Some facts about the reagan economics or the so called give your money to the rich and it will trickle down. This type of political belief has been going on since the 1980's. So here is your numbers. From the 1950 - 1980 (that did not practice these policies) The income growth for the bottom 90% of america's pay went up 75% or about $13,222. However from 1980 to 2008 the bottom 90% pay grew only by 1% or $303. Remember that reagonomics was put into place in 1980. So before reagan 75% after 1%. So what happens with the upper .01% or the very wealthy. Well from 1950 - 1980 there growth was 80% or $2,419,070. About even growth with the bottom 90%. After reagan 1980-2008 there growth grew by 403% or 21,904,288. SO thanks to reagan economics we get a 1% increase and the very wealthy get a 403% increase. Is this unbalanced?

This should add to your fiery. The average median wage, single worker makes 26,000 and pay 6,084 in taxes which comes out to 23.4 % of there pay. The average of the top 400, income is 344,590,000 and only Pay 16.9% in taxes. So we make less and pay more they make more and pay less. WHAT? Republicans want to give them another tax break. So reagan economics does not work. So there is the numbers that Republicans do not want you to see.

So does it work? NO

Well it was always quite the silly thought haha. I'm sure there is more to those numbers than simply Reagan's policy, but still shows how silly it was.

You could say it works. The rich take a piss and it trickles down to the poor.

Actually, I am starting to like the idea of FairTax bill (having a 23% national sales tax and eliminating the IRS, income tax, corporate tax (most barely pay taxes anyways or find loopholes), etc.. Prices would go up at first but should come down quickly (to about where they were at in first place). Plus, most basic needs would be refunded (I'd rather not tax non prepared food at all). However, they would just send a refund each month based on size of family for basic needs.

Reagan and Thatcher's policies are one of the main reasons the world's economy is in the state it is IMO.

So the USA has a massively increasing debt and instead of increasing the taxes for the super rich (ie the ones who can afford it in this economy) they want to give them a tax break... I think the USA needs a politician cull...

I don't think cutting taxes without matching budget cuts worked.

As you can see by this graph, the poor income growth of the bottom 60% of Americans can largely be associated with these American's having never recovered from the recession of the 1990s and then stagnation and decline over the Bush administration; and, while I'm sure many Democrats will disagree with me, by the time the influence of the Obama administration is over they will (likely) be in a worse position that they were before Regan was elected.

The reason for this is simple, we no longer live in the economy of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s and a high-school education with no skills beyond that will not get you a career that pays well; and being a high-school drop-out pretty much ensures that you will be unemployeed or work in a menial career. Those individuals who have gone onto trade-school or university and gained skills in in-demand fields (the top 20% of wage earners) are doing great; those that got skills in the liberal arts or other fields with limited demand (the second 20% of wage earners) are holding their own; but the bottom 60% are being failed by an educational system which is obsolete.

The economy we have today is one, where if you can own assets, these asset will appreciate in value, also earn additional income, compounding what has been there previously.  And with lower tax rates, this compounding effect grows larger and larger.  The owning of assets that generate income has little to do with anyone's own competency or skills. In addition to this though is a scale effect that happens in regards to the area of intellectual properties and being networked, and globalization.  Jobs shift to all over the globe, keeping wages down, unless you are a top player, who is at the core of some intellectual property in demand, that has superior branding behind it.  If you are there, then the end result is you see large scale returns.  In short, be in the top 20% and you make a killing.  If you are anywhere else (bottom 60%) and you end up falling further behind.

Even then, it isn't about the skills or going to college.  It is about being in a place where you don't get buried via globalization and can have your job outsourced.  A system where the "bottom 60%" ends up falling way behind means an end to the middle class, and is primed for there to be uprisings happening.

Please when people are poor it's usually their own fault.

No, it is 100% based on skill differences ...

The person who enters into Engineering, Computer Science or some other in-demand field in University earns significantly more than th person who studies English Literature or Women's Studies; and all university graduates have a much lower unemployment rate and far greater earning potential than those who only have a high-school education or less. There are similar patterns in trade schools, which are far more accessable that University being that you can get into a co-op or internship program that helps pay your tuition, the tuition is far lower in price, and the education is much shorter.

We have known since the 1970s that a high-school education simply wasn't enough for the average person to have a decent career, and that being a high-school drop-out was almost ensuring you would be a "failure", and yet our education system has chugged along producing the same mediocre results (or worse) completely oblivious to the destruction they would cause.