It sounds fantastic in principle. But, the people who should be moving the money just sit on most of it.
-
-
-
But are they actually sitting on it? If they were then this might change my opinion. Do you have any sources or something
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
theoretically, it's beautiful, chef's kiss, all that. the implementation is what's lacking.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Poor people spend every penny they get to basic needs while rich people have more incentives to not spend all their money.
-
Rich people have incredible incentive to spend their money are you kidding me? I'd guess they might have even more than poor people, if you assume rich people are more fiscally driven/greedy than poor people on average
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
it’s obviously true. the claims made by quack economists in the early 00’s were not though. they were saying lowering tax rates would increase tax revenues via trickle down. Therefore ’s no evidence for this
-
the weaker version of trickle down that you’re talking about suggests that lowering tax rates by 20% would decrease revenues by <20%
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
For it to work, capital needs to convert to income at a greater rate. But every year technology reduces the conversion rate and it stays capital.
-
Could you explain this in some more detail?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
40 years of data says it's wrong. Corporations and billionaires haven't used the many they saved to employ more people but to improve productivity and actually not raise real wages
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.