They spent those 50 years convincing half the voting population that evidence doesn’t matter, unfortunately.
Good old degradation of public school standards.
Combined with 24 hour propaganda on “news” nwtworks
Public school funding can’t be used to fuel the military industrial complex.
Not without a little imagination.
This one’s going places!
Oh no … it did work … it worked spectacularly … for the top wealthiest people in the world
They figured out that they could cut the amount of taxes they had to pay, collect even more wealth for themselves and convince everyone around them and all the poor people out there like you and me that it was all perfectly acceptable, and sensible and that we should all keep electing government officials to keep that system going while we all paid for it. The wealthiest figured out how they could keep their money and make us all pay for it. And they did it for 50 years. And they’re still doing it.
I think it worked fantastic … for them.
We just need to be more patient and tax-cut the wealthy even harder. Then it’ll properly start to trickle. Just a little longer
I think I can feel it. It’s warm. And… smells a bit like asparagus?
I agree … but the problem is … it took 50 years for us to get to this point and it will probably take 50 years or longer to get it back to a manageable level again. That is, if we take 50 years of consistently pushing back against the wealthy in the same way that the wealthy have been pressing the poor for the past 50 years.
Lina Khan (in the US) is taking those first steps. Harris better keep her in place.
How about we try some trickle up economics for a while? That’s where you give money to people who actually need it, and let businesses compete for them as customers, and the revenue will trickle up to successful companies.
Might as well, right?
We did. Brought to you by Roosevelt.
(Offer not available to black people)
The biggest criticism is hilarious. They say poor people don’t use the money responsibly. It just passes right through their hands. They neglect to mention that’s because they’re buying needed goods and services and that money trickles up far more reliably than money trickles down.
It just passes right through their hands
Plus a general illiteracy for economics where that should be the goal because the economy grows with money spent, not money saved
My personal theory is they’re also trying to normalize the money not moving into the economy.
It’s almost like you can have a monetary system and trade without all the crony klepto bullshit of the current system.
Yeah, no shit…
This will never stop being funny
At least he’s getting his.
As long as he said sorry to God before he died and meant it, in Christianity, he’s in heaven.
Same goes for Hitler, if he meant it.
If you have a problem with that, no matter how perfect a person you might be, you’ll be in hell instead because, ultimately, it doesn’t matter how bad of a person you are or what sins you’ve committed.
Only one thing matters.
If heaven exists, it’ll be full of people like Reagan. You’ll be spending eternity with right wing Christian Conservatives and much, much worse.
Meanwhile hell will have all the drinkers, the stoners, the ravers, revelers and rascals; it’ll have all the gay people, the hippies and every alternative culture you can think of. Hell will have all the promiscuous people, the people who just love sex and the professionals too. We’ll have all the people who know how to make drugs, the fun ones, and we’ll have none of those judgmental life-haters around, either as they’ll all be in heaven.
Were gonna have a wicked time. Reagan won’t be welcome, no matter who’s arsehole he’s got his tongue up.
Sorry, I just ran with it. Its not really at you.
Heaven for the climate, hell for the company
Total absolution isn’t actually a thing in most forms of Christianity except via baptism.
And baptism can’t be done twice. It’s a one time thing, after that you’re expected to actually live as if you believe. Charity and not sinning and shit.
Basically you have to try to live like Fred Rogers.
Jesus was very clear about that in the one time he talked about eternal punishment.
It was the part welcoming immigrants, feeding the poor, and visiting the prisoners.
Also the part about not being a hypocrite praying loudly in the street, but being devote and praying in the quiet of your home.
But that’s regular Jesus. Not Supply Side Jesus.
Supply Side Jesus can be bribed, so list your local church in your will for instant absolution.
You’ll have to let me know what part of the bible says that because its not in any parts that I read.
While baptism itself is in the bible, baptism absolving sin is something made up centuries later, so that churches could have some of that old school shaman ritual stuff they didnt have any of.
More so, the only opposing view to the one above would be the Catholic one and their interpretation is problematic at best.
People really need to check the fine-print on that particular covenant.
The passage is in Mathew 25. Often called the Sheep and the Goats.
And yeah, it’s all made up with bits and pieces added later by different people, but that passage in Mathew 25 is pretty clear that you have to feed the poor, welcome the immigrant, (or the stranger as found in some translations), visit the prisoner, clothe those who need it, etc.
And the punishment for not doing these things is everlasting punishment in the fires of hell.
Fun fact, there’s a Cake song about this passage. Sort of.
1 John 1:9 ,
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Therefore, they will be righteous and included with the sheep and never asked goat (people on the right hand side) questions.
Like I said, its all about the fine print. Righteousness isn’t the ticket.
Ah yes, but confession has to be sincere.
But Supply Side Jesus thinks that money equals sincerity. And that Mathew guy sounds woke.
Fun fact, to my understanding, Mathew 25 is the only place in the Bible that talks about eternal punishment.
There might also be something in Revelations, but that’s all revenge fantasy about Nero.
Saw this earlier today, just saying.
But my Maga coworker just told me she wants to make everything more expensive! Now I don’t know who to believe; you both sound equally sensible. /s
But I was just about to be a millionaire 😭😭😭
Millionaire? Those are chump numbers, son!
Wealth isn’t held, or taxed, in income. Taxes on the wealthy are dodged or gamed away. Cut them or raise them, the actual wealth won’t be targeted through income.
Looks great but it always comes down to the details. The Trump tax “cuts” were a spiteful attack on high tax, high cost of living “liberal” states by capping the deduction for state and local taxes. Yay double taxation. Yay higher taxes because a different part of government takes more. Yay using government regulation out of spite
Yea, it did the exact fuckin opposite. Like we knew it would.
Economists have written the same article for years.
This is like that Onion school shooting article that just changes the location except they count how many years it’s been since Reagan
Well, not the same article. They have to find/replace the name every couple years. Horse and sparrow, supply side, trickle down, …
I like horse and sparrow. It openly admits it’s horseshit.
Reagan pushed Horse and sparrow economics. If you give the horses enough grain, eventually the sparrows will get to eat a little out of their shit.
Yeah, but even “eventually” didn’t come.
Well duh, bank accounts aren’t horses, you can always just add another 0 without overflow
The horses are constipated, Paw
And they used that money as a cudgel to make political bribery perfectly legal in Citizens United, as if it wasn’t already rampant. They own this fucking place above board now.
We get a vote on how to, or if we even should address the social issue symptoms of our oligarch class rigging the economic game, ie who to blame or what to spend on the ever dwindling crumbs left for the Commons.
We don’t get a vote on the economy itself, that’s above our paygrade. From Pelosi to McConnell, “herp derp the free market we’re bribed to rig for capital is working just fine… For our portfolios! 🤣”
Because the plan all along is generational theft.
It’s all the generations getting robbed, it’s just that each successive generation gets shafted worse than the one before. Grandma didn’t steal your retirement, the oligarchs did.
Almost like this was the plan all along. The wealthy looking after their own interests to their benefit.
Every couple years, another study that shows the same thing. The rich got richer and the middle class and poor lost.
Middle class is the new poor
The middle class also doesn’t exist and makes as much sense as trickle-down economics does. It’s either working class or rich.
The middle class definitely exists. They still share class solidarity with the poor.
Middle class means you can lose your job, stay unemployed for a year or 2, and keep your home, keep the kids fed. You’re closer to the poor obviously, but you have some peace of mind. You’ve probably got some investments to provide a little bit of extra income to help you through the difficult days.
Basically, I’d categorize rich vs middle class vs working class as “could never become homeless”, “unlikely to need to worry about becoming homeless unless something major happens” and “could easily become homeless if unemployed for a while”.
Of course, if anyone’s wealth is actually trickling down, it’s the middle class, not the rich. Because the middle class actually spends some portion of their money instead of hoarding it.
No, it really doesn’t exist. It’s an idea created by the rich to make some among the working class believe that they are different from the other working class people. But they are not. If you need to work to survive, you are working class.
And please, don’t insult your intelligence or mine talking about trickle-down economy. That’s also not a real thing
Middle class means being able to work your way up to not having to rely on work or pension to live.
If you’re working class, you don’t even have that option. You work until you’re so old you have to retire, no long sabbaticals in between or anything. You won’t go traveling the world to do soul searching. Your kids are either taking student loans or GI bills or just not going to college.
Middle class isn’t a 100k income in much of modern America though. Depending on location I’d say it’s more like 200k to 600k per household at minimum to be middle class. So yes, the middle class has shrunk considerably.
That’s not what the middle class is. I’m not about to repeat myself. And the more you write on it, the more it’s clear that you don’t understand what you are talking about and never read anything on the matter but instead you’re just writing about your personal opinions on the matter. Please stop spewing the insane propaganda of “the harder you work, the richer you’ll be” and stop wasting my time
When did I ever say it’s about hard work? You’re either born into the middle class, or you have to get lucky af. 80 hour weeks at a shit job will kill your health, not raise your socioeconomic status.
I never said it’s something everyone can attain (I WISH it still was), but it does exist. For now. It’s shrinking hard and becoming a thing of the past though. And unfortunately mostly middle class people are dropping down to working class, rather than going up the ladder.
Personally I aim to retire around the age of 50, or do entrepreneurship for fun after that point. Definitely don’t want to work for someone else. If I attain that and my net worth keeps rising despite me not having a job - would you still consider me working class? I know I wouldn’t consider myself to be upper class even then.
There’s no one singular definition of middle class anyway.
Is this going to be like UBI studies, where the news pretends every one of hundreds of studies is the one that is breaking this news for the first time? My economics professor was taking the piss out of supply side economics over a decade ago.
Some people are either unaware or like being trickled upon. Somehow there still seems to be widespread support for tax cuts to the wealthy. Somehow people seem to remember “tax cut” while either being unaware or not remembering whose taxes were cut. Somehow they already forgot when Warren Buffet made a big deal of his tax rate being lower than his secretary’s and that we should fix that. As recently as this summer I found someone surprised that the Trump tax “cuts” increased my taxes
The goldfish memory of news organizations doesn’t help. If they reported this accurately it would be, “Another Study Confirms Trickle Down Doesn’t Work”
“Trickle-Upon Economics” really does capture the vibe and the reality of the experience.
Endorsement of trickle-down is usually made for the same reason as criticisms of UBI… Conservative voters are ignorant of the concept of elasticity in economics, and their politicians know it.
Not to mention that economics education is even worse than civics education. At best someone who went to college might have gotten a 100 level microeconomics course as part of their degree. But I don’t know of any school that teaches about money beyond maybe how to set a budget. If you’re lucky.
When normal people talk about “the economy” it’s largely based on their own bank account and how they feel other people are doing in comparison to some subjective standard, not anything to do with actual economics. This is why we keep having to raise the debt ceiling and politicians talk about it like it’s getting another credit card.
No. It doesn’t seem to me that the article pretends this one study is breaking any news for the first time. It cites other studies and individuals that have expressed the same idea for a long time. Possibly this is the first rigorous study of the 50 years from 1965 to 2015, I dunno.
This is what’s before the fold. Combined with the headline, most people are not going to come away with the sense that this is a long known thing.
Tax cuts for the wealthy have long drawn support from conservative lawmakers and economists who argue that such measures will “trickle down” and eventually boost jobs and incomes for everyone else. But a new study from the London School of Economics says 50 years of such tax cuts have only helped one group — the rich.
The new paper, by David Hope of the London School of Economics and Julian Limberg of King’s College London, examines 18 developed countries — from Australia to the United States — over a 50-year period from 1965 to 2015. The study compared countries that passed tax cuts in a specific year, such as the U.S. in 1982 when President Ronald Reagan slashed taxes on the wealthy, with those that didn’t, and then examined their economic outcomes.
When it does get into it below the fold it talks about the pandemic. When it could talk about how we’ve known this for literal decades. (I love the second one. It’s six years after Reagan is elected and written by a pro-trickle down economist whose having to move the goal posts to keep defending it.)
