Razzoo
Well-known member
You've met them all?
[Politics] "Trickle down economics has never worked"
- Thread starter Machiavelli
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
You've met them all?
Sid in the Sharknado
New member
If it were a thing it would be a good thing, but is it actually a thing?
My perception is that in the west everyone is on average getting a better income and opportunity now than 30 years ago. The wealthy are benefitting more in 'fold' terms and absolute terms, though. Intrinsically that doesn't matter....
However whether this is a manifestation of 'trickle down' is untestable.
Moreover, focusing on making the rich richer because, via trickle down, the poor will get richer too, is the pursuit of an untested theory, and one that is intrinsically perverse.
I don't mind systems that make the rich richer, but they should make the poor richer too, by design, not simply by a hoped-for trickle down default.
The trouble is the trickle down proponenets argue that trickle down is inevitable so the only game in town is to make the rich richer and the poor will benefit by default. I see no evidence for that so it makes more sense to support the poor (make changes that make it easier for them to earn, acquire better lifestyles and better attitudes) rather than simply to set up society (tax and laws) with only the needs of the rich in mind.
Others, of course, like the idea of a noisy gammony working class, fully signed up to trickle down theory, knowing their place, keeping the streets clean and the bins emptied, with the chance to win a holiday or a million pounds on the lottery.
I'd distinguish between supply-side policies, designed to make business easier, create new jobs etc., and the trickle down effect.
The former if implemented properly can make everybody richer, in the medium to long term at least. It also doesn't have to mean deregulation, there's all sorts of ways you can try and make a country more attractive for business.
The latter is a snake oil regularly tacked on to the former to justify not taxing the rich enough or implementing proper regulation.
In (very basic A-level economic terms) taxation takes money out from the economy, so letting people keep and spend it "should" make everybody richer. That doesn't work if the rich have so much money that they stuff it all in offshore accounts and spend it in places where working people aren't paid a fair rate because the economy and laws are fixed against them (taking an obvious and conveniently football related example, construction workers in the middle East).
Or for that matter, if the labour market in this country is rigged against working people.
KeithDublin
New member
- Aug 23, 2019
- 204
Why would I need to?
Let's look at the reasons people vote for Trump:
Racism - that makes you a ****
Abortion - You want to control what women do to their own bodies - that makes you a ****
Low Taxes - you're already rich, and you don't want to help others/ pay your fair share - that makes you a ****
America first - see first point
Gun rights - you want to block background checks, and own an assault rifle that can massacre many people? - that makes you a ****
Razzoo
Well-known member
Ok so on point one, the black Trump supporters are voting for Racism?
KeithDublin
New member
- Aug 23, 2019
- 204
I said they were some of the reasons that people vote for trump, not that every Trump voter does it for every single one of those reasons
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,174
Blinkered.
Of course.
It is a few words in a larger sentence. Read the whole sentence and it will provide the context that gives meaning to the few words.
Quite. I suspect we are in agreement.
As othes have noted on different thread, one of the most insidious changed that rig the system against it's poorer elements (i.e., most of us) is the alteration of the housing market so that unless someone can draw heavily on the bank of mum and dad that first home is never going to be owned. I don't think the tories are smart enough to have set that as a strategic objective in the early 80s when it began but it has come to pass nevertheless.
Sid in the Sharknado
New member
It is typical that one of the few ways that some have become wealthier, through rising house prices, also compels people to pay more money to the landowners and mortgage lenders who's wealth was supposed to be trickling down to them.
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,185
I've read the whole sentence. It still reads a bit like a notion of the 'feckless poor' to me.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
If we're being accurate, Biden was sworn in as VP in January 2009.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
So, it was Bush and Cheney in 2008.
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ameri...estment_Act_of_2009#Infrastructure_Investment
The Bush's looking after their mates was was a different act.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
That's 2009, not 2008.
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
They were working on the bill in 2008, which is why they were able to sign it into existence so soon after being sworn in.
Same scenario as when Trump was defeated in the election the Biden Administration started working on things before they were sworn in.
You are.
"The trouble is the trickle down proponenets argue that trickle down is inevitable so the only game in town is to make the rich richer and the poor will benefit by default. I see no evidence for that so it makes more sense to support the poor (make changes that make it easier for them to earn, acquire better lifestyles and better attitudes) rather than simply to set up society (tax and laws) with only the needs of the rich in mind"
I mean that we should not expect the poor to become better off by trickle down alone. We should support the poor.
The better attitudes bit includes helping people to be more self aware, more confident to cross the class and aspiration barriers, and not 'know their place'. I appreciate things have changed but I know several people who passed the 11 plus but were sent by parents to the local secondary modern because 'that sort of thing is not for the likes of us'. I appreciate that grammar schools barely exist now, and that people are much more aspirational across the classes, but having better attitudes to personal growth, health and other people (and not have dickish racist and sexists attitudes like those of some of the people on NSC that I have on ignore) has to be better than leaving the poor in a silo, looking up hopefully for a bit of trickle down.
Clearer?
Marlton and Hove Albion
Active member