It did work as it intended to
Well , it was nice of you to provide numbers to back up your point.
So, here's a few to mull over.
Under Reagan , the economy set a new record for consecutive monthly growth, which was broken during the Clinton administration.
So, let's compare their administrations.
Taking the year after their inauguration and ending with the year they left office.
Comparing 82 to 89 under the Reagan administration:
Federal individual income tax revenues increased 49.7%
Corporate income tax revenues increased 110%
Payroll tax revenues increased 78.4%
Comparing 94 to 2001 under the Clinton administration:
Federal income tax revenues increased 83%
Corporate income tax revenues increased 7.5%
Payroll tax revenues increased 50.4%
Now , there was an pronounced unusual drop in corporate revenue from 2000 to 2001.
Using the 2000 number , the increase would come in at 47.6% , still less than half of Reagan's increase.
Well , it was nice of you to provide numbers to back up your point.
A huge study of 20 years of global wealth demolishes the myth of 'trickle-down' and shows the rich are taking most of the gains for themselves
...
For instance, when it comes to wealth, which accounts for the values of assets people hold, researchers found that the "poorest half of the global population barely owns any wealth at all." That bottom half owns just 2% of total wealth. That means that the top half of the world holds 98% of the world's wealth, and that gets even more concentrated the wealthier you get.
Indeed, the richest 10% of the world's population hold 76%, or two-thirds of all wealth. That means the 517 million people who make up the top hold vastly more than the 2.5 billion who make up the bottom. The world's policy choices have led to wealth trickling up rather than down.
...
Billionaires now hold a 3% share of global wealth, up from 1% in 1995
The report notes that "2020 marked the steepest increase in global billionaires' share of wealth on record." Broadly, the number of billionaires rose to a record-number in 2020, with Wealth-X finding that there are now over 3,000 members of the three-comma club.
suggests to me that a much larger tax burden was a result of federal income tax, something that disproportionately affects poor people
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-bad-is-inequality-trickle-down-economics-thomas-piketty-economists-2021-12
https://wir2022.wid.world/
And how does taxing the wealthy more , create wealth at the bottom?
Are you advocating taking over the decision making of the poor's spending habits to ensure they create their own wealth?
What policy change is going to get the poor to invest in and practice wealth creating actions instead of spending their funds on necessities and luxuries?
And if the government is full of the wealthy and has shown they're corrupted by the wealthy, why would you want that entity to have more control over the wealth?
By alleviating tax burdens on the poorest, such as infrastructure and public services.
People on the bottom do not have investment capital - I mean, around 97% of my spending is just on not dying, but I only make about $19k a year.
Democratically choosing to tax the rich more is a democratic action, y'know, from da people.
And how does taxing the wealthy more , create wealth at the bottom?Well, for one, if I didn't have to pay out of pocket for health insurance that'd save me some money every paycheck. And if college was paid for by taxpayers, it could foster a system where higher education (and by extension higher paying jobs) weren't gate-kept by the wealthy
What policy change is going to get the poor to invest in and practice wealth creating actions instead of spending their funds on necessities and luxuries?
So was slavery , or Japanese internment during WW2, or any other transgression committed by the government of da people.
Just because it's legal by democratic vote ; doesn't mean it's moral, fair , or just.
Well, for one, if I didn't have to pay out of pocket for health insurance that'd save me some money every paycheck.
Right , they don't or can't use funds for wealth creation.
If you want them to do so , you'll need a better plan than just take away the wealth from others so there isn't as big of a disparity.
public services have been found to reduce income inequality by an average of 20%
Moreover, the statistical relationship between public goods spending and happiness is substantively large and invariant across income, education, gender, and race/ethnicity lines indicating that spending has broad benefits across society. These findings suggest that public goods spending can have important implications for the well-being of Americans and, more broadly, contribute to the growing literature on how government policy decisions concretely impact the quality of life that citizens experience.
And if the government is full of the wealthy and has shown they're corrupted by the wealthy, why would you want that entity to have more control over the wealth?
Did you really just compare the mass imprisonment of thousands of innocent people to "maybe billionaires don't need to be quite so billionairey"?
No, I was quite clear, why are you misinterpreting what I said?
Just because the majority say so , doesn't mean a policy is moral , fair , or just.
No, I was quite clear, why are you misinterpreting what I said?They want more people like you. They get to spend the taxpayer money on their bs and then they have people like you excusing them from the responsibility of allocating funds to healthcare and education
Just because the majority say so , doesn't mean a policy is moral , fair , or just.
There are countless examples in human history of those in power abusing the powerless simply because the "state" dictated it was legal.
I'm hesitant to give an entity that already misuses the wealth of this country, more control of the wealth.
So was slavery , or Japanese internment during WW2, or any other transgression committed by the government of da people.Fucking yikes
Just because it's legal by democratic vote ; doesn't mean it's moral, fair , or just.
Right , they don't or can't use funds for wealth creation.
If you want them to do so , you'll need a better plan than just take away the wealth from others so there isn't as big of a disparity.
So was slavery , or Japanese internment during WW2, or any other transgression committed by the government of da people.
Just because it's legal by democratic vote ; doesn't mean it's moral, fair , or just.
Right , they don't or can't use funds for wealth creation.
If you want them to do so , you'll need a better plan than just take away the wealth from others so there isn't as big of a disparity.
So was slavery , or Japanese internment during WW2, or any other transgression committed by the government of da people.
Just because it's legal by democratic vote ; doesn't mean it's moral, fair , or just.
The real metric is income inequality, which has skyrocketed since Reagan.
It was never supposed to work. Only a moron would think "If we give all our money to the richest people in the nation they will use it wisely instead of just hoarding it"
In fact, some of the "wealthiest" individuals have historically been cash-poor at times.
Says the guy who thinks all rich people have a Scrooge McDuck money pit.
While the richest people don't necessarily use their money wisely, that money is often in use which is why the claims are about "wealth" instead of just "money." If you look at a list of the wealthiest people, you'll quickly see that wealth is either in ownership of companies, stocks, and other possessions rather than just cash. In fact, some of the "wealthiest" individuals have historically been cash-poor at times.
The closer you get to perfect income/financial equality, the poorer societies tend to be. Likewise, as nations grow wealthier, inequality tends to increase.
Ah Zeus ignoring the point and fabricating an argument he wishes to respond to. I don't know how my comment can lead someone to a discussion of what liquid assets a person possess vs what is tied up in investments.
Wait! Is Count Zeus's alt?
Yep.
Wait! Is Count Zeus's alt?yeah