Talk:Trickle-down economics

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JMF (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 8 March 2024 (→"Despite the lack of practical evidence of the Laffer curve"? Excuse me?: Didn't either of you bother to read Laffer curve?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:07, 8 March 2024 by JMF (talk | contribs) (→"Despite the lack of practical evidence of the Laffer curve"? Excuse me?: Didn't either of you bother to read Laffer curve?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trickle-down economics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Government Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation

Not encyclopedic

This article is not encyclopedic. It defines the topic as what critics don't like about it. Those critics may be absolutely correct but people should still be able to come and read what trickle down economics are. Another article defines trickle down economics as: 'employs policies that include tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy that trickle down to benefit everyone.' And that is what trickle down economics are. I AM NOT saying trickle down economics work or that they are a good thing. But it's our job to create an encyclopedia. If we can have an article about Hitler and the KKK that define what those actually are, we can have one here too. JaHolo (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I can see you have a view, but what would be far more useful is a citation. The name of the book or the journal and title of the article plus issue and page number. Then other editors can assess it for themselves. You already found it - why waste other editors' time? NadVolum (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You want me to provide a citation on why this article does not describe Trickle Down Economics? That's a ridiculous request and you know such a citation doesn't exist. Why waste other editors time? JaHolo (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Opposed and reverted your bold removal. This will not be acceptable. Andre🚐 21:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

on what basis? all you've said is that it was sourced. a piece of information being sourced doesn't mean it belongs in the lede. the lede should clearly summarize the topic. this one does not. most of it is devoted to explaining what critics think. that should go in a criticism section. and TDE should be clearly summarized. it isn't, anywhere. JaHolo (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There's been extensive discussion of this in the talk page in the past, but the overwhelming consensus in past discussions is that "TDE" isn't a term used by economists in favor of supply side economics. It's mainly used in politics and by journalists, and by economics who want to criticize supply-side or other economic policy arguments like the Laffer curve. It's a "zombie bad idea" as the source you removed states. Andre🚐 23:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

then the lede should say that. what you just wrote is far more informative than the current word salad the lede is now, which doesn't even attempt to explain what trickle down economics is. I don't understand how anyone could think this lede accurately summarizes anything. it basically says "trickle down economics is a bad idea held by dumb people." ya ok, but WHAT IS IT. JaHolo (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not claiming everything's great about the article or that no improvement might be made to it. But the edits I reverted just went ahead and removed a bunch of sourced material including what I just wrote. Andre🚐 23:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely an issue that needs to be addressed with the article. The article is heavily biased. The first paragraph should be rewritten. Criticism can be mentioned after defining TDE Nukey18mon (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, been discussed many times, you can't just charge in and allege bias. It's a process. Andre🚐 02:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, how does that process work and how do we start it? Two of us have brought this up and you seem to just like to handwave us off like flies. JaHolo (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(And we'll just pretend the process isn't Editor A makes an edit, nobody reverts their edit)JaHolo (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It starts with coming up with reliable sources and doing your research. Have you tried Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages Library? Or a real library, university, school of any kind really ought to do, even. Andre🚐 06:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I'll head on down to my local university and see if I can find some sources like Paul Krugman's blog, the Guardian, the St Louis Star and CBS News that are used in this most scholarly and academically sourced article. On the other hand, I wont. Because I know you're just going to revert whatever change i make if it doesn't align with the tone you want the article to have. JaHolo (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

So, why are you even here? You think that improving the article is pointless, but whining on the Talk page that people do not agree with you is a helpful? You should either try to contribute (following the rules) or go away. If your opinion is so great, there must be good sources for it. If you bring those sources and people reject them, then you have something to complain about. "You will not accept whatever I give you" is just the usual cop-out used by people who have nothing but an unfounded opinion.

And your demand that people should still be able to come and read what trickle down economics are is already met: The article says, The policies are founded on the premise that spending by this echelon will "trickle down" to those less fortunate. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t about opinions, it’s about fact. And the fact is that Misplaced Pages has a policy on neutrality, and that policy is not being upheld in this article. Who cares about opinion? We aren’t talking about the opinions section of the article. Nukey18mon (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You do not understand the neutrality policy. Maybe you should read it. Here it is: WP:NPOV. It says, for instance: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Since you people either refuse to give us reliable sources or fail to do so, we have to represent the viewpoints of the sources we have and omit the viewpoints of the sources we do not have. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have read it, understood it, and started the NPOC thread. The intro of this article violates the policy clearly. I have also provided 4 different sources in that thread if you wish to take a look. Nukey18mon (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You should also read WP:IDHT. You were already told that those sources are bad, and now you are behaving as if that never happened. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Your link is irrelevant. The community obviously has a dispute if multiple people are debating this topic (which they are). Stop trying to shut down positive improvements to the article Nukey18mon (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

By that reasoning, you can say whatever you want and ignore whatever you want. You do not have to listen to others, repeat your refuted statements again and again and call them "positive improvements". You do not need valid reasoning, you can just type random text and call it a "dispute" and a "debate". Talking to you is pointless, and I will stop now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop being delusional. I cited a source established as reliable that is already used in the article. You are losing this argument. Stop trying to push bias on Misplaced Pages articles. Nukey18mon (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree, the term "Trickle Down Economics" is generally a political pejorative for "Supply Side Economics". You will be hard pressed to find an economist who claims to be of the "Trickle Down School". 23.118.202.9 (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

And yet the other people in this thread pretend like there is no one else saying this Nukey18mon (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Payola

This article is in need of recognizing the political grift of paying the electorate for an election. Thomas Sowell's "trickle down economic" recognition of the actuality of the political crime. The legislative violation of the Hatch Act. JohnPritchard (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

When Donald Trump campaigns on "Tax Cuts For The Rich", the quid pro quo constitutes a political crime. Political grift in action. The truth of "trickle down economics". The legislative Hatch Act violation. JohnPritchard (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, this reporting on Clarence Thomas demonstrates the prevalence of criminal corruption in government. Government as exploitation ignores government as public service, the basic purpose to manage the common good in law and economy. A field of study typically obscured by the political passions of opinion. A convenience to political crime responsible for perpetuating the mysteries in the objective. JohnPritchard (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

In this historical review, Reaganomics: A Historical Watershed (2018), the history of "trickle down economics" is documented in the diverse contexts of theory and policy that constitute the complexity of the national experience. JohnPritchard (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Now we're talking, yeah! Andre🚐 09:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No. See WP:SOAPBOX. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Link doesn't work, but here's a better one Andre🚐 15:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - JohnPritchard (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV dispute Introduction paragraph

The introduction to this article is heavily biased against trickle down economics. It defines TDE in terms of what critics believe its effects are, and not what TDE actually is. Any reader looking at a glance would not have a clear understanding of the topic because of this.

Suggestion for change: Define TDE in terms of its policies, followed by the theory behind it, then followed by a brief statement of critiques that is clearly expressed as such. The critiques should not be stated as fact, because they are opinion. I hope to see this done. Nukey18mon (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What reliable source would you like to furnish to support your suggestions? Andre🚐 02:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is Misplaced Pages’s policy on neutrality.

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view Nukey18mon (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but what reliable sources are you offering to define what TDE is for the lead? Andre🚐 04:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Here are multiple reliable that all agree on the definition of TDE. My apologies for not understanding your initial comment

https://www.finance-monthly.com/amp/2023/06/economy-101-trickle-down-economics/

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/174/economics/trickle-down-economics/ Nukey18mon (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, not a one of those is a reliable secondary academic high-quality source. Andre🚐 05:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Nukey18mon (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Those are just the random articles you found on blog sites or sites like Investopedia. We don't use those. We need to find textbooks, journal articles, reliable publications from reputable outlets, not a website that was built by uncredentialed users with no particular oversight or editorial standards or policies on fact checking, accuracy, peer review, or etc etc. You can read WP:RS for more Andre🚐 05:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok… how about this? We are talking definitions, so why not a dictionary? Merriam-Webster is already cited in this article, so it’s already been used as a reliable source.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trickle-down%20theory Nukey18mon (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

We are NOT talking definitions, and NO, not a dictionary. This is Misplaced Pages. There's another place called Wiktionary, and you can head over there if you want. Andre🚐 06:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You asked for a source, and I gave you four different ones, one of which from an entity already cited in this article. If you have an issue with the dictionary being used as a source, then I expect you to remove where it is cited in this article. Otherwise it is perfectly valid to be used in a new introduction.

We are absolutely talking about definitions. Encyclopedias contain definitions to provide context to the article. In fact, the article already tried to define TDE, but fails to do so without being biased, hence the reason for this thread. Nukey18mon (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:TERTIARY. Keep in mind, an encyclopedia is not the same thing as a dictionary. The source you are referencing states "a theory that financial benefits given to big business will in turn pass down to smaller businesses and consumers." This is a very narrow view of where the term TDE came from and what it is, ie Supply-side economics. I think that is the article you are looking for. DN (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You were not asked for "a source", you were asked for "reliable sources". The sources you gave did not meet WP:RS. It's not that difficult to understand that your reasoning is bad, and repeating it does not improve it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

One of the sources is literally used elsewhere in the article. If you have a problem with the literal dictionary, then fix it in the article. Be consistent. Nukey18mon (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is used for the history of the term, and that is what dictionaries are good for. Different sources are used for different purposes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

So you admit that the subject of the article is the same as the subject of the dictionary entry? Then why shouldn’t it be used as a source of the definition? Nukey18mon (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done. I suggest you visit the...

Hello! Trickle-down economics, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Misplaced Pages. Please join us!

Have a nice day. DN (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you propose specific text for a new lead paragraph that incorporates the currently-cited quality sources as well as additional sources of the same caliber. Basically Misplaced Pages reports what reliable sources report. Do you have any evidence that the cited sources are "opinion" as you claim? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(od) " Define TDE in terms of its policies, followed by the theory behind it" You cant because it is not a formal economic theory. Its a (usually) derogatory slang term. Bonewah (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No consensus for changes to lead and removal of cited context.

See edits...It seems Bonewah feels there might be a POV issue? DN (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(removed from lead)

"As of 2023, a number of studies have shown that there is no obvious link between reducing tax burdens on the upper end and economic growth."

(removed from section Usage)

"Despite a lack of practical-use evidence for the Laffer curve, it is often cited by proponents of trickle-down policy.

DN (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

"Art Laffer still thinks he was right about tax cuts". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on November 30, 2022. Retrieved 2023-02-03.
Elliott, Larry (2022-09-20). "Liz Truss favours trickle down economics but results can be trickle up". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on October 20, 2022. Retrieved 2023-02-03.

I have already reverted this edit by Bonewah once before, and asked them to take it to the talk page. Since they have decided to remove again without discussion it should be restored until there is consensus to change the lead. DN (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Andrevan since they are the one that originally added this to the lead...DN (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I'll revert it. The Laffer curve is nonsense and debunked over and over again. Andre🚐 21:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed the line about 'a number of studies..' because it is OR. None of the sources we cite make this claim and so it is inappropriate for us to make this claim. I removed the Laffer curve stuff for POV reasons, and OR, specifically the claim "Despite a lack of practical-use evidence for the Laffer curve.." as neither citation backs that up. I think its improper for us to claim that 'proponents of trickle-down' do anything as we already defined trickle-down and a a slang or pejorative only used by those who are against what they want to describe as trickle-down. Bonewah (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a summary of the body, it's not OR. Andre🚐 20:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan Deja vu? DN (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

deja vu is a daily fact of life for me, I'm afraid. Especially when it comes to the Laffer curve. Despite having been bunk since the 90s, or arguably never not having been not bunk, Andre🚐 21:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The rules are quite clear here. per WP:V " All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material" I am challenging the claim that "As of 2023, a number of studies have shown that there is no obvious link between reducing tax burdens on the upper end and economic growth.". Please provide a reliable source that directly supports that claim. I am challenging the claim "Despite a lack of practical-use evidence for the Laffer curve, it is often cited by proponents of trickle-down policy." Please provide a reliable source that directly supports that claim. Bonewah (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding how WP:LEAD works. The statement in the lead is a summary of the usage and economics section. Andre🚐 15:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:Lead obviates the need to adhere to WP:V Bonewah (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The part of V you're quoting isn't relevant. There's no quotations, and the material has a citation. The lead does not need to include the citation, if it's in the body. Andre🚐 19:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

And if (per WP:LEAD) it is just a summary of the body, you should have no problem in providing the citations. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

They're cited in the article. those are the cites on the body statement. And the other statement the cites are and Andre🚐 19:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

So, since it has been challenged, reinstate the sentence with those citations in support and it leaves no vacuum to fill with further argument. Doing so will shut down the NOR assertion and we can all move on. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, those citations are all already in the article body. And I'm not sure the present state of the article has excluded the text - the removal was already reverted, wasn't it? Andre🚐 21:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you not familiar with <ref name= "citation name" />? "Methinks he doth protest too much". Just do it and let's move on, for goodness sake. The article doesn't use WP:LEADCITE, I don't understand the resistance. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Restore The text that was removed represents the overwhelming view among mainstream economists. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree but I would still expect the any questioned statements to comply with WP:V. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps more context/citations will help.

Arndt, H.W. "The "Trickle-down" Myth". University of Chicago Press Journal. 32 (1) – via uchicago.edu.
Gravelle, Jane (22 May 2019). "The Economic Effects of the 2017 Tax Revision: Preliminary Observations" (PDF). www.everycrsreport.com.
Arndt, H. W. (1983). "The "Trickle-down" Myth". Economic Development and Cultural Change. 32 (1): 1–10. ISSN 0013-0079.
Ingraham, Christopher (2020-12-24). "Analysis | 'Trickle-down' tax cuts make the rich richer but are of no value to overall economy, study finds". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2023-12-20.
"50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. 2020-12-17. Retrieved 2023-12-20.
Srikanth, Anagha (2020-12-17). "Huge new study shows trickle-down economics makes inequality worse, researchers say". The Hill. Retrieved 2023-12-20.
Aghion, Philippe (April 1997). "A Theory of Trickle-Down Growth and Development" (PDF). The Review of Economic Studies. 64 (2) – via JSTOR.
Hope, David; Limberg, Julian (April 2022). "The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich". SOCIO-ECONOMIC REVIEW. 20 (2): 539–559. doi:10.1093/ser/mwab061. ISSN 1475-1461.

DN (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, quite a few citations here, so lets see if any of them actually support the claims in question. To review, the lines to which i object are:

As of 2023, a number of studies have shown that there is no obvious link between reducing tax burdens on the upper end and economic growth
Despite a lack of practical-use evidence for the Laffer curve, it is often cited by proponents of trickle-down policy.

And to further clarify, WP:V at a minimum requires that the reliable source directly supports the material. So it wont do, in my opinion, to simply cite a bunch of sources and say, therefore, "a number of studies have shown that there is no obvious link..." or "Despite a lack of practical-use evidence for the Laffer curve..". The source itself must actually say that, or something close to it. If they dont, then we would be performing WP:OR in that we are reaching a conclusion not stated or implied by the sources. Do the other editors here at least agree to that interpretation of policy?. If so, ill go through the sources provided, and, if i find one or more that directly supports the claim, ill add it as a citation. I should add here that i further object to the line in the lede, but that objection will be irrelevant if it must be removed because of either V or OR. Bonewah (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no consensus to remove it. It's being discussed now. I'm adding some citations to the lead now since you seem to not like them in the body. Andre🚐 14:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to add whatever citations you like, ill examine them in a new talk page section. Bonewah (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

As a technical note, does anyone know how i can access scientific papers behind a paywall, such as this Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages Library is a good start Andre🚐 15:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I see the Laffer curve context has been excluded, and the last sentence was changed to "As of 2023, studies have not shown that there is a demonstrable link between reducing tax burdens on the upper end and economic growth." We seem to have a collection of attributions that all seem to say the same thing. My current concern is if there is an existing "overall consensus" (whether TDE works or doesn't work) from economics experts and academics, then we should include it as the "mainstream view" and avoid presenting a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I can understand if it's not that simple, but it's something to consider. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The "Despite a lack of practical-use evidence for the Laffer curve, it is often cited by proponents of trickle-down policy." is in the Usage section. but I'd be interested in putting that in the lead too. We'd need to find a source though for the academic consensus writ large. Andre🚐 21:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Citations for contested content

Per above, i will use this section as a discussion of the contested lines above. Bonewah (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

archive copy of bloomberg article. Does not support either claim. The article neither mentions any other study nor the laffer curve at all. Therefore, it does not directly support the contested claims. Bonewah (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Incorrect. It's not cited for the Laffer curve claim. But it does support the claim that, Last week two British scholars released a study (PDF) concluding that trickle-down economics doesn’t work. Trickle-down theory says cutting taxes on rich people will encourage them to work and invest more, ultimately creating jobs and benefiting everyone. In reality, it increases inequality while not having “any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment,” wrote David Hope, a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics Andre🚐 14:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but that is not a line to which im objecting. Bonewah (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

CBS new article covering the same study as bloomberg article above. Does not support either claim. Bonewah (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. It's not cited for the Laffer curve, and it supports the claim that studies have shown that trickle-down doesn't work. Your arguments are invalid. Andre🚐 14:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

My point is that you need a citation for the claim that "As of 2023, a number of studies have shown that there is no obvious link between reducing tax burdens on the upper end and economic growth." You cant simply cite some studies and then draw broad conclusions not stated in the sources themselves for the same reason I could not say that "As of 2023, a number of studies have shown that there is positive relationship between reducing tax burdens on the upper end and economic growth." and then cite a bunch of studies. You can cite the studies, if relevant and consistent with the other rules of Misplaced Pages, but not to support the broad conclusion that I object to. Bonewah (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's a summary. We absolutely can if there's a consensus that this is an accurate summary, that due to the copious secondary sources interpreting that trickle-down is a myth, it's a myth and no study has shown any evidence of it. We can change the wording, but your argument is a bunch of bunk and unproductive and WP:1AM. Andre🚐 14:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the archive (2), I noticed another citation which was discussed that seems relevant to this discussion. DN (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

References

widworld_admin (2021-10-20). "The World #InequalityReport 2022 presents the most up-to-date & complete data on inequality worldwide:". World Inequality Report 2022 (in French). Retrieved 2023-12-20.

"Despite the lack of practical evidence of the Laffer curve"? Excuse me?

What about Estonia and Jamaica? What about New Hampshire? What about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017? Taxes went down and revenue went up. 181.194.252.59 (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to think that short term changes prove a long-term point. Track changes over several business cycles and think again.DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim that there is some kind of 'lack of practical evidence of the Laffer Curve' is OR. The LC is a concept that can be found in any modern Econ textbook and we should defer to what those RS's say, not a few cherry picked newspaper articles. Bonewah (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Didn't either of you bother to read Laffer curve? May you missed this in the lead?

One implication of the Laffer curve is that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point is counter-productive for raising further tax revenue. Particularly in the United States, conservatives have used the Laffer curve to argue that lower taxes may increase tax revenue. However, the hypothetical maximum revenue point of the Laffer curve for any given market cannot be observed directly and can only be estimated—such estimates are often controversial. According to The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, estimates of revenue-maximizing income tax rates have varied widely, with a mid-range of around 70%.

That clear enough for you? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Fullerton, Don (2008). "Laffer curve". In Durlauf, Steven N.; Blume, Lawrence E. (eds.). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed.). p. 839. doi:10.1057/9780230226203.0922. ISBN 978-0-333-78676-5.

Categories: