Trump thinks trickle-down economics can make America great again. Will it work?

Concerned about income inequality? Meet one of the causes.

There's one thing we learned for sure this election year: If you want to get people excited, promise to fix the economy.

Every economist and politician worth their salt have different ideas about how we can close the widening gap between the rich and the poor, and there's one tried-and-true solution that lots of them keep coming back to: trickle-down economics. But aside from being named after something that conjures up images of faucets clogged with who-knows-what, what exactly are they? And, more importantly, do they work?

To answer that question, we need to go back a few decades.


In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan became president after promising to reinvigorate the economy by cutting taxes on wealthy Americans.

Their wealth, he promised, would inspire them to spend more on their businesses, creating jobs and wealth for the people in income brackets below them. Those people would do the same, albeit with less cash to spend, and their spent wealth would "trickle down" to the poorest of the poor. The rich would benefit, and the poor would benefit from the rich. Everyone wins!

Reagan introduces his tax plan, which he never referred to as trickle-down economics, calling it "Reaganomics" or "supply-side economics" instead. Image via Reagan Library/Wikimedia Commons.

Trickle-down economics sounds like an idea that might work. Except its benefits are, to put it mildly, not exactly as advertised. Here are a few important reasons why:

1. Trickle down really trickles right back up.

Image by Heather Libby/Upworthy.

According to smart folks who studied the impact of Reagan's tax cuts, the wealth he promised would "trickle down" ended up "trickling mostly up," making income inequality worse. Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6% for the bottom fifth. That sounds great until you see what happened for the top fifth — an 80% increase in income. That split has become even worse since then. Income inequality has never been higher — and under a new president taxes might go lower than ever.

2. It adds a middleman who really doesn't need (or want) to be there.

This boy will probably pass on the apple to its intended recipient. A corporation? Not so much. Image via iStock.

Let's say you want to give someone near you an apple. You could either hand them the apple yourself or you could give it to someone else to eat and hope they share at least some of it with the person you wanted to give it to in the first place.

Trickle-down economics works the same way. Instead of creating a social program to help give wealth and support to lower- and middle-income people, the government instead gives tax cuts to wealthy earners. It relies on them to create the spark that will generate wealth and support for the lower classes. Which leads to the next point:

3. If wealth were to potentially trickle down, it would take a loooooong time for even an incremental gain. Like 40 years long.

A long-term study of trickle-down economics by the Harvard Kennedy School found that with trickle-down economics, it would take 40 years for the bottom 90% of the population to see a 5% rise in their income. One of the study's authors likened this approach to being "like giving people aspirin when they have cancer."

Their recommendation, instead of trying to make trickle-down economics work, was to focus on raising up the poor and middle class. According to the authors: "Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time."

In recent years, plenty of politicians — and some surprising other voices — have joined the chorus against trickle-down economics.

During a famous 2011 speech, President Barack Obama railed against the tax policies that created trickle-down economics.

In 2013, Pope Francis echoed Obama's concerns.

There's one guaranteed way to create an economic model that increases wealth, and it involves turning the trickle-down pyramid upside down.

A famous study by the International Monetary Fund looked at what happens when governments prioritize helping the poor. Increasing the income share of the bottom 20% of earners by just 1% would increase the GDP by nearly half a percentage point.

Doing what trickle-down economics argues for and giving a 1% increase to the top 20% of earners does the opposite and ends up decreasing the GDP. Cue the sad trombone noise.

A majority of modern economists see the flaws in trickle-down economics. There's one important person who doesn't, though.

And he's going to become president on Jan. 20.

Image via Bastiaan Slabbers/Getty Images.

President-elect Donald Trump has been clear about his plans for American taxes. Like Reagan, he wants to cut tax rates for corporations and drop the tax rate to 15% for the top 1% of earners. This kind of policy, he promises, will make America great again. For the millions of voters who cast ballots for him, that's statistically unlikely to be the case.

More
True
Civic Ventures


Climate change is happening because the earth is warming at an accelerated rate, a significant portion of that acceleration is due to human activity, and not taking measures to mitigate it will have disastrous consequences for life as we know it.

In other words: Earth is heating up, it's kinda our fault, and if we don't fix it, we're screwed.

This is the consensus of the vast majority of the world's scientists who study such things for a living. Case closed. End of story.

How do we know this to be true? Because pretty much every reputable scientific organization on the planet has examined and endorsed these conclusions. Thousands of climate studies have been done, and multiple peer-reviewed studies have been done on those studies, showing that somewhere between 84 and 97 percent of active climate science experts support these conclusions. In fact, the majority of those studies put the consensus well above 90%.

Keep Reading Show less
Nature

As a child, Dr. Sangeeta Bhatia's parents didn't ask her what she wanted to be when she grew up. Instead, her father would ask, "Are you going to be a doctor? Are you going to be an engineer? Or are you going to be an entrepreneur?"

Little did he know that she would successfully become all three: an award-winning biomedical and mechanical engineer who performs cutting-edge medical research and has started multiple companies.

Bhatia holds an M.D. from Harvard University, an M.S. in mechanical engineering from MIT, and a PhD in biomedical engineering from MIT. Bhatia, a Wilson professor of engineering at MIT, is currently serving as director of the Marble Center for Cancer Nanomedicine, where she's working on nanotechnology targeting enzymes in cancer cells. This would allow cancer screenings to be done with a simple urine test.

Bhatia owes much of her impressive career to her family. Her parents were refugees who met in graduate school in India; in fact, she says her mom was the first woman to earn an MBA in the country. The couple immigrated to the U.S. in the 1960s, started a family, and worked hard to give their two daughters the best opportunities.

"They made enormous sacrifices to pick a town with great public schools and really push us to excel the whole way," Bhatia says. "They really believed in us, but they expected excellence. The story I like to tell about my dad is like, if you brought home a 96 on a math test, the response would be, 'What'd you get wrong?'"

Keep Reading Show less
Packard Foundation
True

I live in a family with various food intolerances. Thankfully, none of them are super serious, but we are familiar with the challenges of finding alternatives to certain foods, constantly checking labels, and asking restaurants about their ingredients.

In our family, if someone accidentally eats something they shouldn't, it's mainly a bit of inconvenient discomfort. For those with truly life-threatening food allergies, the stakes are much higher.

I can't imagine the ongoing stress of deadly allergy, especially for parents trying to keep their little ones safe.

Keep Reading Show less
popular
Amy Johnson

The first day of school can be both exciting and scary at the same time — especially if it's your first day ever, as was the case for a nervous four-year-old in Wisconsin. But with a little help from a kind bus driver, he was able to get over his fear.

Axel was "super excited" waiting for the bus in Augusta with his mom, Amy Johnson, until it came time to actually get on.

"He was all smiles when he saw me around the corner and I started to slow down and that's when you could see his face start to change," his bus driver, Isabel "Izzy" Lane, told WEAU.

The scared boy wouldn't get on the bus without help from his mom, so she picked him up and carried him aboard, trying to give him a pep talk.

"He started to cling to me and I told him, 'Buddy, you got this and will have so much fun!'" Johnson told Fox 7.

Keep Reading Show less
Most Shared