User:Heavy Chaos

New editor, currently working on trickle down article.

Heavy Chaos (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The following is for my efforts to that end. It's not necessarily for others to read or review. I'm trying to learn the platform...

Lead sentence needs a slight push toward a better NPOV and a scholarly source

The lead sentence is the following, with some note superscripts added

Trickle-down economics is a term used in critical references to economic policies that^NOTE1 favor the upper income brackets, corporations, and individuals with substantial wealth or capital.^NOTE2

• NOTE1 Add the words "are said to" at NOTE1. Uses of this term are critical references to specific policies, namely, that criticism is that they do indeed "favor the rich". Stating if so plainly risks oversimplification that may be innaccurate. This is not neutral enough for a lead in. Whether any specific item does "favor the rich" can be discussed below or on another page.
• NOTE2 This is a weak source for it's purpose. It's a great example of Trump's tax policy being called trickle down, but it doesn't really help a reader understand usage. More importantly, it doesn't support the claim made. This sentence needs a scholarly work on what the term typically means when people use it.

Last sentence in first paragraph needs better clarity or removal

It is currently, with preceding paragraph:

In recent history, the term has been used by critics of supply-side economics. Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum.

• Source two is not clear what it refers to. The title of the book certainly doesn't imply anything related.
• Source three claims what is written, but doesn't seem to have any particular authority in making this distinction. It might be better to personalize it to the author, https://www.thebalancemoney.com/kimberly-amadeo-3305455, who does seem to have relevant expertise.
• However, the sentence as a whole is confusing. The page introduces "trickle down" as a term used almost exclusively by critics, but then this sentence gives the impression that there are adherents to "trickle down theory". With this in mind, just plain deletion is probably better.
  • A simple word change might make the difference. Instead of "trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for" perhaps "trickle-down theory is more specifically described as policies advocating for".

Second paragraph, should be the believed origination, will rogers, followed by the fact that many policies since have been assigned the label, cite a few examples

The second paragraph should be the following:

The term "trickle-down" originated with humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies that are perceived to favor the wealthy or economically privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen. In US politics, US Republican tax cut plans are often critically labeled "trickle-down economics". These have included the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. In each of these tax reforms, taxes were cut across all income brackets, but very large reductions were applied to the highest income earners.

• I don't get that the quote referenced is a joke, so I removed the mention that it is a joke. It's certainly not a joke now, though the "urine on the head" joke seen in comics should find a place below the lead. That will show the sometimes pejorative nature the term can take.
• The virtually same text just slightly lower in the article should of course be deleted if this change is made.
• The way it highlights that these tax cut policies are almost always Republican is not NPOV, though noting that the label is almost always given to Republicans is.
• Need contemporary usage reference for Reagan and Bush tax cuts.
• Changing from "the largest reductions" to "very large reductions" changes the need to source that for each example, plus, it's also more nuanced than that. Just how big the reductions were and how that weighs against other contextual items is too much for a lead in. This context need is shown in the following statement beginning "although the Reagan Era tax reforms..."
• Changing from "reductions were given" to "reductions were applied" reduces the tone from unreservedness to descriptiveness.
• Cut the the final statements of the paragraph, which are only there to justify the overly simplistic "largest reductions" statements. Those statements are currently written as:

although the Reagan Era tax reforms also introduced the earned income tax credit which has received bipartisan praise for poverty reduction and is largely why the bottom half of workers pay no federal income tax. Similarly, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 cut taxes across all income brackets, but especially favored the wealthy.