Horses and Sparrows: The myth of 'trickle down' economics
That economic model has been dispelled numerous times often using basic personal accounting. One example I remember is the owner of a pillow making industrial business. This business owner lived pretty plain driving a regular car, wearing regular jeans, eating regular meals, and nothing unique about the quantity or size of his spending habits. This owner made around $30 million per year but spent money equivalently to somebody earning $60 thousand per year. He inherited his business from his father and thus didn’t need tax assistance to create job as the jobs were already there. The factory employees were mostly hourly labor. There was nothing special here aside from having a business that generates a profit and his personal earnings were the result of that profit. There was nothing for money to trickle down to.<p>Ultimately, none of that matters until you speak to tax policy.<p>As I have learned in a recent HN thread about tax policy people are generally internally conflicted about what they want taxed. The general nature I could gleam from the comments is that wealth should be taxed, but nobody could define wealth. Taxes should be fair unless you are wealthy or poor. Tax policy should be simple until your personally identified special interest group is impacted at which point there must be all kinds of exceptions. Land value should be disproportionately taxed at a higher rate, but only if owned by wealthy people. Some forms of taxing are superior because they are more efficient except for automation. Everything read like a self-contradictory nightmare where people really wanted to feel rational.