Trickle-down theory is more of a general idea than a specific economic policy. It is defined as any policy which is intended to overly benefit wealthy businesses or individuals in the short term with the long term goal of boosting standard of living for all people. For example, during the financial crisis in 2008 where major banks were bailed out by the government, the immediate beneficiaries were the banks with the end goal of helping everyone, not just the banks. Trickle-down theory took shape during the Reagan administration mainly in the form of enormous tax cuts, such as cutting the tax rate of the highest individual income bracket from 70 to just 28 percent and cutting the tax rate of corporations from 48 to 34 percent.
But then how did the government tax revenue actually increase from $517 billion to $909 billion during Reagan’s presidency? This can be explained by the Laffer Curve, a theory developed by Arthur Laffer, an economic advisor to Reagan. This curve modeled the government’s tax revenue as a bell curve. At a 0% tax rate, the government would, of course, receive no money. At a 100% tax rate, individuals would have no reason to make money so the government would also make no money. Somewhere in between, there was a spot where the government could maximize tax revenue. If the tax was increased past that spot, the government would make less because people and businesses would be less incentivized to make money. A business would be more likely to figure out ways to protect itself from taxation or would try to move parts of its assets overseas, rather than attempting to grow. Individuals would see a larger and larger portion of their paycheck taken away the harder they worked. Businesses would also have less money to reinvest. With more money, businesses could hire more workers and expand, which would benefit the economy overall.
Reagan was largely successful at hitting his four original goals, although less so in some areas compared to others. Government spending still increased even with reduced domestic program spending because of increased military spending, however the growth rate of government spending was reduced. Tax cuts were far and away the largest move Reagan made in pursuit of Reaganomics. Reagan eliminated controls on oil and gas and deregulated cable TV, long-distance telephone, and other industries. However, he did keep in place health, safety, and environmental regulations. Stagflation was ended, albeit after a recession in 1981 and 1982, with inflation and unemployment hitting 4% and 6% respectively.
Overall, the economy certainly improved during Reagan’s presidency. Whether that was due to his “voodoo economics” or due to outside factors is still widely debated. During the period of Reagan’s presidency came the end of stagflation and from 1982 to 2000 the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased by a factor of 14 while the economy added 40 million jobs.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reaganomics.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp
http://www.ushistory.org/us/59b.asp
https://www.thebalance.com/reaganomics-did-it-work-would-it-today-3305569
Shawn, I really enjoyed your post about Reaganomics. I learned a lot about what Reaganomics is but I wanted to know more about how successful it was. Although you mentioned that many new jobs were created and tax revenue went up, some negative statistic about Reaganomics that I found were that the federal debt nearly tripled, from $997 billion in 1981 to $2.857 trillion in 1989 and the increase in spending was less than it was for Carter. Using the source https://www.thebalance.com/reaganomics-did-it-work-would-it-today-3305569 I also found out that unemployment actually rose during the first part of Reagan's term and the decrease in inflation is also mostly the success of Carter's economic plan. After reading your post I see that Reaganomics makes sense and is not "voodoo economics." I think that it would have been more successful if he talked with Gorbachev earlier so he did not have to increase military spending and the debt. If he did not have to do this he could have pumped even more money into the economy and created even more jobs.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Shawn, your explanation of the trickle-down theory and the Laffer Curve is really clear and understandable. What is most striking to me is the similarity between the above mentioned Reagan economic policy and the one currently in place under Trump's administration. Both presidents have lowered the tax rates on the higher tax brackets while at the same time increasing the defense budget, and the federal budget deficits (government debt) have both increased as well. A question I have is this: if the government kept lower taxes on the rich but also decreased the defense budget, would that be enough to lessen the federal deficit? Or would taxes also have to be increased in order to decrease the debt?
ReplyDeleteSource:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/02/09/trumps-federal-budget-deficit-1-trillion-and-beyond/#5790ea51544f
Shawn, your post about Reaganomics was very interesting, and while researching further, I specifically found the topic of the Laffer Curve quite interesting. Developed in 1979, the Laffer Curve explains how only tax levels that are low enough to not burden economic growth, but won't harm government revenue. While this theory seems sound, it does not take into account that for this to work, tax breaks must actually stimuate new jobs. For example, in 2001 and 2003, Bush lowered taxes in order to promote economic growth, but a lack of new jobs caused the witnessed economic growth to be a result of lowered interest rates. So far, Trump has followed this policy of tax cuts to stimulate economic growth, as he plans to cut income taxes and lower the corporate tax rate to 21 percent. Do you think this policy will be successful? Will his tax cuts work to stimulate economic growth or will they end up harming the government's revenue?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-laffer-curve-explanation-3305566
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/#72e8887c9ac9
https://www.thebalance.com/donald-trump-economic-plan-3994106