Trickle Down Economics

One does not need to be a liberal to understand that certain economic policies that have been advocated by conservatives are counterproductive for a great deal of society.  Trickle down economics might not be as popular as historical records suggest it was when Reagan was president, but elements of it appear in the approach to economics contemporary conservatives often take, since they strongly oppose any sort of increase on taxation for the upper class even when this would be both better for taxes than taking more money from the lower class (there is far more money to be taxed) and ease the financial burden of poverty.

Under trickle down economics, tax breaks or other benefits are explicitly given to those who need them the least--the wealthy in the business world--because they will allegedly "trickle down" to the typical person given enough time.  The flaw with this idea is that wealth does not necessarily "trickle down" the way that some conservatives think, and even then, trickling down from a wealthy person to a lower class person is not some grand resolution to the problem of poverty.  The word trickle itself refers to a very small or slow movement of something from one place to another, which is precisely what those in the lower class do not need.

Trickle down economics is a clear example of directly favoring the wealthy or those with a greater ability to change their economic status in order to possibly, eventually benefit those of a much lower economic position.  There is nothing at all wrong with being wealthy as long as one did not personally attain it through unjust means, but it is far from true that the rich "need" exemptions from taxes or tax breaks in order to keep society, much less a random business, afloat.  If any tax breaks are to be given, they are most helpful when received by the lower class.  Those at the top of the class system, the ones targeted with tax breaks under trickle down economics, will be completely alright either way.

Liberals might despise the wealthy simply for having and conservatives might revere them in at least some arbitrary situations (and this does not mean every single liberal or conservative is like this, only that their assumption-riddled philosophies easily lend themselves to this), but when it comes to taxation, it is clearly more beneficial to society to have much lower taxes on those who cannot afford to pay as much as those with far more resources.  The myth of trickle down economics is that wealth just transfers from one class to another when the upper class is exempt from certain tax rates that others will still have to pay.  Again, even then, that would not automatically be enough to help people in the lower class stay financially afloat.