Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's not trickle down. Trickle down is the idea that the more wealth at the top, the faster the economy will grow. That's because they assume people will spend that money.
They don't, that's the problem.
You are wrong.
The reason is that you are trying to apply Keynesian principles to supply side economics.
Suppy side economics is based on the principle that the drivers of our economy: investors, entrepeneurs, and innovators, require capital in order to operate. The best way to ensure that they have capital and are not hindered is to keep tax rates low. These people then utilize their money so that businesses expand, funded by investment capital, and facilitating creative innovation. Expanson of business creates jobs, and the tax base is widened because more people are working.
Every time supply side economics has been implemented, there has been more tax revenue generated than when it has not. Witness the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush administrations.
The only reason that liberals oppose supply side economics is because it works, and is associated with Republican politics. It also runs counter to the liberal ideal of central control, and people being dependent on government.
Liberals are willing to create a poor economy (as evidenced by our continued Obama Recession) so long as they can control the populace by preventing job growth and discouraging self sufficency.
No, it's the local VOTERS who elect the local government officials (and therefore approve their appointees) that are the arbiters of what willing property owners are allowed to sell.
Local voters are rent seekers and protectionists. Since homeowners almost always constitute a majority of local voters, homeowners are effectively able to restrict home purchase to newcomers only if they meet community economic standards. Don't like renters? Zone them out. If you can't zone them out - sometimes, well-funded developers prevail over homeowners at the ballot box - tax the snot out of their homes.
It's effectively legal class warfare, and the poor never win that battle. At best, the poor are (until they are priced out of town) spectators in the development wars fought between homeowners and developers.
The reason is that you are trying to apply Keynesian principles to supply side economics.
Suppy side economics is based on the principle that the drivers of our economy: investors, entrepeneurs, and innovators, require capital in order to operate. The best way to ensure that they have capital and are not hindered is to keep tax rates low. These people then utilize their money so that businesses expand, funded by investment capital, and facilitating creative innovation. Expanson of business creates jobs, and the tax base is widened because more people are working.
Every time supply side economics has been implemented, there has been more tax revenue generated than when it has not. Witness the Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush administrations.
The only reason that liberals oppose supply side economics is because it works, and is associated with Republican politics. It also runs counter to the liberal ideal of central control, and people being dependent on government.
Liberals are willing to create a poor economy (as evidenced by our continued Obama Recession) so long as they can control the populace by preventing job growth and discouraging self sufficency.
Very anti-American if you ask me.
I require capital in order to operate , and in my experience, low tax rates are followed by exorbitant rent increases, making me worse off.
Which is better for an unskilled burger flipper, a poor economy or a booming economy?
You're getting the same federal government benefits and services that the middle class gets, but paying more than 50% less for them. What are you complaining about?
What government benefits and services am I getting? Quantify them.
Putting aside semantics about what benefits and services are, I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. Since you think so inwardly on such issues: The burger flipper that uses the road to get to his job, doesn't compare to the small business owner who relies on the roads for his workers to get to work, to move his product/service, to get his customer to his product/service. Or the doctor relies on the roads for his patients to get to his practice or the hospital is greater than the sum of each individual. Everything is intertwined...
Let's intertwine the taxes that pay for that infrastructure then. Capitation tax (head tax). Everyone shares the costs equally.
Your premise is patently absurd. Remove the roads, infrastructure, etc., and you remove any access whatsoever to burgers so there's no need whatsoever for burger flippers. Same is true of any other product or service. No mode of distribution? No access to the product/services? No need for jobs. So, since everyone relies on the infrastructure, everyone should pay for it.
You're paying less than 4% in federal income tax. That's far less than even the middle class pays. In fact, it's more than 50% less.
Far less than even the middle class pays? Are you sure about that? Did you include the untaxed employment freebies that constitute a large proportion of middle class compensation?
Investments accessible to accredited investers are also easily available to the masses. From your own link, the masses have access to those investments through:
- a bank, insurance company, registered investment company, business development company, or small business investment company
- an employee benefit plan, within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, if a bank, insurance company, or registered investment adviser makes the investment decisions, or if the plan has total assets in excess of $5 million
- a director, executive officer, or general partner of the company selling the securities
Anyone can open an account with a low-cost broker and access those investments.
Because everyone thinks, deep down inside, that they can be that super rich guy. They also want to feel as though they are the ones doing the trickling.
Not only do they think they can, they think they will
That makes no sense. Explain how the rich get more military protection than any other U.S. resident, even the illegal immigrants.
I figure the value of US citizenship and residency is incalculable, even priceless. And that is one thing I have NO QUALMS about not being able to quantify. (And I don't think qualms can be quantified either.)
If the rich think they are overtaxed or underserved here, they should try putting their money and their persons in a third world country, and see how safe they are there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, and in my experience, low tax rates are followed by exorbitant rent increases, making me worse off. 
