GRcade

Does anyone here think this political theory works and if so can you please explain to me why you think so?

This is my interpretation so if I'm wrong feel free to call me a dunce and point and laugh at my stupidity.
The theory is that if we give the already rich enough money they will eventually use that money to buy loads of boats and houses full of stuff and employ a crapload of people.
Now to me that sounds stupid as if I were to suddenly get $50B there's only so much stuff I could need or want and other than a few PA's to look after my money and maybe some housing staff I'm not going to make a dent in the UK unemployment rate.
How is having a few monstrously rich people better than having the money be spent on something like schools or hospitals or just lowering taxes for the low and middle class so they can maybe not be living paycheck to paycheck as so many of the government workers who are currently being unpaid seem to live.

I also don't understand the argument I've seen that if the super rich don't earn absolutely gooseberry fool loads they'll lose motivation and just stop working. Would Bill Gates really have just thought screw this it's not worth it if he only had $1B now?

Rich people can be generous and there are plenty of them that give money to charity.

But the trickle down effect is a load of bollocks. Business doesn’t exist to trickle money down to lower earners, it exists to make more and more money.

That’s why governments are needed to regulate and legislate to stop business being too exploitative.

I wouldn't really call it a theory as it has been put in to practice many times and as far as I know it has never "worked". It has put more money in rich peoples hands.

The reverse (pumping money in at the bottom either through benefits or raising the minimum wage) can benefit everyone, even those in the middle and top of society and there is documented proof of this method working.

BID0 wrote:I wouldn't really call it a theory as it has been put in to practice many times and as far as I know it has never "worked". It has put more money in rich peoples hands.

The reverse (pumping money in at the bottom either through benefits or raising the minimum wage) can benefit everyone, even those in the middle and top of society and there is documented proof of this method working.

I fully agree, many of the problems society faces are caused by poverty and increasing the standard of living for the poorest of people goes a long way in reducing crime and improving peoples health.

Ironhide wrote:

BID0 wrote:I wouldn't really call it a theory as it has been put in to practice many times and as far as I know it has never "worked". It has put more money in rich peoples hands.

The reverse (pumping money in at the bottom either through benefits or raising the minimum wage) can benefit everyone, even those in the middle and top of society and there is documented proof of this method working.

I fully agree, many of the problems society faces are caused by poverty and increasing the standard of living for the poorest of people goes a long way in reducing crime and improving peoples health.

It also increases the amount of people who can afford to buy things/your products and creates jobs as a result... resulting in the money going upwards through the economy.

What Minimum-Wage Foes Got Wrong About Seattle: https://www.bloombergquint.com/view/wha ... s.havLDZvk

A bit like how the EU operates. Poorer countries are pulled up with subsidies etc which benefits the people that live there but also the other countries as they now have more people to sell to.