I mean the US economy in the 20th century seems like a pretty good example, right? It “worked” by having the wealthiest realize most gains but also making the US the most powerful economy in the world and still has a large sized middle class with houses, pensions, 401ks, etc.
Funny, I seem to remember a certain president running on trickle down economics that coincided with the decline of worker compensation compared to executive and the shrinking of the middle class, but maybe I have history completely backwards
Edit:also look at the economic system practiced in the United States that led up to the introduction of trickle down economics. That happened in the 80’s and there’s 4/5ths of the 20th century that happened prior to that
It's disingenuous to claim claim that trickle down economics worked when the widespread middle class in the 1950s was buoyed by more government spending, much much higher union membership and high taxes on rich people. The US did have widespread beneficial economic growth after the rest of the world was town down in ww2 and we weren't, but that has ended over time as Reagan and others started claiming trickle down was the way to go. We reduced taxes on the top, theoretically making it easier for rich to spend and induce jobs for the others, but the impact of 1970s to now is worse opportunities. In summary the time that trickle down econ. was supposed to help was the time where the non-rich started to lose their share more and more.
An iPhone user in rural India surfing the open internet on $1 / month LTE mobile networks is absolutely an example of Trickle down economics working.
Every single of the thousands of innovation that goes into an iPhone was subsidized by rich venture capitalists and rich early adopters who were willing to plonk large sums of money to a 'gadget' that only showed promises of work.
It wasn't because the Indian Government Taxed the Rich and made a mandate that everyone should have an device-in-their-pocket-that-carries-all-the-worlds-information-and-productivity-tools
No. You can't claim that good things were somehow examples of trickledown. India didn't create cell phones or LTE technologies, but of course individuals from that country worked at companies making these things. It's just silly to claim arbitrary technology improvements are examples of trickle down econ. For example, lots of technology is created by war time scientific advances, pushed by governments.
>Every single of the thousands of innovation that goes into an iPhone was subsidized by rich venture capitalists and rich early adopters
Don't forget the governments which helped fund the basic research used to make such things, the middle and lower classes that pay more in property taxes so companies can be bribed to build factories, and other such things.
Put another way it's a much more complicated picture than just those two.
Wealthy people pay almost all the taxes. the top 10% pay 71% of taxes and the top 25% pay 87%. 75% of the country contributes nearly nothing but complaints.
A much higher percentage of what poor people buy is necessities compared to their salaries. They have much less choice as to buy or not. If a rich person were to buy at the rate a poor person does, it would be almost completely on frivolity. Sales taxes, imo, are especially targeted at the poor.
Those who earn less pay less in income tax and we still had to implement a progressive taxation policy because of how much a flat tax percentage hurts those without disposable income compared to the wealthy.
The poor already spend all their money on necessities. If you go to a flat sales tax it will hurt them more than the current progressive regime and favor the wealthy.
You have to include payroll taxes, all taxes. The top few percent have most of the wealth, too. When you include payroll taxes the tax distribution is much more even.
It is but it isn't surprising. Pareto Principal and all. So naturally, 20% of the people contribute 80% and 80% of the people contribute 20%, or thereabouts.
The bottom 50% contribute nothing and in fact are a net negative contributor when you consider welfare, housing, etc, and other benefits. Of course, this doesn't stop certain scumbag pols like Warren from lying to them that it's the other half that's ripping everyone off.
