How can any sane person honestly believe that cutting taxes on billionaires will help them at all? What? Does reducing the taxes a corporation pays give them an incentive to produce more? or maybe hire more americans? I don’t understand it. Are they going to become larger and in return pay more taxes? What is the aim of cutting taxes on rich people? How does that help me, or the country?
Why is the concept of redistributing wealth to the people who’ll spend it so demonized? If you really wanted to lower our debt then how about investing your resources into technology, science, and sociology.
Here’s an example I came up with.
A ma n pa shop open up in a small town. There town is poor and the shop doesn’t get many costumers. So somebody decides to give everyone there 1,000 dollars each month for living in that town. That ma and pa shop starts getting more costumers, selling more so they can then expand their business. As they expand their business they’re able to hire people in their town. Then it goes on from there, the town starts expanding and goes from a backwater peasant village to a striving urban city.
Now… what if we decided to take the right winged approach? Same situation, but instead of giving everyone money, we instead cut taxes on that ma n pa shop. Now the owners are happy they’re paying less taxes to keep their business running. But the problem is nobody has any money to buy their products. So they eventually close down, and the town becomes even poorer. Despite there being reduced taxes, the people still can’t afford to do anything.
The theory is that cutting taxes on those who pay the most will allow them to, instead, invest that money into companies and technology/training for their employees or businesses which will help by adding new jobs or better jobs. Whether this happens or not is, certainly, a debate. I think there is a sliding scale on this…if you are already taxing your rich too much, then lowering taxes can help. If you are not taxing enough, then obviously taxing them less isn’t going to do anything and will or may even be more harmful to the country and economy than doing nothing.
Because just giving people money is also not likely to have the intended effect, especially since where you are taking it from might give more value than where it’s going to. Again, this is a sliding scale and there isn’t a one size fits all answer. If either solution was a silver bullet you wouldn’t have examples of each that hurts a lot more than it helps, yet history is littered with examples of either being bad moves.
Or, ma and pa shop uses its position and leverage to jack up the prices locally since people don’t have a choice, pay its employees the minimum and generally don’t do anything for the community at all. That happens a lot as well, and ironically companies like Walmart drive them out of business because of their shitty selection and pricing. Or Walmart actually IS the bad guy and drops prices to drive out local business. It can work either way. One size doesn’t fit all, and silver bullets actually suck when you try and fire one from a gun.
Except your ‘right wing approach’ is a strawman argument that doesn’t really make any sense. Really, what you should do is ask CONSERVATIVES to list what they would do, instead of such a silly example when you don’t seem to really understand either the conservative OR the liberal position and why they hold it, what they think it does or why they advocate for it.