>I would go a step further and ask whether or not that $100 is better in the hands of a wealthy person or in those of the poor person. Certainly the latter can put it to great use buying necessities of life
There has been a lot of thought and data on this already. The answer is in - giving money to poor people is much "better" as the money travels much further. They buy the "necessities of life" quite quickly, and the money changes hands several times, benefiting other (mostly poor) people along the way. Wheras in the hands of a rich person the money is unlikely to do that. It mostly goes into an investment as there are no necessities of life urgently needed. (lower Marginal Propensity to Consume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume#... )
There has been a lot of thought and data on this already. The answer is in - giving money to poor people is much "better" as the money travels much further. They buy the "necessities of life" quite quickly, and the money changes hands several times, benefiting other (mostly poor) people along the way. Wheras in the hands of a rich person the money is unlikely to do that. It mostly goes into an investment as there are no necessities of life urgently needed. (lower Marginal Propensity to Consume http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume#... )
http://www.vosizneias.com/36051/2009/08/02/washington-food-s...
>I'm not really a fan of trickle-down economics, but I think it's more realistic
It is not. trickle-down economics has been tried and it failed. It is not a valid model of reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Criticis...
https://www.google.com/search?q=trickle+down+economics+doesn...