4 ms·

> Republicans are also openly for reducing burdens (both regulation and taxation) on the wealth producers so they can make more of it and spread it around. Wow

> Republicans are also openly for reducing burdens (both regulation and taxation) on the wealth producers so they can make more of it and spread it around. Wow, you really do drink the trickle-down effect Kool-Aid.

ctdonath 13y ago
You can't "spread the wealth" if there isn't any. Printing more money doesn't make more wealth, it just diffuses it more. If I stop working, you can't tax my now-nonexistent income.
- criley2 13y ago
  I don't believe there is correlation between a lessened burden on wealth producers and it being spread around. The burden on wealth producers is very low, one of the lowest points in the modern era. You would expect in this era of hyper-rich and low-taxation that the wealth would be spreading around. But it's not. Record profits for corporations (read: wealth producers) is turning into record stock highs, record numbers of billionaires and record lows for the middle class. I refuse your argument because the world around me clearly shows that our "wealth producers" have figured out how to depress labor costs and increase investor returns. Great for them, but that concept is 100% contrary to your "wealth producers spread wealth". No, wealth producers rightfully squeeze labor costs and rightfully return the biggest amount of money to themselves, their boards, and their investors. That's not spreading wealth downwards, it's spreading laterally only.
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    This isn't something you need to believe or not believe. The stats are in, decades of trickle down have not had the intended effect and various sources have shown this. It's a pretty well supported fact that lessening the tax burden on the mega rich doesn't cause them to go opening businesses and it's surprising people ever believed such nonsense. Why would a rich person take a risk on a new business venture when the a fund can provide a steady, predictable return year after year with very little downside?
    - criley2 13y ago
      I think it's because many people don't separate a businessman from the business. A businessman doesn't open more businesses when he has more money. A businessman opens businesses when investors will pay and the market will support it. Turns out, a businessman doesn't need his own money to start businesses, because without a market, there's no point of starting the business, and with a market, there is investment available to seize it.
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        A businessman will do those things, yes. A rich might generally won't (statistically speaking) beyond what ever business they already have, if any.

ctdonath 13y ago

You can't "spread the wealth" if there isn't any. Printing more money doesn't make more wealth, it just diffuses it more. If I stop working, you can't tax my now-nonexistent income.

criley2 13y ago
I don't believe there is correlation between a lessened burden on wealth producers and it being spread around. The burden on wealth producers is very low, one of the lowest points in the modern era. You would expect in this era of hyper-rich and low-taxation that the wealth would be spreading around. But it's not. Record profits for corporations (read: wealth producers) is turning into record stock highs, record numbers of billionaires and record lows for the middle class. I refuse your argument because the world around me clearly shows that our "wealth producers" have figured out how to depress labor costs and increase investor returns. Great for them, but that concept is 100% contrary to your "wealth producers spread wealth". No, wealth producers rightfully squeeze labor costs and rightfully return the biggest amount of money to themselves, their boards, and their investors. That's not spreading wealth downwards, it's spreading laterally only.
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  This isn't something you need to believe or not believe. The stats are in, decades of trickle down have not had the intended effect and various sources have shown this. It's a pretty well supported fact that lessening the tax burden on the mega rich doesn't cause them to go opening businesses and it's surprising people ever believed such nonsense. Why would a rich person take a risk on a new business venture when the a fund can provide a steady, predictable return year after year with very little downside?
  - criley2 13y ago
    I think it's because many people don't separate a businessman from the business. A businessman doesn't open more businesses when he has more money. A businessman opens businesses when investors will pay and the market will support it. Turns out, a businessman doesn't need his own money to start businesses, because without a market, there's no point of starting the business, and with a market, there is investment available to seize it.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      A businessman will do those things, yes. A rich might generally won't (statistically speaking) beyond what ever business they already have, if any.