Proven: Lowering Taxes is good and "trickle down" is make believe

Well, yes, because trickle down is not a real thing, sorry.

What is this supposed to mean? From where I'm sitting, it sounds like you're simultaneously arguing that regressive tax cuts have benefits for people who don't directly receive them and denying that anyone thinks that. This is exactly like a thread that Nostra started, which makes me suspect that there's some low-brow chain email going around on it or a talk-show host talked about it.
 
Last edited:
No, the bottom line is that Sowell's take on Economics goes against everything that you are told to believe and that you'd come up with ridiculous statements like you did about him not being a respected Economist because he isn't aligned with you ideologically.
You spoke out of your ass, got called out on it and can't back up your assertion/lie.

You're rather pathetic to say the least. But stick to your guns, people that read this thread know how disingenuous you are.


So like I said, you like him so everyone else should as well.

And he isn't respected and no one looks to him for economic advice.
 
So like I said, you like him so everyone else should as well.

And he isn't respected and no one looks to him for economic advice.

Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy

You're an ideologically retarded fool...or a troll.
 
What is this supposed to mean? From where I'm sitting, it sounds like you're simultaneously arguing that regressive tax cuts have positive benefits and denying that anyone thinks that. This is exactly like a thread that Nostra started, which makes me suspect that there's some low-brow chain email going around on it or a talk-show host talked about it.


It is in this video it does not exist.

BUT, let me tell you why it is not a real thing. In short, trickle down means that you are ONLY giving benefits of some sort to the rich and that these will have a positive effect on the people below them. No one touted this as their platform ever....now, their critics might have said this, but no one ever touted it as their platform.
What Reagan did was SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS.



Now, this little blurb says what I just said more elegantly of course

Trickle Down

Another related term is “trickle-down economics.” People who argue for tax cuts, less government spending, and more freedom for people to produce and trade what they think is valuable are often accused of supporting something called “trickle-down economics.” It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to rich people, the wealth they acquire will (somehow) ‘trickle down’ to the poor.”
The problem with this term is that, as far as I know, no economist has ever used that term to describe their own views. Critics of the market should take up the challenge of finding an economist who argues something like “giving things to group A is a good idea because they will then trickle down to group B.” I submit they will fail in finding one because such a person does not exist. Plus, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the whole argument is silly: why not just give whatever the things are to group B directly and eliminate the middleman?

There’s no economic argument that claims that policies that themselves only benefit the wealthy directly will somehow “trickle down” to the poor. Transferring wealth to the rich, or even tax cuts that only apply to them, are not policies that are going to benefit the poor, or certainly not in any notable way. Defenders of markets are certainly not going to support direct transfers or subsidies to the rich in any case. That’s precisely the sort of crony capitalism that true liberals reject.
https://fee.org/articles/there-is-no-such-thing-as-trickle-down-economics/

So like I said, you like him so everyone else should as well.

And he isn't respected and no one looks to him for economic advice.

Proof?


Only a real piece of shit would insult a great man as much as you

What have you ever done? Other than running with your tail betwixt your legs?





Legacy and honors
In 1990, Sowell won the Francis Boyer Award, presented by the American Enterprise Institute. In 1998, he received the Sydney Hook Award from the National Association of Scholars.[68] In 2002, Sowell was awarded the National Humanities Medal for prolific scholarship melding history, economics, and political science. In 2003, he was awarded the Bradley Prize for intellectual achievement.[69] In 2004, he was given Laissez Faire Books' Lysander Spooner Award for his book Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One.[70] In 2008, getAbstract awarded his book Economic Facts and Fallacies its International Book Award.

Career highlights

Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, September 1980–present
Professor of Economics, UCLA, July 1974 – June 1980
Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, September–December 1977
Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, April–August 1977
Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976 – March 1977
Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972 – July 1974
Associate Professor of Economics, UCLA, September 1970 – June 1972
Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969 – June 1970
Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965 – August 1969[16]
Economic Analyst, American Telephone & Telegraph Co., June 1964 – August 1965
Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963 – June 1964
Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, September 1962 – June 1963
Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961 – August 1962
 
It is in this video it does not exist.

BUT, let me tell you why it is not a real thing. In short, trickle down means that you are ONLY giving benefits of some sort to the rich and that these will have a positive effect on the people below them. No one touted this as their platform ever....now, their critics might has said this, but no one ever touted it as their platform.
What Reagan did was SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS.

No one "touts" it because it's not politically popular, but it is certainly proposed. As I pointed out in Nostra's nearly identical thread, Ryan's proposed tax cut has 99.6% of its direct benefits going to the top 1% of earners. That's somewhat extreme but in the range of normal for Republican tax-cut proposals. Ryan's not going around talking about that and in fact, he argues that it's illegitimate to discuss the first-order distributional effects of his proposal, but he is proposing it.
 
Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy

You're an ideologically retarded fool...or a troll.


So modern day economists are looking to him for basic economic advice?


You're funny. Stupid but funny.
 
1) Don't ever bring up Jesus because you have no understanding of him.
2) there is no such thing as trickle down, it is used by ignorants like you with no evidence of who claimed it was such a thing. See video.
3) The free market is the VOLUNTARY buying and selling of goods and services, if you think economics is a zero sum game where you can only get rich by stealing from others then you are a dumb shit and know nothing about how economic systems work, no matter how much of a pompous jackass you sound like.
4) Taxes are NOT CHARITY---- charity is the VOLUNTARY giving to those less fortunate, and red states which are more christian give more charity than blue states
5) In the new and old testaments, tax collectors are seen as sinners, so not sure how you are going to say Jesus was in favor of high taxes or that he even cared. Oh, my proof?
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
This is some quality blather. Nice amalgam of conservative thought, sweet gimmick homie. Funny how you keep referring to others' "feelings" when you've clearly got your panties in a bunch over this.
 
There is so much wrong in this post.

3) The free market is the VOLUNTARY buying and selling of goods and services, if you think economics is a zero sum game where you can only get rich by stealing from others then you are a dumb shit and know nothing about how economic systems work, no matter how much of a pompous jackass you sound like.

The voluntary buying and selling of goods, undergirded by force. Here's Tolstoy explaining it:
It only seems to us that it is possible to be a Christian and have property and retain it separately from the rest, but that is impossible. People need only recognize this, and very soon there will be nothing left of Christianity but words – nothing but insincere and hypocritical words. Christ said that it is impossible to serve God and mammon. Either you hoard property for yourselves, or you live for God. At first it seems that there is no connection between the rejection of violence, the refusal to do military service, and the recognition of property. “We, the Christians, do not worship external gods, do not swear, do not go to court, and do not kill,” say many of us, “but our acquiring property through labor, not for our enrichment, but as a provision for our dear ones, not only does not violate Christ’s teaching, but even helps us to fulfill it, if we help the needy from the surplus.” But that is not so. Property means that I will not only refuse to give that which I consider to be my own to anyone who may wish to take it, but will also defend it against him. But to defend what is mine from another, I must use violence, defending it by means of a struggle, a fight, and even murder. If it were not for these acts of violence and murder, no one would be able to retain property.

But if we retain property without using violence, it is only so because our property is defended by the threat of using violence against the people around us. Our property is not taken from us, even if we do not defend it, only because it is assumed that we would defend it like anyone else.

And so the recognition of property is the recognition of violence and murder, and you had no reason to refuse to do military and police service if you recognize property, which is maintained only by means of military and police service.

4) Taxes are NOT CHARITY---- charity is the VOLUNTARY giving to those less fortunate, and red states which are more christian give more charity than blue states

Who in this thread claimed taxes are charity? I think you're setting up a strawman.

5) In the new and old testaments, tax collectors are seen as sinners, so not sure how you are going to say Jesus was in favor of high taxes or that he even cared. Oh, my proof?

Not because taxation is inherently bad. Jesus hung out with tax collectors. He never said taxation itself is sinful. It's likely tax collectors often took more than they were supposed to, which is why John the baptist told tax collectors to take no more than they were authorized to take.

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Are you trying to use that text as as evidence for Christianity teaching that tax dollars are actually the property of the person their taken from? Because it teaches the opposite of that. This is bolstered in Romans:

5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
 
A deficit, or to be more specific, an increase in the deficit or decrease in the surplus, is stimulative to the economy. This can be accomplished by tax cuts or spending increases. Tax cuts like the ones W passed were stimulative, and were not the cause of the GFC.
 
So modern day economists are looking to him for basic economic advice?


You're funny. Stupid but funny.


Is that what I said? Remember, the reason we're still having this conversation is because your retarded self stated that Sowell wasn't a respected Economist.
You're a fucking moron or a lying ideologue. Simple math.
 
Is that what I said? Remember, the reason we're still having this conversation is because your retarded self stated that Sowell wasn't a respected Economist.
You're a fucking moron or a lying ideologue. Simple math.


Lol go get yourself an ice cream cone. Perhaps it will calm you down.

You can think about sowell not being respected while you eat it
 
"Trickle down doesn't exist! Now, here's why it's great."
 
Gupa rolls off the tongue rather nicely, that gets my vote.

I chose that, because that's what I think it sounds like when obese people walk. Just picture obese folks in a comic strip, with "Gupa!!" shooting from their near suicidal shoes.
 
Back
Top