Call it what you will - "Supply Side Economics" "Reaganomics" "Trickle Down Economics" "Voodo Economics" - its all the same theory that tax cuts for the wealthy will somehow spur growth in our economy and benefit all.
History has proven this theory to be baseless, bogus, and in fact produces opposite results - so why do politicians keep repackaging it, and the very working class that it damages vote for them? Its so stupid! Why? Why?!
2007-12-14 05:50:43 · 13 answers · asked by slushpile reader 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The only way even in THEORY for supply side economics to work is to pair it with government spending cuts. The Bush administration tax cuts (largely for the wealthy) - and the argument of getting deeper cuts for deeper contribution is bogus - he also cut capital gains & did away with the estate tax (calling it a "death tax" to raise fear that - "this could happen to me without disclosing that it only applied to estates valued at over 1.5 million dollars) costing the government about 55 billion dollars a year - while simultaneously INCREASING spending by a whopping 33% in his first term alone, engaged us in 2 wars, AND increased government bureaucracy.
2007-12-14 07:48:46 · update #1
these people says it works but don't post any links to support that.yeah and bush tax cuts help to stop the biggest debt in american history
2007-12-14 05:58:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
You might want to read the following:
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/taxes/taxbook/taxbook3.html
You might also be surprised to know that since Bush's tax cuts which RETURNED money to EVERY tax payer, the budget deficit has been decreasing rapidly. Decreasing at an unexpected pace. (Your contention of inequity ignores the fact that the wealthy benefit more from a tax cut because they pay FAR MORE in taxes to begin with. You can't have it both ways ~ expecting them to pay much more in taxes and then get less in a tax cut. That's just unbridled greed on your part.) In fact, projections are that revenues will surpass expenses within the next couple of years. Then, we start paying back money borrowed.
You see, recession...which is what Bush inherited, ALWAYS results in a deficit. Income during a recession is no where close to what it is during a good economy. So the trick is to turn a recession around and get the economy going again which, again, is what the tax cuts did. This fact has been proven and demonstrated time and time again.
And if you think the 'working class' benefits more from a recession than a good economy, you need a lot more education than this board can provide to you.
Hope that helps.
2007-12-14 14:09:22 · answer #2 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
"why", indeed. there was a time when the core slogan was...what's good for general motors, is good for the economy. too many still believe the concept.
65% to 75% of the jobs in America are generated locally by relatively "small" business. yet...the majority of tax and subsidy benefits go to "big" business. this due to their ability to influence legislation.
for example...a provision, in a recent bill, that would have taxed big oil to fund alternative energy sources, was removed. this is absurd.
2007-12-14 14:08:57 · answer #3 · answered by bilez1 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Cons still believe this...the only thing that has ever spurred the economy is governmental investment on a large scale or a major war.
Trickle down economics only helps the rich get a better tax break.
2007-12-14 13:58:21 · answer #4 · answered by Triumph 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Um yah. Voodo is actuallyy apart of budsist
2007-12-14 14:06:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Perhaps because the actual numbers show it DOES work. If the tax burden on those who are actually productive is lessened, they produce even more. That's why the tax receipts go UP when tax rates go down.
Claiming that something doesn't work does not make it so.
2007-12-14 13:58:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Have any proof of it not working?
Also Tax cuts are for everyone, not just the rich. I gothem and I'm not rich. I'm going to have to call your bluff unless you can back it up.
2007-12-14 14:05:43 · answer #7 · answered by mbush40 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well, you guys seemed to like it in the 90s, when the benefits of Reaganomics played out.
Someone has to invest in businesses to create jobs. And it's much easier to do that if you aren't coughing up fifty or sixty percent of your income to the government.
2007-12-14 13:58:19 · answer #8 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
History has proven that supply side economics do not work?
Where's that proof? If you say there's proof, show it to us!
2007-12-14 13:59:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Ummm, it actually worked here, and it's working around the world as we speak.
Love Jack
2007-12-14 13:54:40 · answer #10 · answered by Jack 5 · 6⤊ 4⤋