Why are tax cuts for the rich so bad?

Question

Economically speaking, isn't it better for economic growth to put the money in the hands of those who are productive as oppose to leaving it up to the politicians to flush it down the drain half the time?

Please explain how a tax cut doesn't help when you consider that money can only be spent, invested, or saved. Spent money increases the GDP directly, invested money means more money for business growth, with increases jobs directly, and saved money (not including money in the mattress) increases the money supply of financial institutions at least 4 to 1, giving more money to businesses, thus creating more jobs.

Furthermore, when those who receive tax relief invest that money, and that money produces profit, doesn't this mean it has effectively added value in the economy? What basis to we ever have to know if government spending has added any value?

Shouldn't the bigger issue be with the disgusting amount of wasteful spending both parties push for in Congress?

Answer 1

thank you well said.

Answer 2

As a "rich" guy let me put in my two cents. I can't afford to put in more than two cents because I have so much money invested I can't come up with two dimes to rub together. I invest in companies that produce items that go to market. I employ people to make these things. Those I employ thank me and I thank them for their labor. I could go broke tomorrow as my risk is related to the free transportation of goods and many other variables. My employees depend on me to continue paying them If my tax burdon goes up I have to let people go or work less hours. This effects their income and mine. I pay over ten $ per hour so every hour I cut back directly effects my employees. I can absorb only so much overhead which taxes are. The more I produce the mor I sell overseas, The more I sell overseas the more GDP is effected which is good for America. This country cannot afford to allow more of its labor force to go outside the borders. That is a disaster and will cause horrible inflation and dependancy on foriegn products. This might help, hope so.

Answer 3

Your problem is that you assume you are speaking to intelligent, educated people. You aren't. For example, there was a question not long ago about if Clinton was impeached. He was, it is an unquestionable fact. Yet a lot of people said he wasn't. Even if you don't know the answer, all you have to do is look on Google or Wikipedia or something, yet so many people had no clue.

Anybody with basic math skills know that tax cuts for anybody (even the rich) is a good thing. Despite that, we still have almost 50% of the country voting for people that oppose tax cuts. Sadly, many Americans are just ignorant and uneducated. Our government (being a democratically elected republic) is a reflection of our people, and therefore will never improve until the people themselves improve.

Answer 4

A tax cut back in itself ability letting you keep extra of the money you have earned. this could be a good situation in itself. this is relegated with the aid of fact all of us be responsive to government is significant and needs money to function, The question is what ought to government do and how plenty money does it decide for? Trickle down economics works as against government redistribution in step with a pair fundamentals. a million) you're probable extra clever at making an investment/spending/using your cash on your self than government. 2) there is friction in government spending; while you're taxed $a hundred to purchase a product, then ~$10-$20 will pass to paying the beauracracy that provides no value to the economic device. So government will ought to deliver jointly $a hundred and twenty from you to purchase a $a hundred merchandise. Tax cuts will continually disproportionately help the wealthy basically as a upward push will harm them extra. you need to continually be careful of individuals who try in charge an common aim. often this is to divert blame and get you offended on the incorrect human beings.

Answer 5

Any tax cut for the poor will also be a tax cut for "the rich." It is actually the "rich people" who pay most of the taxes. The top 50% of wage earners pay >90% of all the taxes. I'm tired of hearing how those "rich people" don't pay their fair share. So, let's say that the rich should give their money to the poor...oh wait, they ALREADY DO via the fed gov't. It is called the progressive tax system which finds its roots in Karl Marx. A FairTax is really the only way to go.

For all you answers who are mentioning those "poor people" why not find some of them and ask what % of their wages they paid in fed income tax in 2005. I but most are in the single digits percentage.

Answer 6

The idea of it being bad is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If the poor got richer and the rich got poorer the economy would level out more and the government wouldn't have to spend as much on aid.

Answer 7

tax cuts don't "trickle down" to the poor, as Ronald Reagan suggested they would; they're best disbursed over the lower and middle-income brackets, where most of the spending is done, so the consumers have more spending power, they will spend more, and real taxable income will increase (because consumers will buy from businesses, whose profits will increase, and thus they'll pay more taxes)

Answer 8

Totally agree and very well stated. Your argument is so logical it can't be refuted by the emotional warped mentality of liberal socialist. Someday they will realize this - just look at the newly formed Eastern European countries that have broken from communism and now have booming economies.

Answer 9

Good points.