CreateDebate


Debate Info

108
117
Trickle Down Pump Prime
Debate Score:225
Arguments:197
Total Votes:261
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Trickle Down (95)
 
 Pump Prime (105)

Debate Creator

DaWolfman(3318) pic



Which is a more effective economic strategy?

The Trickle Down is basically give a tax break on the rich so they can invest in new businesses creating new jobs.

Pump Prime being what the Obama Administration tried: putting a lot of money into the system and hoping for the best.

Trickle Down

Side Score: 108
VS.

Pump Prime

Side Score: 117
2 points

Though this is the less popular technique to reviving an economy; I am unable to find one example of the Pump Prime working, whereas I am able to find at least two where the Trickle Down ended up working.

I feel like the Obama Administration should have gone with the Trickle Down opposed to the Pump Prime; my reason being that the unemployment rate didn't go down it actually went up even after the massive stimulus bill was put into effect.

Side: Trickle Down
Bohemian(3866) Disputed
1 point

Trickle down theory, doesn't work for the simple fact that the Rich don't use the tax breaks to hire more employees.

I think you leave out a third option, which is tax breaks for the poor.

Side: Pump Prime

The poor don't pay enough taxes to make a difference!

BTW, if you really think that the Rich don't use the tax breaks to hire more employees then you are not rich and all you want is a hand out. Me, on the other hand, no longer wants to do yard work, clean the pool, etc. I hire all that stuff out. If I were to get another tax break, I'd hire a cleaning lady. But the tax break would have to be big enough to cover anything she may steal ;)

Side: Trickle Down
Lisajo(38) Disputed
1 point

Tax Breaks for the POOR? the poor do not get tax breaks, because they pay NO taxes!! are you aware that 49% of americans DO NOT pay taxes AT ALL!! the other 50% cover 100% of the tax burden with the "rich" paying 90% of that! middle class covers 10% so if you make "everyone poor" who is going to pay for your foodstamps? healthcare? welfare? Get a clue, and read a book or something, stop watching MSNBC. Its wonderful how the government can brainwash everyone against the "rich" and in doing so avert the attention from themselves, who keep getting richer and richer off of the backs of the hard working americans. I love how our liberal politicians complain about the "rich" not paying while they themselves are dodging their own tax obligations.

Side: Trickle Down
1 point

But the rich do like to invest ;)

Side: Trickle Down
2 points

Trickle Down is more effective than Priming the Pump. Priming the Pump has never worked and it has been tried many times ex. FDR, Obama, and probably others. Trickle down as far as I know did not work the one time it was tried. But consider this what if we did neither but simply did this. Decrease spending and slightly increase taxes on the rich. They can obviously handle it. I understand many of the rich earned it shouldn't tax them too much. But as much as I hate compromise. Spending more doesn't reduce debt or help the economy. No one is willing to simply cut taxes because its quote "unfair to the poor" so we compromise and something actually gets done.

Side: Trickle Down
Bohemian(3866) Disputed
2 points

Trickle Down is more effective than Priming the Pump. Priming the Pump has never worked and it has been tried many times ex. FDR, Obama, and probably others.

The same could be said for Trickle Down theory, which has also been tried many times and has also never worked.

Side: Pump Prime
aveskde(1934) Disputed
1 point

I understand many of the rich earned it shouldn't tax them too much.

Whether or not it was earned has nothing to do with it. When you don't heavily tax the rich, you allow a small fraction of the population to both concentrate wealth, AND the power that comes with wealth. A small fraction of the population should not have political voices hundreds or even thousands of times louder than the rest of us. This is a democracy, not a plutocracy.

Side: Pump Prime
AltonSmith(110) Disputed
2 points

Actually, assuming that the rich possess an unattainable status is completely false. Steve Jobs, Steve Wynn, Mark Zuckerberg (to name the more well-known examples), in addition to thousands of others, many of whom did not become billionaires but still affluent, have risen up to earn that status. It is far less likely to become this affluent in a system with higher taxation.

Indeed, these people have created companies that have created millions of jobs. A system that provides all with equal opportunity is vastly superior to one that limits innovation and achievement.

Side: Trickle Down
clearEn(207) Disputed
1 point

But if you put heavy taxes on the rich for this reason, you're punishing them for making good choices and working toward that wealth. If you cut taxes (or leave them alone) to the wealthy, they're much more likely to put that money to something useful than giving it freely to the poor. If you constantly give money to the poor it takes away their motivation. Why should they try and get their own money when they're being given money for doing nothing?

If they stay poor, they keep getting handouts!

Side: Trickle Down
Nihil(46) Disputed
1 point

I love when people pull this one.

FDR launched the single greatest government initiative for the American Economy. EVER. That was turning America into, basically, a command economy, during WWII. Unemployment was nearly non existent. Then post war demobilization occurred and we suffered a minor bout before returning to normal unemployment.

Also, if spending more doesn't help the economy, then why did our economy grow so much during WWII as the government created massive demand for things?

Don't tell me it was free enterprise, because what they needed was demand, something that the market can't supply by itself.

AD=C+I+G+(X-M) baby!

Side: Pump Prime
2 points

Trickle-down economics is more accurately known as supply side economics. It is far more effective in that it encourages investment both because the reduction in taxes (which are, for all intents and purposes, penalties), particularly for upper-income tax brackets, stimulates a mindset in which affluent individuals recognize that they will be taxed less, but also simply because it keeps more financial resources in private hands. Thus, people who see the potential for profit, and who, after the enactment of a supply side policy have more resources, will indeed begin to spend, thus ensuring a flow of money throughout the economy.

Side: Trickle Down

Pump and Prime sounds fun and dirty. Trickle down just sounds dirty. The economy shouldn't be fun ;)

Side: Trickle Down

Prime the Pump aka Keynesian Economics has failed not only multiple times in the U.S., but it has failed throughout the world.

Side: Trickle Down
aveskde(1934) Disputed
1 point

Prime the Pump aka Keynesian Economics has failed not only multiple times in the U.S., but it has failed throughout the world.

Therefore we should give the rich more money, and therefore power, and hope for the best?

Side: Pump Prime
2 points

Therefore we should give the rich more money, and therefore power, and hope for the best?

You act as if the government controls the economy and owes all the money in the U.S., yet in fact, government doesn't posses a dime without looting, you think that the government is giving the rich more money as if government owes it, yet they are the ones who earned it in the first place. Nobody is giving them more money, they are only keeping what they earned. Nobody can get as rich as you think without the help of government or lack of competition; therefore, if government favors are eliminated through different level of taxes on business, subsidies, regulation, big business would vanish, which would competition to expand.

Side: Trickle Down
clearEn(207) Disputed
1 point

No, we should let the rich keep the money they've earned. There's no point in taking what's rightfully theirs!

Side: Trickle Down
1 point

I am going with Trickle Down just because Pump Prime is the way the Obama Administration works it out.

Side: Trickle Down
Bohemian(3866) Disputed
1 point

I am going with Trickle Down just because Pump Prime is the way the Obama Administration works it out.

Bad logic.

Side: Pump Prime
1 point

No counter-argument? The downvote fairy has struck again! {laughter ensues}

Perhaps you want to explain to me how it follows that because someone tries something one way (which in your opinion doesn't work), this automagically means another, logically unrelated, method is inherently superior?

This is like saying "I'm going with a Nuclear Holocaust to bring peace to the middle-east because negotiation is the way the Obama Administration works it out"

Side: Pump Prime
Nihil(46) Disputed
1 point

I cannot discern whether I am being trolled or not... O.o

Side: Pump Prime
0 points

We must trickle down! America's is losing good jobs to other countries at an unbelievable rate!We need many more jobs here at home to boost the economy rather than outsourcing jobs or donating to foreign nations economy!

Side: Trickle Down

It really depends on the economy. For trickle down economics to be remotely effective there needs to be enough demand, or else investments will be not be profitable and carry more risk because businesses, markets, etc will be doing poorly. More money would go into T-Bills, CDS, saving accounts etc rather then stocks, venture funding, services etc. You can boost demand by a "prime and pump" method if you target areas of the economy which would raise demand if money was given to them. If demand is low because of a "credit crunch" or liquidity trap then giving some to banks might help. Although the most helpful thing might be tax cuts to the middle and lower classes since they are the majority and allowing them to spend might allow for the demand which allows for a trickle down economics policy to work.

Preferably a progressive tax system is in place which keeps taxes relatively low (when compared to inflation and other indicators of what taxes should be) for the great majority so that demand is encouraged well the upper middle class and the lower upper class are the most encouraged to invest to encourage a diversity of investments to be made.

Side: Pump Prime
AltonSmith(110) Disputed
1 point

When there is more money in the hands of the private sector, it will inevitably flow. That is human nature. Already the top 5% of income earners, according to recent figures, pay 58% of federal income taxes. Is that their fair share? Didn't think so.

Also, in a nation such as the U.S., in which the national debt is still mounting, it is a terrible idea to spend the amounts that have been on previous stimulus packages.

Side: Trickle Down
casper3912(1572) Disputed
1 point

Its more like a prisoner delima, where the rational thing to do is to help yourself the most and harm your competition the most; this results in less net gains in the long run though. In a similar fashion, you'll want to hold on to your money during a recession and call due any debts you have owed to you. This results in less cash flow, a stimulus package puts more money into the hands of the private sector lessening the desire to hold on to it.

Is it fairer to take from a poor man his bread or is it fairer to take from the rich man his extra yacht?

National debt is different from private debt, the previous stimulus packages could of been better done but they are little different than a debt consolidation plan for the nation. If you look at the difference between the MO and M1 money supply, its becomes apparent that the usa has its economy founded on debt, debt is what allows the economy to function. This can be overdone though and when it is we run into problems like the recession.

Side: Pump Prime
1 point

What basically you have the Conservatives trying to do is apply the Laffer Curve, God's most awful mistake XD, the idea of the Laffer Curve is that there is an ideal tax range to increase the disposable income of all citizens while increasing the real income of the government. If it sounds like bull, don't worry it is. We all know that the stimulus was too small, it didn't cover the loss in potential GDP and the loss in demand. When we look at China, their stimulus was about as big as ours and bigger in relation to GDP, and guess what, they're doing far better than the rest of the austerity cult of the west. The Economy is not some beast that you can't predict, it is, more or less, rational, unless you refer to Stiglitz work on Market irrationality, but that is only a small component. The Economy works by the laws that govern it and the models which define it. We can recognize this downturn as a demand side issue because of the deflationary spiral of the dollar and the liquidity trap we're in. If it were a supply side problem, the wage cuts would work, and the anti inflationary policy of the fed would help, but that is not the issue, the dollar can hardly inflate any more because of the lack of demand, all the fed can do is buy government bonds, I.E quantitative easing, right now to keep inflation rising to combat deflation, a greater evil.

Side: Pump Prime
1 point

For people need to get more business and marketing startegy as well as economical concern, they must see the site below.

Supporting Evidence: http://eatmywords.com/about/ (eatmywords.com)
Side: Pump Prime
0 points

Trickle down system doesn't work, it is what caused this mess we are in. The rich do not invest in anything except what makes them rich.

Giving tax breaks to those that live off the interest of their inheritance, doesn't do anything but give these people more of what they have, money. Rich people do not spend money in the main stream, they spend it among themselves. Million dollar houses, 2000 dollar dinners, collectible items (JFK's rocking chair purchased for $40,000), etc. Money need spent where it is consumed, thus creating jobs.

Side: Pump Prime
clearEn(207) Disputed
1 point

People who live off inheritance don't benefit the economy, and tend to be recklass with money. However, people who get rich do so by investing, where the money goes out.

People don't get rich by sitting on a pile of money like a dragon. And rich people tend to own much of the non-government jobs in America. If you make them poor, most of those jobs will go away.

Side: Trickle Down
aveskde(1934) Disputed
1 point

People don't get rich by sitting on a pile of money like a dragon. And rich people tend to own much of the non-government jobs in America. If you make them poor, most of those jobs will go away.

If you make the rich poor, then that money will be divided amongst more people, thus consolidating power in more hands rather than the few.

Side: Pump Prime
Lisajo(38) Disputed
1 point

Who built their million dollar houses? who prepared their $2000 dollar meals? who build the furniture that fills those houses? Who built the cars and jets they buy? how can you say they dont invest in our economy and then cite those things they spend money on that absolutely DO invest in our economy? What would you prefer they spent their money on? Giving it to government and hoping THEY will invest it? In what? If you think that government can run businesses better than the private sector, then maybe you should check out how they are doing with the post office and amtrak....

Side: Trickle Down
Bohemian(3866) Disputed
1 point

Who built their million dollar houses? who prepared their $2000 dollar meals? who build the furniture that fills those houses? Who built the cars and jets they buy? how can you say they dont invest in our economy and then cite those things they spend money on that absolutely DO invest in our economy?

Isn't this essentially the same thing as "pork barrel spending" (aka Public works projects) that republicans are always railing against? Instead of giving businesses money, you're giving the Rich money (in the form of tax cuts), so they will spend it on goods and services. It's the same basic principal.

Side: Pump Prime
Thewayitis(4069) Disputed
0 points

Most of time these houses purchased were built a long time ago and thus doesn't help the economy. The furniture they purchase is often antiques and specialty items of the sort, that were not made recently. That $2000 meal most of it went to the restaurant, pennies went for the food and employees.

As stated the rich only invest in the rich. It never trickles down, these words are used to deceive the public. One down. It is like saying something needs to be privatized, this means corporate owned.

Side: Pump Prime
-1 points

Egypt used the trickle down method and it has worked great (see current news).

Side: Pump Prime
1 point

HA, HA, HA, GET A CLUE MAN.

First, Egypt is still for the most part an centralized economy.

Second, since 1981, emergency law took over, which gave broad policy authority that grants police the power to seize and detain anyone without charge indefinitely and limit freedom of expression assembly; basically, what this is oppression where government openly steals from the public, which is a byproduct of the unemployment and inflation. Egypt Government officials loot for themselves instead in the U.S. government loots for other people. Non difference I guess. Government loots.

Side: Trickle Down
Thewayitis(4069) Disputed
0 points

My point you proved with your own post and yet still tag it as trickle down. Governments are bought and paid for, this is a constant. Whether it is a democracy, dictatorship, etc. letting the rich get richer is the same. Rich people getting richer is also the same. One can conclude the economic impact would also be the same.

Side: Pump Prime
Lisajo(38) Disputed
1 point

Wait...what??? Egypt used the trickle down method?? do you just fast forward thru the news to get to the commercials?? The only trickle down method they used was, billions of our tax dollars went to them, their government took it and trickled down enough to keep them from starving.....

Side: Trickle Down
Thewayitis(4069) Disputed
0 points

According to you, if you give money to the rich everybody prospers. Well the leader of Egypt is worth more than Bill Gates, then there shouldn't be any poor people. After all it trickled down to everyone else, didn't it.

Side: Pump Prime