Hacker News Reader

Comment by q1w2 | Hacker News Reader

I haven't seen a politician advocate for trickle down since the early 1980s.

Why is this strawman still the target for low-effort articles?

Because it absolutely has been used by politicians and pundits since the 1980s into the present day and you’re the one spreading falsehoods.

It is talked about by its opponents. No one on the right uses the phrase except in response.

Try and find some examples

Isn't it great how, once the idiocy of trickle-down has become widely known, one can continue pushing the same ideas by merely calling it something else?

Such a neat trick!

We are not talking about which phrase the Right uses today. The idea of trickle-down is what our current taxes are based on. There's no need to call it anything; obstructionism suffices

I'm not well read, but didn't the latest taxes pushed by the right benefit the middle class disproportionately? Wouldn't trickle down imply there should be no tax breaks at all for hte middle class, and instead the entirety of those breaks should go to the investment class?

https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publication...

(I am assuming this is a right biased publication, again not well read, genuinely curious because it seems to line up with those middle class I know who were Trump supporters -- they regularly cite their lower taxes).

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/derided-by-critics-trick...

"Job creators" is the same old horse shit in newer, more marketable, clothes.

Yes.

If there is economic demand (millions of homeless buying food) even a marginally efficient market will invest in the businesses that service that market.

A business servicing that demand doesn't really care if the investment money comes from one billionaire or thousands of small investors.

Not sure about politicians, but it is still widely used by anti-tax republicans. Even if they don't explicitly refer to it as "trickle-down", they use its supposed implications as an argument.

Where do you draw the distinction between "Trickle down" and "investment creates wealth and opportunity"?

When you try to argue that it can replace taxes. Sure, Bezos did create jobs. His money did "trickle-down" by creating more and more jobs, that much is undeniable. But he is not paying even a small percentage of what he should be paying in taxes.

Aren't tax cuts for the wealthy the same thing as trickle-down?

Good thing politicians haven't done the wealthy any tax favors since the 1980's...

They are, but because the Republicans don't use the phrase "trickle-down" as often, it's no longer an issue, so it's a strawman argument, especially because trickle-down actually works, but only the left talks about it to attack our current tax policies for some reason.

- the summary of half of the comments here.

If it's a strawman, why do we keep participating in what it represents? Politicians may not be directly advocating it under its derogatory name but they tow the cultural line to maintain the status quo that support it. Many continue to push for low corporate taxes and low taxes (or maintaining loopholes) on the vast wealth. We have this deeply embedded idea of supporting corporations which are mostly hierarchical in nature in terms of power and pay. We frequently prioritize business needs/wants above people (i.e. the general population) usually implicitly under the assumption that by helping businesses, we help the general citizen, all under the ideas of trickle down economics. Many still participate in corporate worship. During the Trump administration we saw a slew of such policies, including dropping the corporate tax rate.

The reason you don't continue to hear about trickle down economics is because it's a derogatory framing of the economic mindset that supports a structure we largely subscribe to. It's deeply embedded in our economy and culture. Maintainers don't need to argue much for it because it's the status quo and has momentum. What you should see are more politicians fighting to reverse the effects that push trickle down economics had/have on the country and there are few who do. Sanders, Warren, and Cortez are the most famous opposition pushing to promote general workers rights and bottom up economies, I'd argue Sanders being the leader here. Many think he's crazy for his ideals which is a testament to how deep seated trickle down economics is in this country.

It is alive and well under the title "supply-side economics" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics#Trump_ye...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com