HomeAnswerNotificationsCustomize Feeds
Is "trickle down" real or just an idea created by rich people to get richer?
"Trickle down" economics is:"Trickle-down economics, also called trickle-down theory, refers to the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term." You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

This is why I dislike paper economics as compared to real-life economics. In real life, an average business owner is a capitalist and would the everything legally (and even sometimes illegally) possible to ensure that profit is maximized. We have seen businesses deliberately avoiding taxations through book cooking rather than book-keeping. A lot of businesses in the developing countries pay their staff far lesser than they should be paying all in the quest to keep raking-in humongous profit every year.

The idea that business should pay reduced tax or nothing at all so as to stimulate the economical growth of a society is a crooked one. Capital accumulation is what is in vogue now. Businesses making millions want to start making billions. I have seen a business cutting down on staff salary just to further boost profit. Tell me how such businesses would benefit the economy if not just their own pockets if they are granted tax waivers of reliefs?

I think it is high time we ditch all the paper economics and deal with real-life situations. The government is used to giving positive figures on inflation rates, GDP et al but I have not seen any of these directly impacting people's life positively.


It began as a joke: "Cash was appropriated for the best with the expectation that it would stream down to the destitute," jested the American humorist, and one-time bazaar cowhand, Will Rogers, amid the Great Depression. In any case, during the 1980s, in the time of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, lawmakers started to consider stream down important. Or possibly they appeared to do as such.

Stream down can be (inexactly) described as the possibility that diminishing the taxation rate on the well-off is, at last, useful for everybody. A well off individual's expenses are lessened and his discretionary cashflow increments. The rich individual spends the additional wage on another house, or extravagance products, or sumptuous occasions. The bequest specialist, the extravagance producer and the visitor resort's benefits increment. Those organizations at that point contribute the benefits, extending their ability, making new occupations all the while. That extra venture helps wage and business.

The economy develops, getting more assessment incomes (more, surely, than were sworn off through the underlying tax break). The measure of the state is diminished, the opportunity of the populace develops and general thriving is amplified.

Would it be able to be valid? Not as per Larry Summers and Ed Balls. The previous American Treasury Secretary and Labor's shadow Chancellor, in another report delivered yesterday by the Center for American Progress, endeavor to detonate a bomb under this hypothesis of a righteous monetary circle. "Left to their very own gadgets, liberated markets and stream down financial aspects will prompt expanding levels of disparity, stagnating compensation, and an emptying out of not too bad, center salary employments," the report contends.

To Summers and Balls, tax breaks for the wealthy don't inflexibly result in more monetary action, however make a developing salary hole between those at the best and those at the base. The rich will in general spare a greater amount of their extra cash and development backs off. Ha-Joon Chang, the well known financial aspects essayist from Cambridge University, is another veteran faultfinder of the thought. "The stream down contention significantly relies upon the presumption that, when given a greater cut of national yield, the rich will utilize it to expand speculations", he has composed. He depicts this as "a presumption that has not been borne out by the real world", and goes on: "When you understand that stream down financial aspects does not work, you will see the over the top tax breaks for the rich as what they seem to be: a basic upward redistribution of wage, instead of an approach to make we all more extravagant."

The cure that Summers and Balls – and Chang – propose is: higher wages for normal specialists, higher rates of expense on the super-rich and companies, and additionally a co-ordinated worldwide conclusion of duty escape clauses, with the cash used to back more open framework venture.

It ought to be noticed that parts of the libertarian right firmly deny the possibility that it at any point bought in to stream down hypothesis. "There is no record of any genuine free-showcase mastermind consistently plotting that cutting assessment rates on high workers is great since it urges the rich to spend," contends Ryan Bourne of the Institute of Economic Affairs think tank. "Free-marketeers don't put stock in low assessments due to their impact on spending. They have faith in low expenses since they give a solid motivating force to win more wage in any case."

However what amount of impetus is important to propel the less fortunate and fuel monetary development? Numerous on the left would yield that the high negligible rates of pay impose during the 1970s which were cut significantly in the Thatcher and Reagan period were unnecessary and debilitated enterprise. Balls needs to reintroduce the 50p rate of assessment, yet he wouldn't like to bring back the 75p best rate on earned pay that existed during the 1970s.


Its a life propagated by the rich, so that they can justify making themselves filthy rich at the expense of others 😾