TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

[james dixon]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Income distribution

{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year

{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

https://tinyurl.com/yaw8yy3g


TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing

TRICKLE UP
If the IRS gave tax bracket {2} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $68,292,856,000 to the economy because they will spend it, buying new things from houses to shoes to a new car which adds to the economy making more shoes, the car to a new house.

Now ask yourself; which is best for our economy

( ) Trickle down

( ) Trickle up

 

[sun rise]

Without getting into the question of judging purchases, giving money to people who have little will result in that getting spent on something pretty fast as the OP indicates. That's simple logic.

 

[David1967]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Income distribution

{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year

{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

https://tinyurl.com/yaw8yy3g


TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing

TRICKLE UP
If the IRS gave tax bracket {2} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $68,292,856,000 to the economy because they will spend it, buying new things from houses to shoes to a new car which adds to the economy making more shoes, the car to a new house.

Now ask yourself; which is best for our economy

( ) Trickle down

( ) Trickle up

Sorry but this seems to be a little over simplistic and presumptuous. But I would vote for a third option (3) A little of both.

 

[shunyadragon]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Income distribution

{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year

{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

https://tinyurl.com/yaw8yy3g


TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing

TRICKLE UP
If the IRS gave tax bracket {2} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $68,292,856,000 to the economy because they will spend it, buying new things from houses to shoes to a new car which adds to the economy making more shoes, the car to a new house.

Now ask yourself; which is best for our economy

( ) Trickle down

( ) Trickle up

Neither.

 

[David T]

Well personally I try and gouge my wealthy clients out of absolutely as much money I can get while making them smile about it. Now they may frown but I then can say so and so could afford it I didn't realize that you weren't so and so. THAT FLIPS attitude from I got ripped off to yes I needed those $1000 door stops.

 

[columbus]

TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing

It's worse than that.
Give the investment class a tax break, and what do think that they are more likely to spend it on,
A) Pizza, new housing construction, and a Disney vacation
or
B) robot "labor saving" technology, Chinese growth stocks, campaign donations to "pro-growth" politicians

Tom

 

[metis]

Since there were only two options, "Trickle Up" definitely is my choice because it does have a good track record whereas "Trickle Down" at best has minimal effect.

With trickle up, since it's lower to middle-income families that get most of the money one way or another, they are more apt to spend it locally, which is where we would want most growth to start from. Trickle-down would only work best if there was a lack of investors, which is not a problem we have right now.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Trickle down is a more of a trinkle down, as minuscule drips barely reach the bottom as so much is hoarded at the top. With the trickle up, the poor don't often save as they tend to need to spend what they make, when they get it. The upper tier would still get theirs, but after the economy has actually been invested in by transactions and exchanges of goods and services, rather than having the bulk of the money being stuck in a feedback loop at the top where the wealthy spend it on projects that benefit the wealthy.

 

[Falvlun]

The whole idea of “trickle down” is that it eventually gets money to the poor and middle class. If that’s the goal, then why not just give them the money to begin with?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The whole idea of “trickle down” is that it eventually gets money to the poor and middle class. If that’s the goal, then why not just give them the money to begin with?

What's a proper system of oppression without begging masses?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Without getting into the question of judging purchases, giving money to people who have little will result in that getting spent on something pretty fast as the OP indicates. That's simple logic.

It is fact proven by economic history, but without that historical data we would be guessing about it. The logic behind any economic idea is hard to get right without data to back it up, because its not always intuitive. Definitely we know now that lower income brackets spend more readily, and there is an effect called the Multiplier Effect that comes from tax breaks or subsidies for those in lower income brackets. I think this is actually pretty old fact, older than Reagan; but that doesn't stop him from believing otherwise.

 

[Polymath257]

How about 'capillary action' instead of 'trickle up'? Plants use this to get water to the tops of trees.

 

[Revoltingest]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Income distribution

{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year

{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

https://tinyurl.com/yaw8yy3g


TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing

TRICKLE UP
If the IRS gave tax bracket {2} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $68,292,856,000 to the economy because they will spend it, buying new things from houses to shoes to a new car which adds to the economy making more shoes, the car to a new house.

Now ask yourself; which is best for our economy

( ) Trickle down

( ) Trickle up

Putting money in the bank does more than "nothing".
Most of this money is lent to people who buy things
or finance business expansion.

I don't use "trickle" regarding economics. It's an inane
buzzword...unless we're talking about @Wirey's incontinence.

 

[james dixon]

(9) nine voted trickle up
(0) zero voted trickle down

The people have spoken -

 

[idav]

TRICKLE UP DEFIES GRAVITY

Income distribution

{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year

{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

https://tinyurl.com/yaw8yy3g


TRICKLE DOWN
If the IRS gave tax bracket {1} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $13,665,856,000 to the economy but the rich will not add it to the economy, they will put it in the bank to do nothing

TRICKLE UP
If the IRS gave tax bracket {2} a $1,000 tax break they in turn could add $68,292,856,000 to the economy because they will spend it, buying new things from houses to shoes to a new car which adds to the economy making more shoes, the car to a new house.

Now ask yourself; which is best for our economy

( ) Trickle down

( ) Trickle up

Trickle up works best because the poor are almost guaranteed to spend most of what they earn. The top percenters are more likely to hoard large sums of money in fear of losing the money that’s been acquired. Rich people may feel they can’t create jobs without the risk of becoming middle class or worse but any non spending is bad for economical flow.