Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bush try that? The tax cuts he gave out haven't really worked out in the rosey way you're presenting it have they?
Answer: more tax cuts? Deeper tax cuts?
More and deeper tax cuts? :D
|
It's what happens when you try and simplify a complex situation into an a flawed analagy that suits your argument. Even in the simplified version "tax" isn't ten people going out to dinner and sharing the bill. For a starters its the one richest guy with nine plates of food in front of him on the table and everyone else with breadrolls (although one or two have gravy to go with it) except the bottom four who have to lick the rich guy's plate afterwards for scraps.
At this point in the economic cycle it's important for the middle and lower class to have tax cuts. Those on a lower income spend a much higher proportion of it on goods and services. Someone on 30k/yr isn't going to put a $50 a week tax cut on the stock market, it's going to go on food, gas, clothes, rent etc. Give someone on 500k/yr a $1000 a week tax cut and they're putting it on long term positions on battered down shares which isn't going to help as much as direct consumer spending.
It's a grey area and a different mix for different situations and to a certain extent there is a relevancy with regards to what competing nations are doing. There are lots of bad taxes and tax situations but a progressive tax system isn't one of them. You've just got to tinker with the scales to suit the situation. The gap between the rich and the poor is the widest it's been since the depression. It's time to fatten the goose again before the next round of foie gras.