This does not surprise me at all.
Business Insider: Wall Street found a parasite growing in the US economy that could spur the next recession. Where the heroes are the left, the villains are on the right.
I had no idea who this Chelsea is even is.
Highly doubt she left to do leftist virtue signaling. More than likely her show was so low that Netflix dropped it. She probably got together with other social justice nuts in Netflix (i hear its fucking loaded with SJW's) and pitched a show where she goes and interviews POC, Muslims, LGTBWTFBBQ and others dregs of society.
1. Trickle-down is an opinion on how to fuel economic growth trickling down via increased investment. It would be market-driven, not redistributive. Many feel that trickle-down is a theoretically ungrounded effort to implement regressive taxation, a fig-leaf cover for funneling wealth towards the wealthy.
2. gov debt is only relevant to trickle-down in that it has been used to fund the upward redistribution (see Bush tax cuts)
3. See #1
4. You don't make a coherent point here, but it's clear you misunderstand the velocity of money. In a vacuum increased taxation will slow the velocity (& consequently growth). Trickle-down taxation instead describes how tax receipts are distributed from the various income levels. To increase the velocity of money (& growth), you want more money in the hands of people who will spend it, not invest it. There are many reasons why we have had only decent growth recently. I am of the opinion that one of those is that we've instituted trickle-down and it has predictably gummed up the economy.
5. Wrong. Here's a similar growth in cash accumulation among EU corporations, who are not subject to repatriation taxes:
6. OK re-word it as "As described by its proponents". What little theoretical support there is for trickle-down comes from Arthur Laffer's "curve". Both theory and experience are unkind to Laffer's Curve, particularly as it has been implemented in the US.
1. Trickle-down is an opinion on how to fuel economic growth trickling down via increased investment. It would be market-driven, not redistributive. Many feel that trickle-down is a theoretically ungrounded effort to implement regressive taxation, a fig-leaf cover for funneling wealth towards the wealthy.
2. gov debt is only relevant to trickle-down in that it has been used to fund the upward redistribution (see Bush tax cuts)
3. See #1
4. You don't make a coherent point here, but it's clear you misunderstand the velocity of money. In a vacuum increased taxation will slow the velocity (& consequently growth). Trickle-down taxation instead describes how tax receipts are distributed from the various income levels. To increase the velocity of money (& growth), you want more money in the hands of people who will spend it, not invest it. There are many reasons why we have had only decent growth recently. I am of the opinion that one of those is that we've instituted trickle-down and it has predictably gummed up the economy.
5. Wrong. Here's a similar growth in cash accumulation among EU corporations, who are not subject to repatriation taxes:
6. OK re-word it as "As described by its proponents". What little theoretical support there is for trickle-down comes from Arthur Laffer's "curve". Both theory and experience are unkind to Laffer's Curve, particularly as it has been implemented in the US.
1. Trickle-down is an opinion on how to fuel economic growth trickling down via increased investment. It would be market-driven, not redistributive. Many feel that trickle-down is a theoretically ungrounded effort to implement regressive taxation, a fig-leaf cover for funneling wealth towards the wealthy.
2. gov debt is only relevant to trickle-down in that it has been used to fund the upward redistribution (see Bush tax cuts)
3. See #1
4. You don't make a coherent point here, but it's clear you misunderstand the velocity of money. In a vacuum increased taxation will slow the velocity (& consequently growth). Trickle-down taxation instead describes how tax receipts are distributed from the various income levels. To increase the velocity of money (& growth), you want more money in the hands of people who will spend it, not invest it. There are many reasons why we have had only decent growth recently. I am of the opinion that one of those is that we've instituted trickle-down and it has predictably gummed up the economy.
5. Wrong. Here's a similar growth in cash accumulation among EU corporations, who are not subject to repatriation taxes:
6. OK re-word it as "As described by its proponents". What little theoretical support there is for trickle-down comes from Arthur Laffer's "curve". Both theory and experience are unkind to Laffer's Curve, particularly as it has been implemented in the US.
1. Trickle-down is an opinion on how to fuel economic growth trickling down via increased investment. It would be market-driven, not redistributive. Many feel that trickle-down is a theoretically ungrounded effort to implement regressive taxation, a fig-leaf cover for funneling wealth towards the wealthy.
2. gov debt is only relevant to trickle-down in that it has been used to fund the upward redistribution (see Bush tax cuts)
3. See #1
4. You don't make a coherent point here, but it's clear you misunderstand the velocity of money. In a vacuum increased taxation will slow the velocity (& consequently growth). Trickle-down taxation instead describes how tax receipts are distributed from the various income levels. To increase the velocity of money (& growth), you want more money in the hands of people who will spend it, not invest it. There are many reasons why we have had only decent growth recently. I am of the opinion that one of those is that we've instituted trickle-down and it has predictably gummed up the economy.
5. Wrong. Here's a similar growth in cash accumulation among EU corporations, who are not subject to repatriation taxes:
6. OK re-word it as "As described by its proponents". What little theoretical support there is for trickle-down comes from Arthur Laffer's "curve". Both theory and experience are unkind to Laffer's Curve, particularly as it has been implemented in the US.
