Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dda
And what would have been the result of them paying more taxes? More revenue? That is not what history suggests. If not more revenue for the government then what. Punishing accomplishment? Taxes are a very complicated thing and raising taxes often results in less investment, less profits, less jobs and greater distress at the bottom end of the scale. One cannot have a zero tax rate and one cannot have a 100% tax rate. A tax rate has to be set in a fashion which encourages growth and pays the necessary bills.
The real question, for me, is are the bottom 50% better or worse off than they were before. On the whole, since there were more jobs and their portion of the overall tax burden was smaller, they benefited from the tax cuts. The problem can be that when you raise the portion of taxes paid by the wealthiest, you become ever more dependent upon their income to support all of the sevices which society deems important. When an economic downturn occurs the rich have less income which results in a very large short fall in revenues. This causes a lot of problems and guess who usually gets screwed first when services are cut? You guessed it! The people utilizing the services. So, the bottom half, using most of the social service budget come out on the short end of the stick.
|
I've said it beofre and I'll say it again. Trickle down economics does not work.
Also, there's a lot of people contained in that 50% and what is good for one is not necessarily good for the other.
So to reduce the rick of poor people suffering from welfare cuts we should not give them a better system at all? Genius!
If I recall correctly, the USA doesn't have too much taxation, relative to other countries.