Pragmatic Policy · Investigation · Policy
The working-class dollar does more work.
Give a dollar to someone living paycheck to paycheck and it gets spent — locally, fast. Give it to someone already rich and it mostly sits. Not a moral claim; an accounting one.
FACT
§2 · Thesis
The marginal propensity to consume falls with income, so the same dollar generates more near-term activity when it reaches people who spend it than people who save it.
'Velocity' is the hook; the measured mechanism is MPC and fiscal multipliers. Put the marginal dollar where it moves.
§5 · Graded Claim
The marginal propensity to consume falls with income — poorer households spend a much larger share of an extra dollar than rich ones.
FACT
One of the most stable findings in economics, Keynes to modern micro-data: rebate studies (Parker, Souleles et al.) and bank-transaction data (JPMorgan Chase Institute) show a steep MPC gradient by income and liquidity.
§5 · Graded Claim
So fiscal help aimed at lower-income households has a bigger 'multiplier' than tax cuts skewed to high earners.
PROBABLY TRUE
CBO and Moody's/Zandi multiplier tables consistently rank aid to the hard-pressed (UI, food aid, direct payments) above high-end tax cuts. PROBABLY TRUE: magnitudes are state-dependent (bigger with slack), but the ranking by recipient is robust.
§5 · Graded Claim
A rising share of the wealthy's marginal saving chases existing assets, bidding up prices rather than funding new activity.
SOME SMOKE
The 'dollars to the rich just inflate the S&P' claim points at something real (savings glut, rising wealth-to-income ratios, high valuations) but cleanly attributing asset inflation to distribution specifically is hard — SOME SMOKE, and the load-bearing claims don't depend on it.
§6 · Record vs Narrative
Competing theories, rebutted.
The counter-cases
- 'Saving funds investment that grows the economy.'
- 'Velocity is just an identity (MV=PQ).'
- 'Redistribution shrinks saving, hurts growth.'
Why each falls short
- True when capital's the constraint; today's constraint is demand.
- We don't rest on velocity — the claim is MPC/multipliers.
- IMF/OECD: lower inequality is neutral-to-good for growth.
§5 · Graded Claim
Reducing inequality hasn't, on balance, cost growth — and may support it.
PROBABLY TRUE
IMF (Ostry, Berg & Tsangarides 2014) and OECD (Cingano 2014): lower net inequality is associated with faster, more durable growth; redistribution except at extremes is broadly benign. The equality-vs-growth tradeoff is far weaker than assumed.
Declassified
Honest limits: the MPC gradient is rock-solid, but multiplier magnitudes are contested and state-dependent, and 'velocity' is a metaphor we cash out into MPC so nobody mistakes a monetarist identity for the argument.
§7 · Why it matters now
Put the marginal dollar where it moves.
This is the engine under two other pieces of the plan: the demand-side reason to tax wealth like work (a dollar compounding untaxed in a portfolio does less real work than one recirculating through households), and the reason a strong income floor is not just humane but macro-economically productive.
▸ Pragmatic Policy →
▦ Ledger gaps
Help us fill these lines.
- OpenExact fiscal-multiplier magnitudes — robust in ranking, contested in size.
- OpenHow cleanly income distribution (vs. other forces) drives asset-price inflation.
Help fill these →