Trickle Up Defies Gravity

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Trickle down’ defies logic, facts, and the truth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't hear too many Republicans running out the 'trickle down' talking point much anymore.

But it’s still very much part of failed, wrongheaded conservative economic dogma – the recently passed GOP tax scam is proof of that.

 

[Mac1958]

I remain amazed at how binary we have become. We have somehow lost all sense of balance and pragmatism.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Hold on a minute...who provides the poor and middle class with the funds to buy goods and pay rent?
What came first...the chicken or the egg?

The rich and middle class mostly employ the poor and provide them with wages. When you look at how money flows more floats up to the top than down to the poor. It’s the nature of the system. Wouldnt you agree?

No.
Not doing the practical arithmetic...poor Johnny is paid $30k per year by ABC Corp...how can Johnny send more than he was paid up the “chain”?

Does ABC Corp make a profit? Where does that profit come from? Look at the big picture. Where does the money flow?

Ofcouse ABC Corp makes a profit.
Your point is clear...you somehow believe money originates at the bottom and works its way up...I couldn’t disagree more. Getting real deep...you’d have to go way back to understand where old money originated....there lies your answer....land, livestock, agriculture and ones own blood, sweat and tears.
Looking at Microsoft as a model....one could not and would not be able to consume Microsoft products and or services had Bill Gates not engineered an operating system and built Microsoft....therefore all Microsoft products and services consumed began at Bill Gates. Are you starting to get it yet?

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that Money originated at the bottom. I said that money flows up to the top. Look at the last two decades. The top earners have sucked up the vast majority of new Money and become richer than ever while the middle class has remained relatively stagnant. Of course the top earners pay wages and employ workers. A % goes down to the bottom and a larger percentage ends up floating to the top. Do you deny this?

/----/ Libs believe there is a finite amount of money to be made and if an "evil rich" guy makes a dollar it's only because he stole it from the poor. Well the economy is ever expanding and there is plenty to go around. Stop blaming others for your situation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How about we not worry who has what and just let everyone keep more of their own money?

 

[jillian]

Trickle up....is when the middle class has more purchasing/spending power to clamor for goods and services, which, in turn, spurs the economy and industry...

Trickle down, is a futile expectation that given extra money to conglomerates, these companies will generously give some of their extra funds to create more jobs to address a NON-existent need for more production and to give higher salaries to workers that have jobs in areas where there is no demands for whatever they're producing.

They keep trying trickle down over and over. And it fails every time.

One has to wonder why people who are marginal would support policies that are against their self-interest. Well other than their being uninformed and duped.

But it's probably that they will accept any indignity for G-d guns and gays

 

[jillian]

How about we not worry who has what and just let everyone keep more of their own money?

That is the stupedist comment I've read yet. Every economic decision affects who has what. I prefer we not give my money to plutocrats so they can take tax write-offs for private jets.

Now, how about you and your fellow dupes not turn us into a third world country?

 

[usmbguest5318]

which is best for our economy, trickle down or trickle up

​

Asking that question and other content in the OP belies an immense measure of either utter economic ignorance or the disingenuousness that accompanies a will to say pretty much anything. The former is potentially pardonable; the latter is not ever so.

To wit...
Number one:

Income distribution
{1} 1,365,856 earn more than $388,000 a year
{2} 68,292,856 earn less than $70,000 a year

The metrics above don't even account for even half of the American workforce. Your figures also grossly understate the quantity of American households, which is around 125M Somewhere around 3% of the U.S.' 125M-households earn $250K+.​

Number two:

Moreover, the lifeblood of an economy is the exchange of resources to obtain highly inelastic goods/services, followed by the exchange of elastic goods/services and lastly by exchange of money used to make money (investing and savings). Because that is so, when an economy is slumping or slumped, trickle-down fiscal policies are the type of "goosing" that advances the economy toward recovery; however, when an economy is "ticking along at a healthy clip," which is to say the unemployment rate is very near or below the rate called "structural unemployment," trickle-down fiscal policies don't boost the economy to even newer highs nearly as well as does putting more money in the pockets of folks at the middle to lower end of the economic spectrum.

Why is that the case? Because, as a practical matter, people who have "lots" of money -- enough money that they will invest in enterprises that produce income for folks having notably less money -- are markedly fewer in number than are people who have "just enough" -- "just enough" being not enough to invest in enterprise that produces income for others. Wealthier people aren't enough in number that their demand for inelastic goods/services, as a consequence of their wealth, will boost an economy. In contrast, people who aren't wealthy and who come into some extra spending money will spend some of it and save/invest some of it. Their numbers are great enough that their doing so produces both an upward shift in demand and an increase in the quantity demanded.

While there are always going to be people who behave differently from the norms of economic behavior, broad-based fiscal policy, such as tax cuts in accordance with supply-side economics, isn't about what "exceptional" individuals do, but rather about what most people do. What behaviors do most folks exhibit? Well, here are some examples:

• Food: As wealth increases, people buy more expensive foods, not more food.
• Housing: While increases in lower and middle income wealth increases the demand for owned-housing, there are no fiscal policies that will boost any but the folks around the margin from renting housing to home ownership or to owning an additional house.
• Maintenance: Non-wealthy individuals maintain their durable goods "just enough" to keep them going and they purchase more maintenance when they obtain more wealth. Wealthy people, in contrast, maintain their durable goods regardless of fiscal policies that provide them with more cash on hand.
• Luxury goods (goods and services having highly price elasticity of demand): As the quantity of folks having more wealth increases, so too does the demand for luxury goods; however, at some point, one doesn't need yet another, say, Benz or Bentley.
  • In the realm of economic policy, what's a luxury good? Well, first of all it's not what marketers would have one deem a necessity. Economically, a luxury good is any good/service a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises, and is a contrast to a "necessity good", for which demand increases proportionally less than income. Some examples include:
    • Food is not a luxury good. Certain foodstuffs are luxury goods.
    • Water is not a luxury good. Bottled water is a luxury good.
    • Transportation between some destinations is not a luxury good. Certain types of transportation, as well as transportation to and from certain destinations, are luxury goods/services.
    • Clothing that protects one from the elements is not a luxury good. Clothing that costs more than the minimum needed to protect one from the elements is a luxury good.

Number Three:

In light of the foregoing, one can see that whether trickle-down or "trickle-up" is better is an absurd question to ask because each approach to fiscal policy has its place. Prudent observers, as with so many things and regardless of what they might or might not know about economics, don't assume that fitting economic policy is as binarily assessed and concluded upon as does this thread's poll question. Rather, they ask when is the right time to implement and de-implement either approach to fiscal policy. The sagacity of applying supply-side and/or classical economic theory (science use of the term) is rightly seen as a temporal not qualitative choice.

The question this thread poses is akin in absurdity to asking which is better, t-shirts or sweaters. When it's very hot, generally, t-shirts are better; when it's cold, generally, sweaters are better. Most people would agree that it's important to have both t-shirts and sweaters. So it is with economic approaches to fiscal policy such as trickle-down and "trickle-up" policies. Policy makers have both in their "closet;" however, they must have a keen awareness (or obtain the input of folks who do) of when to "wear" any given one.​

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Now, why would you be talking about gravity? What on Earth does gravity have to do with this?

 

[jamesduncan]

.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,

You have put some real thought into your post articulating the pro’s and con’s. Thank you for your efforts. Having said that, out of all that you have written I could not find your personal point of view which I am sure you have.

If you had to chose one or the other;

Trickle up

Trickle down

Which shall it be?

You may add qualifiers but the bottom line is one or the other

Which is it?

Just asking -

 

[jamesduncan]

Now, why would you be talking about gravity? What on Earth does gravity have to do with this?

You must be standing on your head to comprehend my answer. While standing on your head ask me this question again and I will promptly give you the answer you request.

-

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't hear too many Republicans running out the 'trickle down' talking point much anymore.

But it’s still very much part of failed, wrongheaded conservative economic dogma – the recently passed GOP tax scam is proof of that.

It's all they have.

 

[nat4900]

How about we not worry who has what and just let everyone keep more of their own money?

Were it as "simple" as that, there would be NO need to borrow $1.5 Trillion, while completely discarding the $20 trillion already owed and the future call for another trillion for infrastructure (including the building of a useless wall to boost Trump's ego.)

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I don't hear too many Republicans running out the 'trickle down' talking point much anymore.

Mainly because we've come to realize you'll never get it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't hear too many Republicans running out the 'trickle down' talking point much anymore.

Mainly because we've come to realize you'll never get it.

Since Republicans have repeatedly tried it and failed over the last 30 years, it's you who doesn't get it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How about we not worry who has what and just let everyone keep more of their own money?

If you want to keep more of your 'own money', why don't you just skip your house and car payments for a few months?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

How about we not worry who has what and just let everyone keep more of their own money?

If you want to keep more of your 'own money', why don't you just skip your house and car payments for a few months?

That wouldnt be good for the economy.

 

[initforme]

The middle class tax cuts should have been double....then the bill would have been even better.

 

[Slade3200]

The rich and middle class mostly employ the poor and provide them with wages. When you look at how money flows more floats up to the top than down to the poor. It’s the nature of the system. Wouldnt you agree?

No.
Not doing the practical arithmetic...poor Johnny is paid $30k per year by ABC Corp...how can Johnny send more than he was paid up the “chain”?

Does ABC Corp make a profit? Where does that profit come from? Look at the big picture. Where does the money flow?

Ofcouse ABC Corp makes a profit.
Your point is clear...you somehow believe money originates at the bottom and works its way up...I couldn’t disagree more. Getting real deep...you’d have to go way back to understand where old money originated....there lies your answer....land, livestock, agriculture and ones own blood, sweat and tears.
Looking at Microsoft as a model....one could not and would not be able to consume Microsoft products and or services had Bill Gates not engineered an operating system and built Microsoft....therefore all Microsoft products and services consumed began at Bill Gates. Are you starting to get it yet?

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that Money originated at the bottom. I said that money flows up to the top. Look at the last two decades. The top earners have sucked up the vast majority of new Money and become richer than ever while the middle class has remained relatively stagnant. Of course the top earners pay wages and employ workers. A % goes down to the bottom and a larger percentage ends up floating to the top. Do you deny this?

/----/ Libs believe there is a finite amount of money to be made and if an "evil rich" guy makes a dollar it's only because he stole it from the poor. Well the economy is ever expanding and there is plenty to go around. Stop blaming others for your situation.

No I don’t believe that at all. You really shouldn’t try to dictate what others believe. First off you are really bad at it and second it just makes you sound stupid. I was simply explaining an economic reality. If you disagree with my assessment then make a counter argument. But your little rant about libs hating the rich guy is worthless to this discussion

 

[DOTR]

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.

Holy shit you embarrassed yourself by screaming your financial ignorance. Nobody who earns more than 388,000 "put it in the bank to do nothing". Is that what you fantasize you would do with a higher income? No wonder you are where you are.
Not to mention..nobody with a 1000 refund "buys a house" with it or "a new car".