You’ve heard the pitch a thousand times. If we just let the people at the very top keep more of their money, they’ll build more factories, hire more workers, and basically lift every boat in the harbor. It’s a nice story. Honestly, it sounds logical on paper. But when you look at the last forty years of fiscal policy in the United States—from the Reagan era to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—the reality of tax cuts for the rich is a lot messier, and frankly, a bit disappointing for the average person.
Money doesn't always move the way politicians say it will.
The Theory vs. The Hard Data
Economists call it "Supply-Side Economics." You might know it as "Trickle-Down." The core idea is that the wealthy are the primary engines of investment. By lowering their tax burden, you increase their incentive to produce.
🔗 Read more: Lamb Weston Stock Price: What Most People Get Wrong About This Spud Giant
But does it work?
A massive study from the London School of Economics (LSE) looked at 50 years of data across 18 developed countries. David Hope and Julian Limberg, the researchers behind the paper, found that tax cuts for the rich consistently increased income inequality. That’s not a huge shocker. What was surprising? These cuts had almost no significant effect on economic growth or unemployment.
Essentially, the money stayed at the top. It didn't trickle. It pooled.
What happened in 2017?
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was a huge experiment in this. It slashed the top individual rate and gutted the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Proponents promised a surge in domestic investment.
Instead, we saw a record-breaking wave of stock buybacks.
In 2018 alone, S&P 500 companies spent over $800 billion buying back their own shares. When a company buys back its stock, it isn't building a new plant or giving the janitor a raise. It’s shrinking the pool of available shares to make the remaining ones more valuable. It’s a win for shareholders and executives whose bonuses are tied to stock performance, but it does very little for the local economy.
✨ Don't miss: Why Watch In and Out Policies are Killing Your Team’s Morale
Why "Job Creators" Don't Always Create Jobs
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what actually drives hiring. A business owner doesn't hire a new employee because they have extra cash sitting in a bank account. They hire because they have more work than their current team can handle.
Demand drives hiring.
If you give a billionaire a $1 million tax cut, they probably won't change their lifestyle or business operations much. They’ll likely invest it in the financial markets. But if you give 1,000 middle-class families a $1,000 tax credit, they spend it. They buy tires. They go to the dentist. They finally fix that leaky roof. That spending creates demand, which then forces businesses to hire.
The Laffer Curve Fallacy
You can't talk about tax cuts for the rich without mentioning the Laffer Curve. Arthur Laffer famously drew it on a napkin to show that if tax rates are too high, people stop working, and tax revenue actually drops.
It’s a valid theoretical concept. If the tax rate is 100%, nobody works. If it’s 0%, the government has no money.
The problem is that we are nowhere near the "too high" side of that curve. In the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. The economy boomed. While nobody is suggesting we go back to 91%—mostly because nobody actually paid that rate due to a mountain of loopholes—it proves that high taxes on the wealthy don't automatically kill growth.
The Real-World Consequences of a Shrinking Tax Base
When the government collects less from the top, it has two choices. It can either cut services or borrow money. Usually, it does both.
- Infrastructure decay: Bridges don't fix themselves.
- Education costs: As state funding for universities drops, tuition skyrockets. This shifts the "tax" from the wealthy's income to the student's debt.
- The National Debt: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the 2017 tax cuts would add roughly $1.9 trillion to the deficit over a decade.
We’ve seen this play out at the state level too. Look at Kansas in 2012. Governor Sam Brownback signed a massive tax cut package, specifically targeting high earners and business owners. He called it a "live experiment."
The experiment failed.
Revenue plummeted. Schools went to four-day weeks because they couldn't afford the lights. The promised "adrenaline shot" to the economy never materialized, and the Republican-controlled legislature eventually had to roll the cuts back to keep the state solvent.
The Global Race to the Bottom
Another argument for tax cuts for the rich and corporations is competitiveness. The idea is that if we don't lower taxes, the "wealth creators" will flee to Singapore or Ireland.
This has led to a global race to the bottom. Countries keep lowering rates to outbid each other, leaving everyone with less money for public goods. This is why the G7 recently pushed for a global minimum corporate tax. They realized that when the world's wealthiest entities can shop around for the lowest rate, the burden of funding society falls entirely on those who aren't mobile enough to leave: the working class.
What Most People Get Wrong About "The Rich"
We often lump everyone making over $400,000 into the same bucket. But there is a massive difference between a successful surgeon and a hedge fund manager.
Most tax cuts are sold as a boon for "small business owners," but many of the biggest benefits are captured by passive investors. For example, the "carried interest" loophole allows private equity managers to pay the lower capital gains rate on their income rather than the standard income tax rate.
That’s not an incentive for innovation. It’s just a subsidy for wealth management.
Navigating the Future of Fiscal Policy
The conversation is starting to shift. Economists like Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez have brought wealth inequality into the mainstream. They argue that when the return on capital grows faster than the economy (r > g), wealth naturally concentrates at the top until society becomes unstable.
So, where do we go from here?
Taxing Wealth vs. Income
Standard tax cuts for the rich usually focus on income. But the truly wealthy don't live off a "salary." They live off their assets. Billionaires often take zero salary and instead take out low-interest loans against their stock portfolios. They get cash to spend without triggering an "income tax" event.
This is why you're hearing more talk about:
👉 See also: Dollar to Dirham Maroc: What Most People Get Wrong About Currency Exchange
- Closing the stepped-up basis: This prevents people from passing on stocks to heirs without ever paying capital gains tax.
- Minimum taxes for billionaires: Ensuring that no matter how many lawyers you have, you pay at least a baseline percentage.
- Bolstering IRS enforcement: Actually funding the people who check the math on complex tax returns.
How This Actually Affects Your Pocketbook
It’s easy to think this doesn't matter to you if you aren't in the top 1%. But it does. Every dollar not collected from the top is a dollar that isn't going toward reducing your payroll tax, improving your commute, or lowering the national debt your children will inherit.
Actionable Insights for the Current Climate:
- Audit your own "tax cuts": If you’re a freelancer or small business owner, check if you qualify for the Qualified Business Income (QBI) deduction. It was a part of the 2017 changes and is one of the few pieces that actually helps the "little guy" business owner.
- Diversify away from "earned income": The tax code is objectively biased in favor of investment over labor. Moving even a small portion of your savings into long-term capital gains assets (like index funds) lets you take advantage of the lower rates usually reserved for the wealthy.
- Watch the sunset: Many provisions of the 2017 tax cuts for individuals are set to expire in late 2025. If you are planning major financial moves, do them now. Taxes for almost everyone are likely going up in 2026 unless Congress acts.
- Focus on the "Effective" Rate: Don't get distracted by the "Marginal" rate. The top rate might be 37%, but with the right deductions, many of the ultra-wealthy pay an effective rate in the low teens. When looking at policy, always ask about the effective rate.
The data is pretty clear at this point. While lowering taxes can sometimes spark a short-term jolt, permanent tax cuts for the rich have largely failed to deliver the broad prosperity they promised. Instead of a rising tide, we got a very fancy, very exclusive levee. Understanding the mechanics of how this money moves is the first step in demanding a tax code that actually works for the people who do the work.