"We think tax hikes will slow the economy, and if we had
our way, the US would fix its budget problems by cutting
spending and issuing 50 to 100-year bonds, but as they say
“elections have consequences.”"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trick... ("50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says)
"Based on our research, we would argue that the economic rationale for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak," Julian Limberg, a co-author of the study and a lecturer in public policy at King's College London, said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. "In fact, if we look back into history, the period with the highest taxes on the rich — the postwar period — was also a period with high economic growth and low unemployment."
So arguments like trickle down failed, are asked failed at what? Do we think that the post war period was successful because of taxes? Even if taxes were high, I'd argue the same outcome would have happened - low skill labor faced increased competition from the market opening up around the world, which reduced the amount of people in poverty by a staggering amount and increased the standard of living with respect to manufactured goods for everyone (due to reduced labor costs everything got cheaper).
If the taxes were higher would we have the tech industry like we do today? Would it be somewhere else? This type of analysis already has the conclusion in mind when the analysis starts.
Right now tax structures in the U.S. incentivize all of the bad patterns of the extreme side of the stock market (leveraged gambling, essentially) instead of manufacturing and employment. The incentive for corporations, then, is to outsource everything and play the margins.
The people who have the most to gain from such a structure are the people who already have money to throw around. Most people can't play in that playground.