Subject:
|
Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:51:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2340 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Tim already gave a good answer, but I’d add that a booming economy doesn’t
help those in the lower income bracket, even if they’re there not out of
laziness but out of circumstance. Why is wealth-redistribution acceptable
when it’s redistributed to the wealthy, but not to the poor? The argument
is that the wealthy will put the money back into the economy. Well, what
are the impoverished going to do with it? Burn it?
|
The idea is that it gets reinvested into businesses which further spurs
growth, jobs, and wage increases.
|
That would be nice if it were true, but despite two administrations espousing
that view, it has yet to work as promised. It fails for a number of reasons.
First, you can’t build a business if there isn’t a demand to support it, and
if the masses are impoverished, then your business won’t be supported. That
is, if a rich guy’s widget factory closed because nobody could afford to buy
widgets, then if you give the rich guy a barrel of money, he’s not going to
reopen his failed business. He’s going to take it elsewhere. And in today’s
world much investment is made overseas, so if you give money to that same
rich guy, he’s going to send it out of the country.
|
Well, let’s be honest here. If your product is too expensive for the masses in
the USA, it probably doesn’t stand much of a chance in an even MORE empoverished
world market overseas, especially with foreign governments’ market-protection
policies (tariffs, etc).
WE are THE market; we are THE CONSUMERS; WE fuel the world economy. This, BTW,
is a blessing AND a curse IMO.
| |
But if you use that money to assist those on the lower rungs,
|
How specifically? Education? We do that.
| |
they will
put it back into the US economy, indirectly giving it to that same rich guy
after all, but helping out a greater portion of the population along the way.
|
The problem is that they don’t use that help to better their situation and
become productive, but to simply secure themselves to the public teet.
Governmental help too often foils the motivation for improvement, as manifested
in worker morale in a communist society.
| |
The method praised by Bush and Reagan is simply a means of funneling cash to
the rich without having to worry about maybe-just-maybe helping someone along
the way.
|
We should define “rich”. About whom are you speaking using this term, Dave!?
| |
| |
| |
Some boats rise higher on a rising tide, not because of merit but because
they started higher (and because they’re not averse to dropping their
anchors (ie., the tax burden) onto the other boats.
|
Life isn’t fair?
|
Well, no kidding. Every man for himself, and God against all, right? I
submit that that’s a regressive, feudalist view, and it’s hardly a Christian
sentiment for that matter!
|
Not at all! I’m a Christian, and I certainly believe that life isn’t fair!
I don’t know how one can look at the world and honestly believe otherwise!
God’s hand in it all is one of the biggest mysteries to this believer.
| |
| |
Waging class war is just destructive;
|
Republicans are the aggressors in that war. Any time a Democrat, a
Progressive, or a Liberal says “maybe the poor shouldn’t be punished for
being poor,” some Rightwing mouthpiece starts screaming about class warfare.
It’s a red herring.
|
I want to help the poor. I do it. I just don’t think that the government is
the proper vehicle for that job in most circumstances.
| |
| |
But let’s be honest-- the poor don’t pay income tax-- tax cuts
favor the rich because they are the ones who pay the taxes. The top 5% of
wage earners in this country pay over half of our taxes-- the top half of
wage earners pay nearly ALL taxes.
|
That’s another red herring. The top 5% of wage earners control more than 80%
of the wealth, so they’re getting quite a bargain if they’re only paying half
of the nation’s taxes.
|
Well, I’m ALL for tax reform. Personally, I’d like to see the IRS abolished and
a VAT installed. That way the rich get soaked, and best of all, it is by
themselves-- what could be sweeter (and fairer) than that?
A VAT is the ONLY way to truly make the “rich” pay, because they have so many
loopholes available to them that aren’t for the unwashed.
| |
There’s more clarification to be made in terms of payroll vs. income tax and
how the difference punishes the poor more than the rich, but that’s a bigger
issue.
|
I really dislike discussing our tax system because it really sucks, and I wish
it would all just be wiped clean and begun anew...
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
| (...) Not quite true any more. The EU is providing a balanced offset against the US nowadays (look at the strength of the Euro). From a world markets point of view the US is playing less of a role. And I wouldn't whinge about tariffs. Check how much (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Supply-Side Economics? The Evidence Says No!
|
| (...) That would be nice if it were true, but despite two administrations espousing that view, it has yet to work as promised. It fails for a number of reasons. First, you can't build a business if there isn't a demand to support it, and if the (...) (18 years ago, 17-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
