Trickle down or trickle up economics?

[prosper]

What do you prefer and is there any hardcore evidence showing the success of either one?

[feh]

You'll have to define "success" first, and for whom.

One thing is clear, however: the Reagan mantra of "cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations will benefit everyone" is a load of crap. Whether he genuinely believed it would work, or if it was just a confidence game, I do not know. But it's easy to see that the disparity between the wealthy and the poor in this country has exploded over the last 25 years.

The disturbing thing is how many middle class folks still believe trickle-down is a good idea. I suggest reading "What's the Matter with Kansas" for more information.

[Inkstain82]

If I had serious statistical evidence proving either, I'd collect my major economics prizes and become famous and rich

I believe that trickle up works better. The rich get rich by being good at holding onto money, the poor get poor by not being able to hold onto money. To keep money moving through the system, it needs to be continually redistributed to the people who won't hold onto it.

[kork13]

I believe that trickle up works better. The rich get rich by being good at holding onto money, the poor get poor by not being able to hold onto money. To keep money moving through the system, it needs to be continually redistributed to the people who won't hold onto it.

I agree with this in theory. However, I have to caveat that with this.... To just give lower-class families/individuals money through tax breaks, free services (medical, food, transportation, advanced education, etc.), and literal hand-outs, I feel that it does negatively impact the productivity, motivation, and ambition of the people receiving those benefits. In the same fashion of kids who receive an allowance whether they do their chores or not, it's very easy for people who are sustained on the government's dime to do little or nothing more to improve their own condition. I grew up around this, and saw too often how it can erode a person's drive and ambition.

The economy doesn't do better based on who gets given more money, or who gets less taken away in taxes. The individual ambition, productivity, and effort is what benefits the economy. It's WORK is what matters... not "distribution" of money.

[zetta]

I agree with this in theory. However, I have to caveat that with this.... To just give lower-class families/individuals money through tax breaks, free services (medical, food, transportation, advanced education, etc.), and literal hand-outs, I feel that it does negatively impact the productivity, motivation, and ambition of the people receiving those benefits

I'm curious what you think about the earned income tax credit. It essentially just gives people more money than they paid in taxes, but you have to be employed to get it. So when people get a big refund due to EITC, does it have any impact on drive and ambition?

[kork13]

I'm curious what you think about the earned income tax credit. It essentially just gives people more money than they paid in taxes, but you have to be employed to get it. So when people get a big refund due to EITC, does it have any impact on drive and ambition?

I'm not familiar with tax code, and don't know what the EITC is. However, my position is that when people do not work for what they get/have, it becomes devalued. If you give your kids $20/mo but don't require them to earn it through chores, they come to expect it--they gain a sense of entitlement. This same sense of entitlement is what has crippled so many aspects of our nation, economy, and society. People expect the government to care for them when they cannot do so themselves. Many simply fall on hard times and earnestly work to get back on top of things. Many others fall on hard times, rely on the gov't, and realize that they can get a similar (or better) quality of life that way.

[maat55]

I heard on the radio today, and it makes sense, that this whole bailout theory is based on trickle down economics. The gov keeps pumping money into the big companies.

I'm against trickle up because it is largely tied to socialism. Everyone has the opportunity to achieve, and everyone can become wealthy on what they earn if they use the money wisely. If the poor would borrow less and invest more, they would shift to wealth.

[sweeps]

There's the S-bomb again.

[KGeary]

You'll have to define "success" first, and for whom.

One thing is clear, however: the Reagan mantra of "cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations will benefit everyone" is a load of crap. Whether he genuinely believed it would work, or if it was just a confidence game, I do not know. But it's easy to see that the disparity between the wealthy and the poor in this country has exploded over the last 25 years.

The disturbing thing is how many middle class folks still believe trickle-down is a good idea. I suggest reading "What's the Matter with Kansas" for more information.

Not punishing corporations and the wealthy strengthens the economy, which benefits everyone.

The disparity between the poor and the wealthy has nothing to do with economics.

[KGeary]

If I had serious statistical evidence proving either, I'd collect my major economics prizes and become famous and rich

I believe that trickle up works better. The rich get rich by being good at holding onto money, the poor get poor by not being able to hold onto money. To keep money moving through the system, it needs to be continually redistributed to the people who won't hold onto it.

That's illogical and completely false.

[Inkstain82]

That's illogical and completely false.

Prove it and collect your prizes.

[maat55]

There's the S-bomb again.

Facts are facts. Redistribution is socialism. You may have no problem with it, I do.

Your a liberal, i'm a conservative, and the wheel goes round and round.

[Inkstain82]

Facts are facts. Redistribution is socialism. You may have no problem with it, I do.

Your a liberal, i'm a conservative, and the wheel goes round and round.

It's so much more complicated than that, and I wish people would stop trying to simplify it as such.

Redistribution is not inherently socialist. All forms of government redistribute.

In a libertarian-ideal government, taxes are still collected to support a standing army for national defense, and the poor will inevitably get more benefit from that than they pay for, i.e. redistribution.

The *degree* of redistribution is what defines the spectrum that runs from communalism to socialism to capitalism to laissez-faire. And it *is* a spectrum, not a simple binary "socialist/capitalist" choice.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I agree redistribution occurs through any government. So government is inherently socialistic.

[maat55]

It's so much more complicated than that, and I wish people would stop trying to simplify it as such.

Redistribution is not inherently socialist. All forms of government redistribute.

In a libertarian-ideal government, taxes are still collected to support a standing army for national defense, and the poor will inevitably get more benefit from that than they pay for, i.e. redistribution.

The *degree* of redistribution is what defines the spectrum that runs from communalism to socialism to capitalism to laissez-faire. And it *is* a spectrum, not a simple binary "socialist/capitalist" choice.

I'm talking about the redistribution from a high achiever to a low achiever. I see things as black and white with a little bit of gray. IMO, liberals want to blend all the black and white into gray.