FEOS wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
What's being proposed is a trickle down effect which has been tried endlessly in various countries for decades and actually does exactly the opposite to what is proposed. Giving rich people more money means they don't have to bother expanding their business to make more money because the tax break did it for them without any effort or risk on their behalf.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/busin … wanted=allIt turns out that in reality, the best way to make rich people expand their businesses is to tax them MORE, not less.
Actually, do you remember the economic boon of the 90's? Guess where that came from. That damn Reagan and his trickle-down economics.
The poorest of Americans don't even pay taxes, so that part of the argument holds no weight--there's nothing to rebate to them. The vast majority of the tax rebates are for those middle-class families (like mine) who pay their fair share of taxes. I believe it cuts off at something like $200k per year household income. So no...not the ridiculously wealthy.
Bi-partisanship FTW!
As the link showed, Buh's tax cuts have saved the richest couple of percent as much as the rest of the populace put together. The 90s boom as the result of the Reganomics was amazing on the basis of occuring at the same time as a decline in real wages. The boom was fantastic for rich people, while the rest of the populace got poorer.
Since regan, the median wage has stagnated or dropped, this was partially countered by the populace being forced to work longer hours to make up the shortfall (again disproving the trickle down effect, that would have suggested as relative wages dropped people would work less). Eventually extending working hours reached it's reasonable limit and people were forced to begin borrowing resulting in this current problem.
Combined weekly work hours for dual-earning couples with children rose 10 hours per week, from 81 hours in 1977 to 91 hours in 2002, according to a new study by the New York-based Families and Work Institute.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace … over_x.htmGovernment agencies have indeed provided millions of Americans with much needed aid. Nevertheless, our country has not won the War on Poverty. In 1996, millions more Americans lived in poverty than in 1964. A 1996 Fordham University report says that the country's social well-being has reached its lowest point in a quarter century, with children and young people suffering the most.
http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/childpov.htmIn the 1980-2007 period the income of the top 1% quadrupled. (see link in previous post)
Regan's trickle down policy only ever trickled up. They've been terrible for the vast majority of the populace. It's a perfect example of the failure of the trickle down effect.
Yes there's little point in tax rebates for the poor, that wasn't what I suggested. I suggested scrapping the tax cuts for the wealthy and spending that money on things that benefit everyone in society. This way the poor do gain money. The obvious example is healthcare, if everyone pays for it by increasing taxes, as we know the majority of tax money comes from the rich, so they will end up paying more of it. This means the poor get healthcare at a far lower cost. Infact the near-poor and middle income groups also gain from this. this frees up the money they were spending on healthcare so they can buy more stuff, stimulating demand and helping businesses to grow.
Yes it's bi-partisan, America has no labour party, nobody actually representing the interests of the workers. The two big business parties agree to throw money at rich people. Now there's a shock.
Last edited by PureFodder (2008-01-31 04:07:19)
