<p>Trickle-down economics are widely criticized and many believe that it doesn't work. Asher Edelmanon explains brilliantly in the first 2min of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9MZ8y3CFTE" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this video</a> (or in the written version <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/asher-edelman-endorses-bernie-sanders-2016-3?r=US&amp;IR=T" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>).</p>

<p>The basic logic is that, in practice, doing this only leads to a higher accumulation of wealth by the wealthy.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-06T12:43:09.443Z
2018-01-06T12:43:09.443Z
JoaoBotelho
<p>Trickle-down economics, also referred to as trickle-down theory, is an economic theory that advocates reducing taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. </p>

<p>When it works, wealth created by the rich will trickle down to the middle-class and poor. Hence, the name trickle-down economics.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics</a></p>

<p>Strangely, one of the richest man in U.S, Warren Buffett, does not seem to think so. Why have trickle-down economics failed to trickle down to the middle-class and poor in recent years?</p>

<p><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/warren-buffett-on-the-failure-of-trickle-down-economics.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/warren-buffett-on-the-failure-of-trickle-down-economics.html</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Buffett says there is a problem with that economic system, which made
  him a king: Many individuals suffer even as those at the top prosper
  wildly.</p>
  
  <p>He points to the Forbes 400, which lists the wealthiest Americans.
  "Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the
  400 increased 29-fold — from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion — while many
  millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic
  treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn't trickle
  down. It surged upward."</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-06T10:24:35.390Z
Please find a scientific reference that explains what you mean by trickle down economics. Right now you are linking to a news piece and I have no clue as to what your **exact** question is. Does the phenomenon you are thinking of have to do with the current tax rates? The state allowing free enterprise? The existence of the Republican Party? Without clarity you will get rants but no answers.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-06T10:27:33.993Z
@denesp, I've edited the question following your feedback.
curious
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-06T10:33:51.780Z
The [references](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#References) of the wikipedia page you have linked provide several answers.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-09T00:40:37.247Z
Using "the extremes" to prove a point (ie. the top 400) is seldom useful and usually leads to the wrong conclusions. More interesting would be what happened to the wealth of the middle quartiles (25% to 75%) or (10%-90%) ranges. The next problem is finding a time when "trickle-down" (which isn't even a real thing) was actually tried. The Reagan years is about the last time supply-side was tried (and even that's arguable) and it is hard to argue that it didn't result in a successful economy for most everyone, which  seems to invalidate the premise of your question.
Dunk
<macroeconomics><wealth>
Why have trickle-down economics failed to trickle down to the middle-class and poor in recent years?
curious
# Why have trickle-down economics failed to trickle down to the middle-class and poor in recent years?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-01-06)

Trickle-down economics, also referred to as trickle-down theory, is an economic theory that advocates reducing taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term.

When it works, wealth created by the rich will trickle down to the middle-class and poor. Hence, the name trickle-down economics.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics>

Strangely, one of the richest man in U.S, Warren Buffett, does not seem to think so. Why have trickle-down economics failed to trickle down to the middle-class and poor in recent years?

<https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/warren-buffett-on-the-failure-of-trickle-down-economics.html>

> Buffett says there is a problem with that economic system, which made
> him a king: Many individuals suffer even as those at the top prosper
> wildly.
>
> He points to the Forbes 400, which lists the wealthiest Americans.
> "Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the
> 400 increased 29-fold — from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion — while many
> millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic
> treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn't trickle
> down. It surged upward."

**Tags:** macroeconomics, wealth

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Please find a scientific reference that explains what you mean by trickle down economics. Right now you are linking to a news piece and I have no clue as to what your **exact** question is. Does the phenomenon you are thinking of have to do with the current tax rates? The state allowing free enterprise? The existence of the Republican Party? Without clarity you will get rants but no answers.  
> **username_0**: @denesp, I've edited the question following your feedback.  
> **username_1**: The [references](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#References) of the wikipedia page you have linked provide several answers.  
> **username_2**: Using "the extremes" to prove a point (ie. the top 400) is seldom useful and usually leads to the wrong conclusions. More interesting would be what happened to the wealth of the middle quartiles (25% to 75%) or (10%-90%) ranges. The next problem is finding a time when "trickle-down" (which isn't even a real thing) was actually tried. The Reagan years is about the last time supply-side was tried (and even that's arguable) and it is hard to argue that it didn't result in a successful economy for most everyone, which  seems to invalidate the premise of your question.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-01-06. Score: 1

Trickle-down economics are widely criticized and many believe that it doesn't work. Asher Edelmanon explains brilliantly in the first 2min of [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9MZ8y3CFTE) (or in the written version [here](https://www.businessinsider.com.au/asher-edelman-endorses-bernie-sanders-2016-3?r=US&IR=T)).

The basic logic is that, in practice, doing this only leads to a higher accumulation of wealth by the wealthy.


---

