1: Incentivise job creation and innovation rather than just give personal tax cuts to the wealthy hoping for, or at least arguing that it creates jobs. For example, tax breaks for bringing back jobs that have been outsourced overseas, new technology industries that benefit the country. As far as the wealthy and the tax breaks, the discussion now is over 3%, from 36 to 39%, hardly anything that will break a wealthy person since it didn't 20 years ago under Clinton, but enough to bring in a great deal of additional revenue.
2: A new business would be great and the wealthy person would be able to qualify for the incentives I mentioned in 1. Sure their investment is used as capital for a lot of things, so is the money you and I put away in whatever 401k's, Roth's or any other investment and tax breaks are given for some to encourage certain investments. What would create more jobs, the sale of one plane, or creating the conditions where bringing more jobs back or incentivising long term jobs for more people so that even more people have the ability to purchase, maybe not a plane, but together the value of thousands of planes?
Do you have evidence that trickle down economics, or as Bush Sr. said "Voodoo economics" has worked for the country, rather than the top 5-10%?
FuzzNJ wrote:
This is utterly laughable.
First, putting up incentives for creating jobs only leads to jobs that pay lower, and have less upward mobility. That's because the employer will kee the job as low pay as possible, to maximize the profit from the free money.
Because, frankly, if the incentives does not - at a minimum - cover the cost of the job (and all of the money that goes into the benefits and taxes paid out), then no one in their right frickin' mind will hire the person for the incentive.
They did this with Bill Clinton's crime bill. The end cost paid out to local municipalities was something like $10,000 to cover the cost of a job whose base salary at the time was something like $20,000. And, it nowhere near covered the costs of the public pension, medical benefits, or other types of insurance. By the time that all that is factored in, the incentive maybe covers one-third of the actual cost to hire a cop.
Basically, Fuzz you're advocating taking from the producers - which are businesses and corporations - and then giving it back to them in the forms of "incentives" which NEVER cover the costs of the jobs in the first place. This is mainly because a huge chunk of the money is consumed in administrative overhead and ourright graft and fraud (not to mention the redirection of funds that occurs often in government).
Furthermore, trickle-down economics was the driver for the boom in the computer industry. There were lots of computers available back in the mid-1970s, when Carter was in office. However, because of Carter's Keynesean approach, no single business in their right mind would shell-out the money because either the margins weren't there, and/or they couldn't justify the costs.
That all changed when Reagan cut taxes, and individuals and businesses had the extra cash to spend. People purchased more products. Profit margins increased, and businesses could now cost-justify the expense of technology.
I know this because this is what happened with my family business. We had to keep the books manually, and at times we could barely make payroll during the Carter years. After Reagan's tax cuts, we had the liquid cash to purchase a mid-range computer system, and pay for customized software. That's because they could cost-justify the initial expense- which was substantial at that time - and realize a cost-savings ove a period of years. You can't do that if you're on a cash-only basis with your suppliers.
So, in short, the very PC you're using to type your inane and clueless drivel is a PRIME EXAMPLE of what comes out of trickle-down economics.
I lived through the Carter years, and the Reagan years. I know what it was like. I know what happened to our family business, and why. You must have either lived in a cave, or spent most of your youth continually rubbing one out to gay porn. Either way, your assertion that trickle-down economics didn't work is utterly moronic.
Fuzz...you are nieve at best, and a clueless dolt at the worst. I'm betting on the latter.
