Trickle-down/Supply-side economics is a failed system

R1: Income tax reductions increase economic growth, Income tax increases reduce economic growthCon claims that income tax reductions increase economic growth, while income tax increases reduce economic growth. This is true -- but this is not what trickle-down does. Trickle-down economics instead reduces the marginal income tax for the highest earners. [1] There is no evidence to suggest that trickle-down economics increases economic growth for the majority, as can be seen by the following graphs: "Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole." [2]R2: Corporate tax reductions increase growthCon claims that corporate tax reductions increase growth. Again, he confuses the issue - as tax reductions for the whole are quite different from tax reductions for the few wealthy. There is no dispute that cutting taxes for the average worker will bring economic benefits. The debate at hand, however, is whether or not economic benefits given specifically to the wealthy, as outlined in my 1st round definition of trickle-down economics, helps the economy as a whole. The answer is no."A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy." [3]"A 2015 report by the International Monetary Fund found that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down." [4]My Arguments Against Trickle DownC1: Trickle-down economics does not lead to increased growthA recent study published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has concluded that, contrary to the principles of “trickle-down” economics, an increase in the income share of the wealthiest people actually leads to a decrease in GDP growth. [5] "A 1% increase in the income share of the bottom quintile results in a 0.38% increase in GDP. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the income share of the top 20% results in a 0.08% decrease in GDP growth." History has shown us that reducing the tax burden on the wealthy has no correlation to overall GDP growth [6]: C2: Trickle-down economics leads to severe income inequalityThe highest-earning 20 percent of Americans have been making more and more over the past 40 years. Over the same 40 years, the lowest-earning 60 percent of Americans have been making less and less. [7] Ever since the implementation of reaganomics, deregulation and massive tax cuts for the wealthy, income inequality has increased tremendously and only seems to be getting worse. "A new study of income inequality in developed nations, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, shows that the more top tax rates are cut, the greater the share of national income that is mopped up by the wealthiest citizens." [8] "Slashing top tax rates has had none of the positive effects on economic growth that the supply-side economists promised us, the NBER paper points out. Instead, it has just worsened income inequality." [9]C3: Trickle-down economics leads to economic recessionsThe growth of income inequality in the United States under trickle-down policies can only be described, as economist Robert Reich has stated, a suspension bridge [10]: We see the starting reality that, as income inequality increases, economic instability increases. Both in 1928 and 2007, when the economy was hit with severe recessions, income inequality was at a record high. As with any laissez faire economic system, the economy endures boom-bust cycles [11] - and this is exactly what happens under trickle-down economics. C4: Trickle-down economics doesn't even trickle downAs the evidence I've included above supports, there is no evidence to suggest that economic benefits given to the wealthiest seriously help those in lower income brackets. "Researchers found that when the top earners in society make more money, it actually slows down economic growth. On the other hand, when poorer people earn more, society as a whole benefits." [12] Additionally, as I've stated above, "a 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does nottrickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy." "When the Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts in 2003, they promised massive economic growth. The notion that cutting taxes for the rich would "lift all boats" turned out to be sheer fantasy. The Bush years were the first period in modern American economic history to experience zero private sector job growth -- zero." [13] Under trickle down economics, we have not seen anything trickle down. Even worse, the lives of those unlucky unwealthy have gotten worse, as real U.S. wages have stagnated and fallen in recent decades [14]: Conclusion:The evidence is pretty plain to see: whatever you want to call it, trickle-down, supply-side, or reaganomics, it does not nor has it ever worked. The effects of reducing the tax burden on the wealthy and deregulating the private sector does not lead to increased growth for the majority of people, drastically exacerbates the issue of income inequality, leads to "boom-bust" cycles commonly seen in laissez-faire capitilalism, and all in all, doesn't even trickle-down. Under the "Pareto Principle," so kindly defined by my opponent, it seems obvious that this system cannot be defined as "good" for anyone other than the richest and wealthiest of society. The overwhelming body of economic evidence supports the fact that trickle-down economics is not morally nor economically sustainable, and is a failed system. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.faireconomy.org...[3] http://www.theguardian.com...[4] http://www.imf.org...[5] https://www.imf.org...[6] http://www.decisionsonevidence.com...[7] http://web.stanford.edu...[8] http://www.nber.org...[9] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[10] http://inequalityforall.com...[11] http://www.forbes.com...[12] http://money.cnn.com...[13] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[14] http://www.nytimes.com...