How trickle-down economics backfired on Britain’s shortest-serving prime minister

If you are wondering why she looks so happy with such a bright smile walking to the podium to deliver her resignation speech, after just 45 days in office and then voluntarily quite, she qualifies for £115,000 a year pension for the rest of her life

"I reject the term 'trickle down economics,' nobody's doing that. What we're doing is a plan in which we give money to the rich, and they just keep it, and the poor get nothing. That is a much more efficient method for making the rich richer and the middle class poorer."

The problem is that the premise that rich people will work harder if the tax is lower is assumed to be true. One could just as easily assume the opposite, that by raising taxes, rich purple will have to work even harder and build the business bigger to make the same amount of money. Which will in turn generate even more taxes. Anyone can make up any claim without actual data to back it up. Since the rich hold the most political power and the first argument benefits them the most, it’s obviously the policy they have been pushing for decades. Getting ever so richer in the process, while wages have mostly stagnated.

Trickle down will never die, the people doing the trickle controls the policies and the people being trickled on wish they can one day be the trickle-er. Greed and delusion makes trickle-down economics infallible.

When rich get richer they just keep it for themselves. When politicians apply trickle down effect they are just helping their friends the rich.

‘Trickle down’ was as ineffective as deregulation

Trickle down theory is one of the dumbest ideas. The idea is that they "hope" that the rich will grace the poor. Why does the poor need the graces of the rich and when did that ever worked in history?

She’s smart. Came out an stupid plan. Everyone uproar. Stepped down. Enjoying the rest of her life without doing anything and periodically receiving handsome sum of money. Win

Hmmm, when she was elected and revealed her budget, I seem to remember a ton of right wing outlets exclaiming the brilliance of her plans. Only after the stupidity of the plan was universally acknowledged by the markets did said outlets throw her under the bus. Damn, I almost feel sorry for her...

Interesting comments from the IEA guy, slightly undercut by the fact that one has to wonder about the 'qualifications' of someone who is in his 20's, has a moustache to look older and a voice that is just breaking out. Truly an experienced individual.

I thought we already learned from Ronald Reagan that trickle down economics didn't work smh

The Insitute of Economic Affiars guy is full of crap. it was classic trickle-down economics. Look at the tax cuts. I'd also like to hear how he expected the UK economy to grow from it as it's still dealing with the exit from the largest free trade zone in the world. What an example of cognitive dissoance. Claiming to push for "free markets" but only through tax cuts and completely ignoring that the EU is a free market.

Trickle-down economics has proven itself to be a colossal failure. Deficits skyrocketed in the US with the Reagan, Bush Jr, and Trump tax cuts, but the US actually achieved a budget surplus - and a booming economy to boot - after a significant tax increase pushed through by Bill Clinton in 1993. The perennial debt problems of the state of California went away almost overnight after a tax increase likewise instituted by Gov. Jerry Brown a few years ago. In a 2012 survey of over 50 economists from schools such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and others - including the right-leaning economics dept of the University of Chicago I might add - not a single economist agreed with the statement that tax cuts would increase revenue more than the amount reduced by the cut, according to the ironically titled report "Laffer Curve." It's time we relegated "voodoo economics," as Bush the Elder so memorably called it, to the ash heap of history.

Guys I just thought of a great idea: Instead of giving tax cuts to the rich, hoping they'll help lower income earners, why not just... Give the low earners tax cuts 😑

1. *Raise interest rates* to curb inflation. 2. *Reduce government spending* to lower high spending and debt. 3. *Increase taxes* to generate revenue and reduce debt. Yes, once the situation is under control: 1. *Lower interest rates* to stimulate economic growth. 2. *Cut taxes* to increase disposable income and boost spending.

Hopefully, a warning sign for all politicians around the world who still want to impose this tricke-down idiocy.

I like CNBC for explaining various issues so clear within 10 minutes. What makes it even better is there is English sub for those non-native speakers who may not be able to follow fast speeches of the narrator and some speakers. I know that with English sub, the content is easier to follow as those non-native speakers are mostly exposed to English textbooks more than English sounds, at least for older generation like me.

Whatever they say, whoever wins the office..remember WE always lose!!!

Only the USA, as done under Ronald Reagan, can have unfunded tax cuts. All other countries with unfunded tax cuts must fund them with foreign borrowing, which is in US$, hence the drop in the pound sterling vs the US$. The US federal government isn't penalised for massive borrowing, as investors both foreign and domestic, fall all over themselves to lend moeny to the US government.

Thank you for the explanation. Over here in the United States, a number of economists see the trickle down as a ,well, trick.