2 ms·
In the distant--but not too distant--past, "the rich" often meant business owners who might make a lot of money, but employed a lot of people. The idea of cutti
by deltarholamda 5y ago
In the distant--but not too distant--past, "the rich" often meant business owners who might make a lot of money, but employed a lot of people. The idea of cutting taxes would mean more available capital for business expansion.
It's not really the case so much anymore. A decent Silicon Valley salary would put you in the top 10% of earners, and a Python programmer doesn't usually hire a lot of people. Top 1%ers tend to be of the financial rent-seeking sort, who might hire some people, but they're not expanding the concrete pylon plant to another state or anything like that, which would expand middle class wages and/or employment.
The gutting of the industrial base since Reagan cut high tax rates for the top earners demonstrates that things don't always work out how you expect.
- lostcolony 5y agoBusiness investments have always been a deductible expense. The idea that by saving rich people money, they would invest it in their business, is obviously bullshit; they can just invest the money and not be taxed on it anyway. It's doubly bullshit given that businesses are also separate taxable entities. Don't take the money out of the business if you don't want it to be taxed as income; invest it back in so it becomes an expense, and neither you nor the business (effectively) pay taxes on it. So, no. Even with a solid industrial base, "trickle down economics" was still just as obviously bullshit.