Dumpsters: The middle America class where they non-reluctantly accept the bullshat dump they received in the tax break scam. Been taking the scam since Reag....never mind. G'day.
Trump is giving Arthur Laffer the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Economists aren’t smiling. [...] Laffer may have named the curve, but the idea was not original to him. As proponents in the late 1970s liked to point out, the general idea dates to the Arab social theorist Ibn Khaldun, who wrote in the 14th century, “At the beginning of a dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/01/trump-is-giving-arthur-laffer-presidential-medal-freedom-economists-arent-laughing/
if he knew the history.
Also, as in so many other areas where rules are applied, yet another basic mistake the Republicans make (if they were really interested in other than helping the wealthy get more wealthy) is their silly 'one size fits' all circumstances stance.
Almost everything Republicans get wrong about the economy started with a cocktail napkin in 1974
April 29, 2017 By Gwynn Guilford Reporter
[...]
The problem is, this tidy arc of cause and consequence doesn’t exist in the real world. Sure, extremely high tax rates douse economic activity. But there’s no reason to assume the relationship between tax revenue and tax rates is perfectly U-shaped. And the equilibrium point at which a government collects the most revenue possible without dragging down the economy is impossible to know—and varies by country. There was no reason in 1974—or, for that matter, now—to think the US was on the curve’s ”prohibitive” half (many economists put the inflection point for the highest marginal tax rate at around 70%). In fact, without detailed data, you can’t tell where on Laffer’s curve (or non-curve) you are at all.
Laffer’s general idea of supply-side stimulus can sometimes work. Cutting tax rates that primarily benefit rich people shifts wealth from the middle classes to the rich. That might sound unfair, but in developing countries where there’s not enough money to fund the investment needed to spur growth, a Laffer-style policy could (temporarily) help stimulate economic expansion by channelling wealth to potential investors.
But this scenario is not applicable to the US. Private investment tends to ebb and flow with the business cycle; when demand is feeble, so is investment. Cutting taxes on America’s rich isn’t going to encourage them to invest more—they already have plenty to spend and aren’t spending it. Worse, by shifting wealth from middle class families to the moneyed few—a group that is able to consume far less than the working masses—this sort of policy suppresses consumption, which in turn discourages investment in productive businesses. Slowing demand drags on growth, causing debt and unemployment to rise.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
