50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says

Clinton was the beneficiary of the internet boom which increased revenue for the government. Clinton had nothing to do with it and he spent with the best of them. We elect very bad presidents. As close as I can get to a good one in my lifetime was JF Kennedy.

 

Every one of the baskets increased. Isn't that trickle down?

 

What do you mean by "baskets?"

 

Wait.

Is the expectations that trickle down means ALL the gains trickle down uniformly?

Let's play devils advocate. During recessions, the wealthy lost WAY larger percentages than the lower brackets. Surely you support that too. Right?

The middle income earned losing 25% of their wealth during recessions? Yes?

 

Sorry. Autocorrect.

I meant brackets.

 

The upper brackets also recover faster. Look at the entire chart. The upper and lower brackets increase at approximately the same rate until the eighties. then they go up at a faster rate, while the lower brackets remain more or less flat.

 

That's the lesson.

People that learn how to grow their money gain wealth faster.

The argument here is that trickle down doesn't work. That's BS. It's not flow down, it's trickle... everybody sees that wealth gain simultaneously when the economy is growing.

I'm not exactly sure what the nay-sayers of trickle down THINK is supposed to happen.

 

No; but the gains should be of similar size, and thus proportionally larger for those lower in the distribution, not proportionally smaller as the data show actually happened.

No they didn't, at least in the last two recessions.

If it had happened.

They lost more, sometimes more than 100%.

 

Hmmm...you're forgetting "leverage." Otherwise described as "the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer." I'd add...relatively, given inflation.