The Socio-Economic Review published this paper in the past few days:
I am not claiming to be an expert in the methods it uses to reach its conclusions and have not examined them in-depth, but they appear to be robust.
I note this from the conclusion:
That looks pretty significant to me.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
It’s good to see that trickle down is being challenged again but I don’t know why its ‘puzzling’ that it has got so much traction as an idea.
It’s obvious.
There’s obviously a cycle created here in that uncollected tax finds its way into the political funding system. I think that we can work the rest out for ourselves. It’s an implicit deal between the rich and political power. A reward for wealth investing in political movements.
I am tempted to say “tax cuts make rich people richer” is a statement of the obvious. The fact that we need a serious paper to challenge this idea is, perhaps, an indication of how deeply embedded neo-liberal doublethink is.
What about trickle up? Give better pay/benefits to the poor – they will spend it in businesses that are owned by the rich who will become wealthier from increased profits.
A great idea, satirised by the comedian Kevin Bridges that definitely has merit!
People across the piste want to pay less tax.. the overall tax take at all levels of income is repressively and historically high
Tell me which public services the public don’t want or alternatively how much inflation they do want as a result?
I would be keen to know
Cost the answer, please