (again marginal effect on economic production). Frequently the wealthy already had the money to open a business so a tax cut doesn't actually create as much opportunity to open a business as people imagine. And the market is already at saturation as there has been no increase in available income, so no increase in consumption.

An additional dollar available do the poorest eventually makes it to the wealthy after moving through the entire economy via consumption production cycles. A dollar provided to the wealthiest doesn't. It frequently ends up adding a zero to an account, which banks then have to loan out finding more places to invest and you get things like Housing Bubbles, or Softbank, or any other of the many credit bubbles.

And finally, quoting the paper's conclusion.

> [T]he stimulative effects of income tax cuts are largely driven by tax cuts for the bottom 90% and that the empirical link between employment growth and tax changes for the top 10% is weak to negligible over a business cycle frequency.

1. https://www.nber.org/papers/w21035.pdf