Why does the Left hate Trickle Down Economics

There's no economic system in the world that will help poor people that have more kids than those higher class than them when they have less resources/time/education to pass on to those kids.

Everything else told to them is a lie to get their vote or tiny amount of money they have.

This was balanced throughout history because the poor would just be "genocided off" from time to time but now modern morals prevent that so it will just build and build and build until a major disruption in the food supply produces the most gigantic episode of genocide the human race has ever seen.

I think in the future someone else will make Ghengis Khan's campaign look like child's play. Imagine the genocide that can happen with robot armies...

Also, anyone who cares about the poor is a brain dead faggot.

socialism helps the poor that's why the elites are terrified of it. that's why they have to pound it into your head from childhood that it's evil

This: In 82, Reagan enacted a payroll tax hike to prepare for the impending surge of retiring baby boomers, and a surplus began to build. By law, the U.S. Treasury is required to take the surplus and, in exchange, issue interest-accruing bonds to the Social Security trust funds.
But guess what happened? every single corrupt fucker since has dipped their wick into it.
There's probably an I.O.U. tucked away in file cabinet somewhere at this point.

Attached: Seethbot 9000.jpg (1750x2500, 656K)

Then why in school do they promote communism

Reagan literally fixed the economy and leftists keep screeching even after 40 years

That must be why south america is the most prosperous continent in the world.

Attached: reagan era.png (1085x544, 78K)

but they have to live with the imposition of "sound economic theory". or the us will overthrow their government

this post brought to you by ExxonMobil

Attached: 5BED8A3A-5D23-4DCC-86A8-1906865FCD80.png (1035x580, 274K)

Never mind all those coups we orchestrated

Attached: A5A7913F-AED1-4F42-B467-6591DC30E4E7.jpg (819x613, 66K)

Attached: F29E0C9D-03E3-4967-B951-9F5B41274632.jpg (507x1024, 107K)

Tricle down economics is tax cuts on the rich. Tax cuts on the rich generates short term growth. Trickle down economics assumes that money travels down, from the rich, the corporations, to the workers, by means of wages.

Anyone with a functioning brain can suss out that it works the entirely opposite way. Money travels upwards. The poor get exploited, their capacity for paying is squeezed beyond the limit. The rich get most of the benefit of work done and capital created. They become so rich that they can't spend it fast enough.

It's for this reason that social benefits exist. The taxes are redistributed to the masses, the poor, the working class. The relief that government provides is the duct tape holding the economy together.

Any economist will know that an economy is strongest when the middle class is healthy and wealthy. It is the poor and middle class that spend all their money every month. The money circulates, which means economic growth.

Tricke down economics is a bedtime story, to make you go to sleep again. The republicans don't talk about economics anymore, they just talk about expenses and the national debt. They get you on cultural issues, not economic. They focus on abortion, guns, gays, fighting imaginary communists. Like ben shapiro, you can't name any policy ideas put forth by the right. There's no vision for the future, only status quo.

Attached: boners-damit.jpg (528x528, 93K)

Because the left wants everyone to be equally poor, they feel bad being poor because they’re lazy and they want to drag everyone else down with them

There's no such thing as trickle down economics. It's a liberal commie buzzword.

Trickle down requires people to work

Attached: ad-broadly-thi-off-daily-wire-on-exercise-gym-.png (500x300, 72K)

>Why does the Left hate Trickle Down Economics
There's no such thing. I think you were referring to supply side economics though which has a lot of academic support (more then Keynesian and far more then Marxism, the two main leftist economic schools of thought). The left hates supply side economics because it clearly shows that their beliefs are considered complete bullshit, even in the leftist stronghold that is academia.

You do know that we are in a boom created by a massive tax cut right now.

The Left wants control of who gets benefits and who gets penalized.

The Left would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

Quality post.

and yet the commies won ww2 even after the fascist told us how magnificent and powerful they were

psmag.com/economics/trickle-down-economics-is-indeed-a-joke#.rvitgv736

"Trickle down" was originally a joke coined by an American humorist to take the piss out of an economic stimulus plan in which “money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy.”

The IMF : “Income distribution matters for growth,” they write. “Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent increases, then GDP growth actually declined over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down.”

>a fucking leaf
Winning wars doesn't prove your economic system is superior

Your not entirely wrong. Trickle down is retard magic when trickle up is the natural state of an economic system, as far as ultimate cash flow. Economics is far more complicated than that, but no one wants to discuss complicated matters anymore , just out landish horse shit fights between chemtrailboomer Christian's on one side and purple haired communism on the other. Honk honk indeed.

They don't teach socialism from a non marxian view.
They'll call it evil tho

With American material, after ramming conscripts into machine gun fire by pointing guns at there backs, and killing more of there own people than Hitler could have dreamed of doing.

>Tricle down economics is tax cuts on the rich. Tax cuts on the rich generates short term growth. Trickle down economics assumes that money travels down, from the rich, the corporations, to the workers, by means of wages.
Incorrect. "Tricle down economics" assumes that the rich don't put their money away in a vault and do nothing with it. If the rich do anything with in the private market with the money they kept due to the tax cut, that money will eventually lead to more jobs and better wages (due to competition). They could buy fucking multiple massive houses with that money and that will lead to construction workers having more demand for their labor which leads to more jobs and higher wages (as long as you don't import slave labor from Mexico). The problem is that the retarded fucks on the left decided to grow the government's control on the market so much that it became a massive system of corruption that the rich spend their money influencing instead of actually spending it on things that promote economic growth.

>Leaf
>Win anything

1%er here, still waiting for my break.

Attached: Screenshot_20190518-190651.jpg (933x1612, 176K)

republicans gave us trickle down while endlessly yammering on about free markets. the disconnect it their little minds must be awesome

hitlers did that too but he gets a pass

Exactly. That's why countries that follows the IMF's advice are so successful.

I mean after regans tax plan we had the first government surplus in what the kids are calling
"a solid minute"
would have destroyed the value of the dolor to because of the fucked up debt based fiat currency we have if he hadnt put us on the petro dollor.

Trickle up is the natural state society in general. Smart people will make smart decisions while stupid people will make stupid ones. This will naturally result in wealth concentrating into small groups. This is also more or less considered beneficial since giving stupid people money usually results in them wasting it.

You have a really shitty tax accountant

Nothing trickles down. Keynes was a lying jew btw.

Attached: ruccio-and-jamie-2[1].jpg (633x533, 53K)

A nation of bootlickers. The tyrant stomps on an americans rights, and he cries out "harder daddy".

This whole bullshit analysis is based off of a correlation causation fallacy.

Giving dumb niggers a wad of money is NOT going to create economic growth.
Money gets concentrated because of other external factors which imply negative things about the state of the economy relative to the global market.

Dude, Reaganomics was entirely built around dismantaling Keynsian economics. Did it work? No. Is your accurate statement about Keynes relevant? Also no.

>When it generates more tax revenue?
Because it has never done this. Trickle Down Economics are tax presents for the wealthiest in society paid for with public debt. Private profits paid with socialized debt.

>letting someone keep their own money is theft!

>Hitler gets a pass

Why do the commies get a pass? Why do they have retards running around unironically calling for the government of social system responsible for killing the most people in history across every continent?

>There's probably an I.O.U. tucked away in file cabinet somewhere at this point.

They don't even do that.

IMF has a tendency to give advice to undeveloped and developing nations that would work great if they were mature economies, but hobbles the shit out of a developing economy. The best economies in Southeast Asia for example are the ones that all told the IMF to pound sand.

>in this thread economically illiterate anons talk about "trickle down theory" as if it wasn't a fictional strawman invented by the left-wing in the 1920's to distort the republican position on supply side economics.

Sorry? Public debts are not the own money of the top tax payers of people that are benefiting from generous tax payments. They are the money of all tax payers and in fact they are the money of future generations.

How would it generate debt?
Wouldn't the government spending generate debt, not cutting taxes?

Because every time Trickle Down economics was implemented it was financed by expanding the public debt because the projected increase in economic activity never refinanced the tax breaks resulting in a net loss for the national budget.

Socialism doesn’t help the poor it just makes the rich poor as well

Trickle down economics is just socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

Trickle Down economics doesn't fucking exist

It's called supply-side economics

Was reducing spending considered at any point?

So why not cut spending?

Digits confirm.

Not seriously, because the rich donor class which cooked up these policies doesn't really care about the state of of public finances while they are looting the natural treasury. Though sometimes government services are being forced into breaking point by austerity measures so they can be easily bought of by private interest groups like it happened with parts of the VA.

>Was reducing spending considered at any point?
The Baby Boomers won't allow you to cut Social Security or Medicare. Defense is off the table because of the MIC.

Collectively how many dollars did, Apple, Google and Amazon pay last year in federal tax?

Less than I did? Astounding.

Genius idea. Let's just cut spending (something which actually stimulates the economy somewhat because redistributed money actually gets consumed or in form of infrastructure investments) so the mega rich can use their tax breaks to park them in fictional financial products that are removed from the real economy! This will not totally cause an economic recession!

Also this. Basic hypocrisy when it comes to spending.

>Boomers: I want to pay for all of these nice things.
>Also Boomers: I don't want to leave a giant national debt to my kids.
>Also Also Boomers: DON'T RAISE MY TAXES! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Not even once.

>(something which actually stimulates the economy somewhat because redistributed money actually gets consumed or in form of infrastructure investments)
The government is not good at investing money.
The government cannot go bankrupt, it doesn't produce goods or services people want, and lacks accountability.
Try going to the DMV. Compare that customer service to any other business. Let's look at innovation. Netflix managed to innovate as far back as when they were shipping DVDs.
chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2009-08-04-0908030313-story.html
When's the last time you saw an innovation come out of the DMV?

Attached: cato school spending.png (620x513, 73K)

>The government cannot go bankrupt, it doesn't produce goods or services people want, and lacks accountability.
>Try going to the DMV. Compare that customer service to any other business.
Take a look at state operated power generation. The state wants people to have cheap dependable power so they can use that to improve their lives and expand the economy.
Which is better a not for profit operator with a goal of getting cheap power to the people, or someone focused on making as much profit as they can and doesn't actually care about delivery?

Private power generation has the same incentives. They want to deliver a better product than their competitors, and more reliably.
Power is a platform technology, like logistics. Fedex is more efficient than the USPS
youtube.com/watch?v=yJF5Wv-usfE

>cato school spending.png
That's basically just a chart of teacher's wages following economical growth which is the primarily contributor to the educational budget. Pretty much every chart for every industry will show the same developed because wage levels naturally increase with a growing economy.

It's accounting for inflation, and cost per pupil.
Why are we spending more for less?

Tax revenue is generally about 17% of gdp regardless of thes tax rates. When rates go up gdp goes down and when rates go down, gdp goes up.
Personally I'll take the second option.

>state operated power generation
Who does this? Even the people's republic of california has a privately owned power colony subsidized by the state.

Because labor is becoming more expensive, this is not related to inflation. A worker at McDonald's in the US and one and India don't earn the same wage despite the fact that they are doing the same job because the wage level in the US is way higher. Net wages not increasing while the economy is growing would be a pretty bad thing actually because it means that all the economic growth doesn't not end up benefiting the average person.

Why is labour becoming more expensive?
Where is the money coming from?
Increases in producitivity. You're having a factory worker making 200 widgets instead of 100, and this increased potential from labour means that he would get paid more making widgets as opposed to digging ditches.
Where is the increased productivity in education? You don't have have them teaching more pupils per hour, nor do you have them getting more education to the children in an hour, as they're not having higher test scores.
So why are we paying them more?

No faggot, those are the progressive rates. Tax relief through write offs never eliminates liability contrary to what you’re fed through liberal bullshit like AOC. You need to go to a tax specialist and have him explain to you all the ways in which you’re wrong

>They want to deliver a better product than their competitors, and more reliably.
The product is literally identical, they can only complete on price. The reliability is almost always a shared factor due to having only one grid. Generation reliability isn't normally a factor due to having extra capacity.

So in the end it's down to price.

>So why are we paying them more?

Because if you paid a teacher the same wage you paid one 40 years ago you would have exactly 0 people who would become teachers because everyone would just choose any other profession.

In developed countries, sure.
But in poorer countries you literally have regular power outages.

Accounting for inflation?
Why?

Increasing wages are good.

Increasing wages means more spending. More spending means higher GDP growth.

Not to mention the fact that higher wages mean higher tax revenue for the government. It will reduce debt, and it will allow the federal government to spend more gov $$$s.

>Who does this? Even the people's republic of california has a privately owned power colony subsidized by the state.
Almost every nation in the word to a greater or lesser degree. In the US 20% is public. You may have heard of the Tennessee Valley Authority or the Power Marketing Administrations?

>Accounting for inflation?
Again, I'm not talking about inflation. I'm talking about net wage growth.

>Why?
Because wages have grown in every other sector of the economy while the economy has grown and increased its productivity. That's why wages of teachers have to follow macro-economic trends and that's why the educational budget increases.

So electricity is free in Tennessee?

Trickle down doesn't work if the system benefits big companies only whose shareholders realise the profit and dividend increase in shadowy tax avoiding investment funds registered in off shore tax havens.

>In developed countries, sure.
>But in poorer countries you literally have regular power outages.
Do you think that private operators would have better up time in poor nations with the locals stealing oil out of transformers because it makes the food taste better and last longer than non toxic cooking oil?

All correct as well. The lower half of the population spends virtually 100% of its wealth on consumption while the economy won't really be stimulated by some billionaire parking his tax breaks in some real estate project in Malaysia. Tax breaks for the upper percentages of society are macro-economically speaking a waste.

See:

>The positive relationship between tax cuts and employment growth is largely driven by tax cuts for lower-income groups and that the effect of tax cuts for the top 10 percent on employment growth is small.

journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/701424

>The rich hoard cash. They don't invest it.

>So electricity is free in Tennessee?
Are you retarded?

Exactly, see:

>buying something from an organization paid for with you your taxes
Im the retard?

Attached: 1557962315387.jpg (240x196, 10K)

Wont tax cuts for the rich incentivize them to invest and create more jobs, allowing the new employees to consume more?

Buying something from an organization owned by the government means it's free... Yes you are retarded.
A state corporation generally either collects no profit, or if they do it's going right to the government, they aren't funded by the government or your taxes most times.

>Wont tax cuts for the rich incentivize them to invest and create more jobs

Not if they make more money gambling at the stock market and buying some 'financial products' instead of putting it into the real economy.

>Wont tax cuts for the rich incentivize them to invest and create more jobs, allowing the new employees to consume more?
No? They likely already invest all of their money not spent on living. It's like saying a tax cut for the poor will incentivize them to spend more. The poor spend everything they earn already. A tax cut just gives them more to spend.

Trickle down economics Isn’t a thing it’s a description to help explain how supply side money moves through the economy for poor plebs.

Plebs think rich peope horde money which is retarded all the tmoneg they sit on is put into things, banks make loans and credit cards with it, investing in stock means the company has more working Capitol to expand, donating the money extra into charities helps people.

More money in rich peoples pockets means more fancy restaurants and more demand for countless consumer goods that’s you plebs make and provide.

The left hates it because they hate success and they don’t want the plebs to know how economics work they want them to be mad and poor

Right where do you think rich consumer spending goes? Into other peoples pockets

You have a car and credit cards because the rich provide the Capitol to make that happen