Trickle Down Economic Theory Does Not Work

"It certainly is." --I don't need to point out much more than the fact that saying that something is sufficient to prove something is entirely different than actually proving it. "This assumes some "normal bounds" that have not been established." --Normal bounds would be where the businesses would be without interference, I imagine this is difficult to find where this would be, however, it is assumed that by helping out the businesses, that the businesses would be above their normal bounds to at least some degree. "Letting them increase their wealth has nothing to do with yourself increasing their wealth." --Yes it does. Where do you think the extra wealth comes from to increase their capital? It comes from the rest of society. This is exactly how it has been done in the past when the tax burden was pushed onto the middle and lower classes so that the wealthy would have more capital. Capital which was taken from said lower classes through that tax burden shift. "Without profits, they ARE all removed. If their existence has benefits, so does their profits, ipso facto." --Trickle down theory is not specifically for businesses existing, it is for letting the *flourish*. This means *above* and *beyond* where they normally would be without this help. Just because businesses benefit society by existing, it is a non sequitor to say "If their existence has benefits, so does their profits". Yes, the industrial revolution benefited society, but it was also businesses operating without considerable government help. This is entirely different than them *flourishing*, which yields no additional benefits. "For half as long on average." --Witty. But in any case it does not deflect what I said. They were ALIVE, proving that they had the necesities of LIFE and this is clear IPSO FACTO. They did not NEED businesses. "You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either trickle down only has to work partway (the businesses existing at all) or it has to work ALL THE WAY and has to be implemented ALL THE WAY to find it out." --Oh, but I can. Trickle down theory isn't working partway just by businesses existing(I am obviously not arguing that businesses don't exist). Thrickle down theory must have two things happening to be considered working. 1. It must be trickle down theory which is producing the effect. (i.e. businesses must be FLOURISHING) 2. It must produce the desired effect or result. (i.e. the profits of these businesses must be halping all of society) --The first of these obviously happened. But the second one has not. Therefore, it DID NOT work. "This is a profound rejection of the scientific method." --No, asserting that I reject the scientific method is a clear red herring. If something asserts that: if condition A if fulfilled, then B will be true. And then condition A is subsequently fulfilled but B remains untrue, then whatever asserted that statement is wrong. It does not matter why B is untrue, it only matters that it IS NOT TRUE. "So gravity doesn't work, because rockets do." --Wrong. The goal of gravity is an action, not a result. This action is performed(there is pull exerted on the rocket), so therefore gravity works. However, if the goal of gravity were to keep everything from escaping the earth, then no, it would not work because rockets can and have left the earth. "There are other taxes than the top marginal individual income tax rate. Like, for example, business taxes. Which MIGHT be more relevant :P." --Who do you think owns the businesses? Who do you think owns the capital? The people who are in the top income tax brackets. If someone wanted to take the tax burden off of their profits, then they would reduce taxes on the people who get the profits. "Take one look at your computer." --I just so happen to be doing that right now. This demonstrate that technology exists, but not that it is resulting from trickle down theory. Government funding plays a huge part in the scientific advancement of our society, not just businesses. "No, you've provided irrelevant statistics to this point." --Wrong. I provided relevant statistics which you said were incorrect. You failed to back up your statements with anything remotely substantial, making them essentially worthless. If I am not mistaken, you have yet to back up one word with any sort of citations. When an abstract argument is pitted against a concrete, empirical argument based in facts and statistics, it is like throwing eggs against an iron wall.