Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, February 06, 2021

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.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

---- trickles down. Money sticks right where it lands.

#1 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2021-02-06 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Supply Side economics has never, ever worked for the People, and this study of it in various countries is just more proof. The only ones who gain are the very wealthy.

"Already, Mr. Trump's tax cuts have lifted the fortunes of the ultra-rich, according to 2019 research from two prominent economists, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the University of California at Berkeley. For the first time in a century, the 400 richest American families paid lower taxes in 2018 than people in the middle class, the economists found."

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2021-02-06 02:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"For the first time in a century, the 400 richest American families paid lower taxes in 2018 than people in the middle class, the economists found."

So much winning!
#MAGA

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-06 03:19 PM | Reply

"50 Years Of Tax Cuts Did Not Trickle Down"

Well, that's hardly a surprise. 50 years of squeezing the poor wasn't supposed to trickle down. It was supposed to redistribute wealth upwards.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-06 03:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

None of you have ever taken an economics class to understand how this really works!

-madbomber

#5 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-06 05:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 10 | Newsworthy 1

2 story outhouse, with 99% using the 1st floor.

#6 | Posted by bat4255 at 2021-02-06 06:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Money sticks right where it lands.

#1 | Posted by SomebodyElse

No, but money does trickle up. People at the bottom can't afford to hold on to it.

#7 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-02-06 10:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"None of you have ever taken an economics class to understand how this really works!"

So...we know that Median household income is at an all-time high.

Is there someone who thinks that it would have been higher had the rich been taxed more?

Here's what you can't argue. The rich are funding this country. The top 1% picked up the bill for more than 40% of federal income taxes. So, even if you're not making more at work, someone in the >= top 1% is paying your fair share of the taxes.

#8 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-02-07 12:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

This is the way forward, for everyone who likes being peed on.

#9 | Posted by Jaspar at 2021-02-07 01:43 PM | Reply

President Trump says median household income is the highest level ever recorded'"here's why that's not exactly true

www.cnbc.com

- top 1% is paying your fair share of the taxes.

Says the guy who isn't concerned about inequality... well, unless it's inequality for the wealthy. The wealthiest of whom will tell you that there are two reasons for that; they were very, very lucky, and they had came from wealthy families, so they knew they could gamble and lose, but not be poor because of it.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2021-02-07 03:43 PM | Reply

"The rich are funding this country."

The rich need to step up.
We're $28 trillion dollars in debt.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-07 04:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The rich are funding this country.

Liar

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-02-07 04:54 PM | Reply

The rich need to pay of the debt. They've created all of it.

#13 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-02-07 06:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

off

#14 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2021-02-07 06:14 PM | Reply

And I've only been saying this for 35 yrs...

#15 | Posted by earthmuse at 2021-02-07 06:19 PM | Reply

We've known this for many years.
We also know the remedy.
Just waiting for someone to initiate the remedy.

#16 | Posted by Docman at 2021-02-08 08:41 AM | Reply

You guys got it all wrong....they just need one more capital gains tax cut for it to work.

#17 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-02-08 08:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"50 Years of Tax Cuts Did Not Trickle Down"

File this factoid under "no ------".

Don't tell the dumbasses though, they still think it does even though most of them don't have two nickles to rub together.

#18 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-02-08 09:42 AM | Reply

So...we know that Median household income is at an all-time high.

Yeah! One arbitrary metric is at an unspecified point that looks good for my argument!

How about the fact that the promised outcome of every round of tax cuts never materialized?

#19 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-08 10:04 AM | Reply

You can see the poor spending their money as fast as it comes in, and their rent, car payments, cable bills, feed, etc., name a monthly expense, all go to somebody or a corporate entity higher in the economic food chain. Very few poor people have ANY savings, and the IRA's and 401(k's) are a cruel joke in lieu of a defined pension.

I studied Keynes before Samuelson when I studied economics as a core class for my MBA, and it turned me into a socialist!

Trickle down, my axx!

EAT THE RICH!

#20 | Posted by john47 at 2021-02-08 11:58 AM | Reply

Trickle down economics? Urine luck!

#21 | Posted by Jaspar at 2021-02-08 12:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Says the guy who isn't concerned about inequality"

Not at all.

Rich people bitching about richer people is the epitome of rich people problems.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-02-08 02:29 PM | Reply

"The rich are funding this country. Liar"

If there is a lie, it's coming from the IRS. And the IRS data shows that the top 1% cover 37% of the total federal income tax burden. The top 5% cover 58%. The top 50% cover 97% of all federal income taxes.

Oh, and they pay a higher average rate as well...if you're up for that discussion.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-02-08 02:34 PM | Reply

"Yeah! One arbitrary metric is at an unspecified point that looks good for my argument!"

Is there a metric out there that you think paints a better picture?

"How about the fact that the promised outcome of every round of tax cuts never materialized?"

Promised outcome?

You don't think JFK's (he was dead before it passed) tax cut was effective? What about TRA 86?

Maybe you weren't aware, but both the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts resulted in revenues in excess of what they were prior to the cut.

#24 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-02-08 02:38 PM | Reply

This is actually a very weak article. I think it's intended to appeal to those who think economics is an emotional response. A few significant inaccuracies.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-02-08 02:43 PM | Reply

"The rich are funding this country. Liar"

If there is a lie, it's coming from the IRS. And the IRS data shows that the top 1% cover 37% of the total federal income tax burden. The top 5% cover 58%. The top 50% cover 97% of all federal income taxes.

Oh, and they pay a higher average rate as well...if you're up for that discussion.

#23 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-02-08 02:34 PM

Dear MADBOMBER,

What you say is true; but you have to re-read what you seem to have missed when your teacher talked about MARGINAL TAX RATES. This is how rich people escape taxation and let all the poor people pick up the tab.

Best,

John47

#26 | Posted by john47 at 2021-02-08 03:05 PM | Reply

Only income could make rich people pay a high portion of the taxes being paid. If you make many times the average income then probably you should expect to pay many times the taxes. Cry me a river for the poor rich folks.

#27 | Posted by danni at 2021-02-08 03:25 PM | Reply

Is there a metric out there that you think paints a better picture?

Your telling mistake is looking for a metric that "paints a better picture."

You should be using metrics that were claimed to be the targets of these policies.

Wage and job growth. Economic growth. Better economic standing for those at the lower end of the spectrum.

Those are the things that adherents to Trickle Down economics claim will improve if only we give the rick more money.

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2021-02-08 03:38 PM | Reply

"For 2018, the federal government received $3.33 trillion in taxes from individuals and corporations, according to the Office of Management and Budget. The total is broken down like this:
$1.68 trillion from individual income taxes
$1.17 trillion from payroll taxes
$204.7 billion from corporate income taxes
$95.0 billion from excise taxes
$175.9 billion from other"

"The individual income tax is the most progressive of the major revenue sources while payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare are regressive."

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-08 08:24 PM | Reply

"What you say is true; but you have to re-read what you seem to have missed when your teacher talked about MARGINAL TAX RATES. This is how rich people escape taxation and let all the poor people pick up the tab. Best,"

Fantastic, let's talk about marginal vs. effective tax rates.

"But, as we said, the top 1% on average pays a higher effective federal tax rate than middle-income earners. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the top 1% " those making over $783,300 ($2.4 million on average) " will pay about an average federal tax rate of 30.2% in 2019. That's a higher rate than any other income category below it.

But those in the middle 20% of earners " with an expanded cash income of $50,001 to $87,300 " will pay an average federal tax rate of 12.4%, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis. That's less than half the effective tax rate paid by the top 1%."

www.factcheck.org

That's the thing about marginal rates. High or low, the effective rate really depends on what I can deduct. And having a high marginal tax rate with many allowable deductions is preferable for many to a lower rate with fewer deductions. Which is why TRA 86 was fought against tooth and nail by wealthy households.

And I think that you and Biden were referencing comments made by professors Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman on effective tax rates. That data has since been invalidated. Given that both come from a very, very biased place within the economic community, you'd want to fact check them. Someone did.

www.aier.org

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-02-09 02:17 AM | Reply

"You should be using metrics that were claimed to be the targets of these policies."

I would assert that median household income captures that, especially if you take the unemployment rate into consideration. And prior to COVID, it was very low at a time when income was very high. So I'm not sure how you can say it's not working. I think to do that you would have to compare it to some other alternative, even if it was done through statistical modeling. But I don't think you would come up with a situation where higher tax rates led to more jobs or higher income.

It could...I just don't think it would.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-02-09 02:23 AM | Reply

"But, as we said, the top 1% on average pays a higher effective federal tax rate than middle-income earners."

Only for income taxes.
The top 1% payroll tax rate will be far less than middle income.
And any excise taxes paid will be paid at a far lower rate as well.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-09 02:35 AM | Reply

"And prior to COVID, it was very low at a time when income was very high. So I'm not sure how you can say it's not working."

I'm not sure if you've bothered thinking about this, but:
It's not prior to COVID anymore.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-09 02:36 AM | Reply

"But I don't think you would come up with a situation where higher tax rates led to more jobs or higher income."

Apparently you don't think too good:
Unemployment was 2.7% in 1952. The top marginal income tax rate was 92%.
Unemployment was 2.5% in 2019. The top marginal income tax rate was 37%.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-09 02:39 AM | Reply

Middle Class now holds less wealth than the top 1%.
Only the top 20% has recovered since the Great Recession.
From 1989 to 2016, the median net worth of families with a head of household age 65 or older increased by 68 percent. Over that same time period, the median net worth of families with a head of household age 35 or younger decreased by 25 percent.

www.brookings.edu

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-09 02:44 AM | Reply

In fact, taxpayers whose incomes are in the bottom 90 percent of all incomes pay, on average, more in payroll taxes than in income taxes.
www.pgpf.org

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-09 02:53 AM | Reply

#34

You're talking marginal tax rates. Again, that's cool bro, but it's the effective rate that matters. And in the 1950s, the top 1% only paid an effective rate of 16.9%, even though the top marginal tax rate was 92%.

taxfoundation.org

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-02-09 02:03 PM | Reply

"In fact, taxpayers whose incomes are in the bottom 90 percent of all incomes pay, on average, more in payroll taxes than in income taxes."

Yup.

And they receive commensurate or greater benefits in return for those tax payments.

But again, those are a different category of taxes. When people say death and taxes are a constant, they're wrong. There are lots of ways to get out of paying federal income tax. I don't know of any income earner who has been able to avoid income taxes.

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-02-09 02:06 PM | Reply

"Middle Class now holds less wealth than the top 1%."

In 1975, median US household income was ~$47K (2014$). In 2019, it was $58,365 (2014$). So than median household income went up by around 25%.

If my household is getting richer, do I really have a basis for complaint that someone else is getting richer as well, even if they're getting richer at a higher marginal rate?

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-02-09 02:12 PM | Reply

QAnonBullshhter ishere to make sure the boot remains on the neck of the working class.

If he was born a couple hundred years earlier he'd be trying his hardest to convince you how the slaves are actually doing quite well where they are.

#40 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-02-09 02:57 PM | Reply

do I really have a basis for complaint

Yes.

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-02-09 02:58 PM | Reply

#41

I think you will always have a basis for complaint. I don't know that your sense of entitlement has any bounds.

That's OK. You can still wash my car for me.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2021-02-09 03:46 PM | Reply

You're talking marginal tax rates. Again, that's cool bro, but it's the effective rate that matters. And in the 1950s, the top 1% only paid an effective rate of 16.9%, even though the top marginal tax rate was 92%.
taxfoundation.org
#37 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I think you're confused.

Effective Income Tax Rates Have Fallen For The Top One Percent Since World War II
www.taxpolicycenter.org

Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s
taxfoundation.org

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-09 04:08 PM | Reply

"But again, those are a different category of taxes."

What's that got to do with anything? Taxes are paid with money, and money is fungible, so the categories are meaningless.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-02-09 04:12 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort