So how does tax cuts for the rich promote spending dix ? They were spending the same before their cut. Now a real cut on the middle class woudl be better to get more money spent, they seem to spend 150% of their income.
How do tax cuts for the rich promote spending? Are you serious with this question? Never mind... of course you are, you're a liberal! Okay, let me try to explain it to your pinhead ass... First thing, forget the simplistic idea you have formed inside your head, that the only way for a tax cut to promote spending, is if the rich person actually spends the extra money from their tax cut. This is certainly part of the way spending is promoted, but it misses the broader and more important picture. Most rich people, and people in general, do not think in terms of what they would have payed in taxes. When you get a $1,200 tax refund, you don't think of it as $1,000 less than you would have gotten under a proposed plan which failed. You don't think of it as $200 more than you would have gotten under the old tax plan. You merely realize you have a $1,200 'windfall' and determine what to do with it. What might have been, has absolutely no impact on your decision of what to do with the money. So, wealthy people who are actually paying taxes and not getting a refund, look at things from the same perspective, what might have been is no factor on how they make their decisions now. They look at what they made last year, after the taxes, and they decide whether they are managing their money wisely, given the current parameters and taxation.
Now... let's say, this rich person who didn't really need to make an "income" from a business, had always dreamed of opening a business, and after Reagan cut the TMR, he decided to 'realize the dream' and do it. He has invested a large chunk of his money into the venture... he has employed a staff... he has constructed a building... he has bought advertising... a company car... had business cards printed... bought insurance for his business and his employees... paid contractors for all sorts of related work... all of these things grew the economy, and in the end, he is doing fairly well, his income last year was at the TMR. He is happy, and has no intentions of changing a thing, just continuing to hire people and expand his dream, maybe build a small commercial empire, and pass it on to his son... He's just having fun making money and doing what he likes to do.
Suddenly, we introduce the envy-stricken knee-jerk liberal who's gulped the class warfare koolaid, and thinks he needs to be taxed 50% on his earnings! So, instead of making $9 million, he is only going to make $6 million this year. As we've established, he is not going to dwell on what might have been, he will make decisions on how to proceed from here... okay, with $3 million less to spend than before, it's easy to conclude he will spend less. The business is doing okay, he doesn't need to put any more money into expanding it, he's comfortable with the size where it is, and with the new tax law, he really has no incentive to make more money. Do you think it's more likely, he will continue to expand the economy and grow his business, taking the $3 million deficit from his personal family budget, or would he choose to continue living the life he is accustomed to, and take the $3 million deficit off the budget for the business? In this scenario, he might not decide to just sell the business and cash out, it's his dream... the legacy... leave it to his sons.. etc... but maybe he decides, instead of him making the TMR, he should employ his wife and two teenage sons, and split his "income" amongst the entire family, then they can file separately and avoid the TMR? Maybe he decides to restructure his business, so that he doesn't actually get much of an "income" from it, and his former income is going into the business budget now, which he can write off... in either case, the increase in tax has resulted in an economic lack of growth, and a loss in revenue from taxes.
You can use any example you like, the principle remains the same, rich people do not have to earn an income. That's just a simple fact you need to try hard to understand here, because it is the foundation of my position, and the reason you are not comprehending it. If we tax rich people's incomes excessively, they will make less incomes, and we will receive less revenue in tax. Furthermore, if they make less income, they will spend less... that is just common sense, and any one should be able to understand this basic principle. If rich people aren't spending money, this means someone is not gaining money from the transaction... again, a very basic principle. If money isn't gained, it can't be taxed, thus no revenue is being generated. In business, if money isn't being gained, there will be no expansion or growth, and if money is being lost, there will be negative growth or downsizing.
You can't tax the supply side of capitalism. It's impossible to do. Corporations do not "pay" tax, consumers do. Most corporations, I don't care what you say, are owned, operated, or trusted to "rich people" who make decisions based on the bottom line of the almighty dollar. The more money you try to take from these people, the more the consumer is going to ultimately pay, in the capitalist market, as a result. This can't be avoided in a capitalist society, the only hope for preventing it, is socialism or communism.
