Lets just let the
historical top marginal income tax rates speak for themselves.
Quote:
|
Besides, the nations corporations HAVE well over a trillion dollars sitting idle waiting for the economy to get better. If the supply-side logic held true that money would be currently spent creating new jobs... which they're clearly not doing. Therefore, if companies owned by rich people are not reinvesting to grow the economy why would we expect the rich to do the opposite
|
We shouldn't, but
obviously if they have so much more money than everyone else they deserve to have more money than everyone else and it's immoral to do anything that might interfere with that because it is.
Once you get rid of everything that's factually incorrect you're left with nothing but arguments that it's somehow just morally wrong to help the unfortunate or tax the fortunate.
Quote:
|
They call the U.S. the richest land in the history of the world; it's too bad it's a nation of misers and penny-pinchers. This is an exaggeration, I know, but you get the point.
|
Not so much an exaggeration, our gini coefficient is frankly absurd for a first world nation. Wealth is one thing, but when a massive majority of all
INCOME across the nation is going to single digit percents then something is out of whack. The difference between now and when Rockefeller et al were basically getting the entirety of the nation's income is that they felt it was a requirement that they put significant quantities of that income right back into the people they got it from, hence basically inventing modern philanthropy. That tax rates were capable of actually paying for things helped.
Now all that happens when you lower taxes is that multinational corporations and their executives, assuming they were paying
ANY tax revenue to begin with (which is a big one these days), just get to pay out more bonuses to everyone which they then get to spend on... whatever people making more money an hour than I'll make in a year spend that much money on.