[asdf333]

anyone surprised?

[jjoonathan]

Surprised? No. Upset? Yes.

Every time someone dares to suggest that a policy designed to benefit elites will hurt others, a clown car full of economists drives up. They pile out, tripping over each other to explain to us how we just aren't smart enough to understand economics and how actually cutting taxes for the rich (for the Nth time) will create such extraordinary economic growth that everyone's boat will float upwards as a result.

Of course, they are wrong, but next time this topic comes around I guarantee the clown car will be there and in the meantime it behooves us to stockpile ammunition.

See also: shipping all the manufacturing to China.

[throwaway6734]

>shipping all the manufacturing to China.

How is this related? I enjoy not having to pay $2000 for a cellphone and $500 for a pair of sneakers

[pbecotte]

A little. The thesis behind 'trickle down' sorta makes sense if you think about it. Less taxes = more money to invest = more investment = more economic activity. I did kind of expect to see SOME impact, though have felt for a while that the financial markets have become so disconnected from actual investment behavior that the impact would be marginal...and looks like this study concludes its even less then that.

[thek3nger]

It makes sense until you cross the point of diminishing returns. And I think many countries crossed that point by at least 20 percentage points.

[simonw]

That's exactly the problem: arguing that taxing the rich less will lead to trickle down / more economic activity / jobs etc sounds like it should work.

As the linked study (and many others like it) shows, it doesn't actually work in practice.

[NotSammyHagar]

That might be obvious to you but history has shown it to be inaccurate. Of course rich people, who have lots of influence will be in favor of things that lower their own personal taxes. But in the us it has been show this does not lift others up. The thing that helps lift the overall economy is more money to less wealthy people, especially poorer, because they spend any extra income they receive on necessities.

[tstrimple]

This is one of many dangers of "common sense" style policy and legislation. It's very easy to make misleading or outright false statements and dress it up as "common sense" and sell it to millions of people over and over again decade after decade despite all evidence building up refuting it.

[karagenit]

Sure, giving anyone a tax break will enable them to spend more and generate economic activity. However, generally reducing taxes also requires reducing government spending, which means less investment in things like infrastructure (which tends to create lots of middle class jobs). Basically the two end up cancelling each other out, so the result is just worse income inequality like the study showed.

[mcguire]

"A little. The thesis behind 'trickle down' sorta makes sense if you think about it."

Only if you only think about it. This is the danger of theoretical predictions without empirical backup: the path of the Laffer curve is dependent on more than just the tax rate, and is likely also historically dependent.

[rcMgD2BwE72F]

Why is it, then, on the front page?

[pavlov]

“Such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment” is in direct contradiction of a central tenet in center-right politics in the West for the past 40 years. It bears repeating.

[toomuchtodo]

To reinforce that the concept that tax cuts for the wealthy creates growth and jobs is patently false. Some are still uninformed, or in disbelief, despite the data and scientific consensus.

[revscat]

To annoy pg?