[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

Yes I did. I don't see how you can just equate "major tax cuts" with all trickled down economics. There's a lot more to the concept that just tax cuts.

This seems like a response to Mathgod though, not the study. As did your first post, which is why I questioned whether you read the actual study.

Originally Posted by blankall

Even the study itself doesn't relate to trickle down economics. All it says is that certain types of tax cuts for the rich don't necessarily produce positive observable changes in equality. That's assuming you accept their methodology.

Not quite:

Overall, our analysis finds strong evidence that cutting taxes on the rich increases income
inequality but has no effect on growth or unemployment.

Originally Posted by blankall

I'd argue their is a fundamental flaw in their methodology. They have not accounted for the system of tax sheltering I'd discussed. They've just looked at pure tax cuts, with any accounting for the nature of these tax cuts.

Also not quite, they do account for it:

using a measure of top 1% share of pre-tax national income that includes both labour and capital income makes it less likely that tax shifting and avoidance are driving the results.

What do you mean by "the nature of these cuts"?:

Whilst some authors look at taxes on personal income (Egger et al., 2019; Rubolino and Waldenström, 2020), others focus on corporate taxation (Devereux et al., 2002) or inheritance taxation (Piketty and Saez, 2013b). Second, economists have used different tax policy indicators. Some look at top marginal income tax rates (Piketty et al., 2014), while others look at effective tax rates (Egger et al., 2019) or revenue generation (Baunsgaard and Keen, 2010). We propose an encompassing approach that utilises Bayesian latent variable analysis on a range of different taxes and indicators to overcome these problems.

Originally Posted by blankall

Once again, I'd state this study has as much in common with "trickle down economics" as stating that we should stop funding health care because communism doesn't work.

This is a nonsense comparison though. And if you're saying it's silly to take this study and use it as evidence that trickle-down economics doesn't work, then sure, but if you're calling the study silly, you have to give some sort of reason why beyond "I don't like the conclusion someone else drew from it."