With unemployment low and wages rising, the struggle for basic necessities like food should be easing. But those on the front lines of feeding the hungry say they are seeing the opposite.
That’s trickle down. You just described what we’ve been trying for the last 60 years. And in that time the only thing that’s happened is the wealthy take their tax breaks and hold on to it. They don’t create more jobs. They don’t pay their workers more. They store it in things like super yachts.
Lowering taxes does not create more economic activity unless they were burdensome to start with. Which is not a problem American rich people and Corporations have.
Either you are answering something else and clicked my post by error, or you haven’t paid attention to a single word except for the “lowering taxes” parts.
I’m talking about encouraging people to put in use as much as possible of what they own, which means that making interaction cheaper via lowering some taxes is important to do not only for the “lower income level” people, actually it’s most important for the “rich”. That’s the candy part of encouraging economic activity, and the boot part would be taxing properties (should be done carefully, or, say, large realty companies are going to be less affected than individual owners with only their apartment\house, which would be a complete failure).
This? This is the entirety of the comment, and it is the theory behind the massive tax breaks American politicians keep giving the wealthy. If you mean something else please let me know.
That you have to encourage circulation and discourage “hoarding”, which means that the former should be much more beneficial than the latter. For “the rich” as well.
“Tax breaks” are selective bullshit which shouldn’t ever happen.
Well then you’re just plain wrong. Because we’ve been lowering taxes on the wealthy for 60 years and they still aren’t circulating the money. We even tried giving them money. Just more yachts and stocks.
The actual history - yes, it doesn’t. The subjective picture in your head or mine - of course it does. And naturally I prefer my subjective picture, especially since you refused to read its description, arguing with your imagination instead.
Nobody fscking cares what you say to another person when it includes “you think this, and not what you are saying you think”, it’s nuts.
That’s trickle down. You just described what we’ve been trying for the last 60 years. And in that time the only thing that’s happened is the wealthy take their tax breaks and hold on to it. They don’t create more jobs. They don’t pay their workers more. They store it in things like super yachts.
Lowering taxes does not create more economic activity unless they were burdensome to start with. Which is not a problem American rich people and Corporations have.
Either you are answering something else and clicked my post by error, or you haven’t paid attention to a single word except for the “lowering taxes” parts.
This? This is the entirety of the comment, and it is the theory behind the massive tax breaks American politicians keep giving the wealthy. If you mean something else please let me know.
Yes, I meant what I wrote.
That you have to encourage circulation and discourage “hoarding”, which means that the former should be much more beneficial than the latter. For “the rich” as well.
“Tax breaks” are selective bullshit which shouldn’t ever happen.
Well then you’re just plain wrong. Because we’ve been lowering taxes on the wealthy for 60 years and they still aren’t circulating the money. We even tried giving them money. Just more yachts and stocks.
See, it won’t make a difference if I repeat what I said for the third time. You are just not getting it just as you are not getting economics.
All the moaning in the world doesn’t change history.
The actual history - yes, it doesn’t. The subjective picture in your head or mine - of course it does. And naturally I prefer my subjective picture, especially since you refused to read its description, arguing with your imagination instead.
Nobody fscking cares what you say to another person when it includes “you think this, and not what you are saying you think”, it’s nuts.