Why do some politicians claim trickle-down economics works when there is no empirical evidence that supports this claim?
The more I learn about economics and research this topic, it seems that this concept is predominantly supported in the political sphere as opposed to the economic research sphere. In fact, most of what I found from any studies that have actually been implemented suggests that trickle-down economics does the opposite of what it's intended to do. Also, after watching what has happened each time politicians implement this at some level, it never ends up working the way that they claim that it would. It seems that the wealth that is saved at the top via tax cuts to those with extremely high incomes simply stays at the top via hoarding of the money, investment in hedge funds, stock buybacks, or offshore bank accounts. There is no "trickling down" as suggested would happen. My uncle worked in hedge funds and he would see this daily. So, whether it be the lack of empirical evidence from studies, the lack of a sufficient number of studies themselves, or the analysis through real-life scenarios that have actually occurred and that we can check on throughout history, why do people still support this concept when it just seems like a theory with no basis in empirical fact?
Answers ( 1 )