this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
931 points (97.5% liked)

World News

39004 readers
3157 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Trickle down didn't work in the 1980's or anytime after that.

Trickle down did work in the 1940's, 1950's, and most of the 1960's, it just wasn't called "trickle down" at that time.

The difference was a punitively high tax rate that nobody actually paid, because they found better ways to spend their excess revenue than simply giving it to Uncle Sam.

It turns out that when the richest among us are forced to spend instead of lend, the rest of us finally start to earn fair wages.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, that's not really "trickle down" as championed by Reagan, that's more "use it or lose it". He wanted to reduce those crazy high tax rates to give the rich the choice of whether to keep the money for later or to spend it now, with "trickle down" being the phrase to tell people that it's fine, it'll make it's way out to everyone else... eventually?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that and the "rising tide lifts all boats". He neglected to consider that most of us had "run aground" between the 60's and 80's.

[–] Armen12@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It only worked for white people, not people of color

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 1 year ago

People of color were certainly repressed during this time frame, but not because of punitive tax rates on the highest incomes.

I can't think of any mechanism wherein people of color in the 1940s through the mid 1960s would have been better off if rich people were taxed lower. So, I would have to disagree with your assessment: The confiscatory top-tier tax rate did, indeed, benefit people of color, just not nearly enough to offset the harms of legislated segregation and institutional racism.