Tax cuts for the wealthy grow the economy for everyone

Quality and quantity of direct evidence for or against the claim — RCTs, systematic reviews, natural experiments, large cohort studies.

The IMF's (2020) 18-country panel study finding top-20% tax cuts reduce growth while increasing inequality directly contradicts the broadly-shared-growth claim.

Whether the proposed mechanism is valid and established — does the how make sense, or are there fundamental flaws in the causal logic?

The trickle-down mechanism has failed to materialize across four repeated natural experiments (Reagan, Bush, Kansas, Trump-era cuts), each producing deficits and inequality without a detectable sustained growth premium.

Degree of agreement among domain experts and relevant scientific or policy bodies — depth and quality of consensus, not just majority opinion.

Economists across the political spectrum increasingly reject trickle-down as an empirically supported growth mechanism given the repeated null results.

Whether findings hold across independent studies, populations, and contexts — resistance to p-hacking and publication bias.

The no-growth-premium finding replicates across Reagan, Bush, Kansas (Brownback), UK (Truss), and the IMF's cross-national panel, spanning different countries and decades.