Trickle down vs trickle up

File: IMG_5544.jpg (33KB, 760x666px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 760x666px

>>1670950
Look up concept on graph and why you don't tax at the highest tic. You tax halfway down from the highest tic because anything higher you start to shit on growth, which is much more effective than even the highest point with the most revenue, because eventually the pie will grow anyways and your smaller piece will be greater on a larger pie even if you had 1/4 of the entire small pie.

Think of it like this. In regulated economies, everyone has $1000, and the wealth is fairly even throughout. However, Capitalism (Trickle-Down) is historically the most uneven, but the most profitable system known. Even if the 1% (who are probably smarter and more talented than everyone else and can do things you never will be able to) owns 50+%, the pie is still fucking enormous compared to a trickle-up. This has been proven over and over again, especially since I don't think it's a wrong statement to say that the government knows how to run a business better than the people who invest their entire lives and brainpower into a business. Aside from the fact that a business owner is more equipped to run a good business instead the government, historically and even the Greeks knew this, that regulated and highly taxed societies with social programs and "free money" only end up being able to be exploited for political power (think dems and free shit. It's unarguable that the biggest beneficiaries of social programs and free shit have an insane amount of support for the Democratic Party).

>>1670950
By the way, yes that format is actually more efficient, but ask yourself if it's normal behavior for slightly or largely sociopathic and or antisocial 1%ers to run a society or business for you with no reward. These people and all people really need a dopamine payoff, and Capitalism makes sure that your absolute worst yet highly skilled people are paid the big bucks so they end up running businesses and plugging numbers all day long instead of killing and raping people for fun. You'd be surprised how truly insane smart people are. You really can't have empathy and rationale in the same levels and still be on an extreme. You're either rational yet a psycho, or emotional and an idiot. Your brain is structured a certain way and you'd be surprised to see the brain of people in power.

Wouldn't trickle down be predicated on the idea that the 1% are creating opportunities nationally instead of taking their shit to China?

>>1671068
This. Also supply side economics is shit. You can have all the supply in the world but if there's no demand what's the point?

Demand drives growth. Job creators is a bullshit meme. Demand creates jobs. You know what stimulates demand? Every day people spending their money, not some rich preacher buying his second jet.

I don't know whats so hard to understand about this. Wages are down across the board which lowers potential growth.

File: LafferCorrected.jpg (34KB, 760x666px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 760x666px

>>1671008
You've got the shape of the curve wrong (though to be fair to you, Laffer himself made the same mistake). Once you factor in the opportunity costs, the curve looks more like this, though the location of the Growth Maximizing Point can vary widely.

This is irrelevant to the question of whether the government is good at running a business. Although governments aren't generally better at running businesses, there are situations where they can be, such as for extremely capital intensive businesses. And when providing services, it is often better value for the government to do the work themselves than to contract it out to private sector businesses trying to make a profit from it. But whether a business is in government hands doesn't determine the tax rate, nor what the government is investing in.

You don't need a regulated economy to rely on trickle up economics; it happens naturally with the capitalist system despite trickle down economics being a more prominent meme.

Importantly for economic growth, if the government spends more on education, that will enable total production to be increased far more than tax cuts for the wealthy will, because it enables many more people to do more.

Free healthcare is also good for trickle up economics, as it removes the uncertainty that's holding many people back.

Trickle down proponents think that providing more incentive is the best way to "grow the pie". Trickle up proponents think that providing more opportunity is far more important.

>>1670950
Trickle down economics has been proven to not work, and it's just a lie that's told by the wealthy so they can become more wealthy.