Paul Sassone

Could up be better than down?

Did congressional Republicans ask themselves this question before they decided on their approach to changing the United States’ taxing structure?

Though monstrously complex in detail, both the House and Senate versions are based on a single vision, a single assumption.

That assumption is that massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans will ultimately benefit all Americans.

Allow corporations and the rich to keep more of their wealth and they will invest this money to create or expand business. This will result in job creation and increased wages for Americans with jobs. Benefits to the wealthy thus trickle down to everyone.

There is no objective evidence that that trickle-down economics works, that more wealth to the wealthy helps everyone. It is a belief.

Those who don’t share this belief contend making the rich richer will result in just that, that the rich will become richer. The rich are under no compulsion to invest that money. They will just keep it.

Since the Republican approach to taxation is based on a belief, might not a more valid approach to taxes be based on an exactly opposite belief?

Call this approach trickle-up economics.

Under trickle-up economics, massive tax cuts would be given to low- and middle-income Americans. This would allow millions of Americans to spend more on goods and services. And this increased demand would create jobs and increase wages.

Sure, trickle-up economics is a belief. But so is trickle-down economics.

But trickle-up economics has the huge advantage in that it benefits millions of Americans right away. No waiting for the wealthy to invest.

Trickle-up economics would be worth a try.

But, not from this Congress.

—Congress should try trickle-up economics?–