Income Inequality

Remember supply-side economics and trickle-down theory? Supply side economics theorized that removing barriers to production with income tax and capital gains tax cuts, along with deregulation, would stimulate production and produce enough consumer spending on cheaper products to more than offset the revenue losses from the tax cuts. Trickle-down theory postulated that tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses would create more jobs for everyone. Most of this nation’s tax and regulatory policies have, since the Reagan era, followed this blueprint.  Well, we now have a chart demonstrating how well this has worked over the last 30 years. Tax cuts for the rich made them richer, and the rest of us got bupkus. Surprise.

3 thoughts on “Income Inequality”

  1. Before it was called supply side economics, voodoo economics, trickle down economics it was called horse and sparrow economics.

    That was back in the latter 1800s – and it didn’t work then either – but it keeps being trotted out and believied by conservatives who identify with the rich, even if they themselves are anything but. It creates a nice fantasy for them, an escape apparently from the harshness of reality, while denying we are a consumer-based economy. That economy does best for everyone when there is a strong and affluent middle and lower class, not a big gap between a percent or two of wealthy, and everyone else struggling to make ends meet and losing jobs.

    Want to know WHY it was called horse and sparrow? Because ‘oats’ represented money, and it was presumed that if the horse – the rich – got all the oats, then they would produce horse manure, and the sparrows – a sort of biblica reference – could pick out their adequate share of the oats from the manure – the by-product of wealthy spending.

    At least they were honest about offering the majority of people ‘poop’ back in the 1800s. (Seriously – who could make this stuff up? The reality of History, especially economic history, is so much better than anyone’s imagination.)

    I can only wonder Ed if that earlier version of trick-ery, er, trickle-down economics might suggest another cartoon? Or would it be too difficult to adequately censor that for a polite readership?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>