That is complete horse****. Rich people spend great deals of money if they are producers or people that have gained their wealth through other avenues. This spending does create jobs fair easier than when poor people spend money. You are forgetting that people don't just buy when they need, they buy when they want, and in essence the more people earn the more they not only spend but need to maintain their lifestyle.
Your NewsMax pedigree is betraying you. It may take many hundreds of poor people to define a group that has control over as much money as a single rich person, but all of those poor people spend all of the money they get very quickly. They have pressing and immediate needs on a continual basis. Rich people have no such needs. The rich already have everything they need plus everything they want, and they still have large piles of money sitting around. If you give them more money, they have to sit around and think what to do with it. And it's quite likely that what they will eventually decide to do is pull that money right out of the real economy and send it off to the financial economy, where it will spend its time chasing after little pieces of paper while producing exactly no new demand and no new jobs at all. Giving money to rich people is a way to
slow down the economy. Giving money to poor people is a way to
speed it up.
Lol, what? Considering that all the stimuluses has lower returns than otherwise would be noted without it and considering that the bush tax cuts did what they were intended to do what you said is trash.
The Tax Cuts for the Rich did indeed do exactly what Bush intended them to do. They gave a whole pile of money to people who were already wealthy. In economic terms however, this was a disastrous event and the start of a headlong national decline from one of the all-time high points in our economic history to one of the all-time low points. This astonishing turn-around could not have been accomplished without Bush's idiotic reliance on policies drawn from laissez-faire free-market capitalism as part of an effort to enrich the wealthy and give trickle-down economics a chance to work. The fact that none of this had ever worked in the past simply didn't bother him. Hence, we ended up with a total trainwreck.
In a contrast that could hardly be any more stark, the targeted stimulus programs contained in ARRA worked alsmot exactly as had been planned and projected for them. Tax cuts and credits were targeted to small businesses and those earning less than $75K per year. Income support in the form of food stamps, UI benefits, and subsidies for COBRA health insurance premiums went to those most affected by the calamity of the Great Bush Recession and hence to those who would spend the funds quickly. (The alternative plan touted by Republicans was more tax cuts for the rich and mega-corporations. I wonder how that would have worked out.) In addiiton to short-term economic stimulus, ARRA provided medium-term support for jobs and incomes by funding more than 90,000 infrastructure jobs all across the country. There were some near you. There was also up-front funding for long-term programs in such areas as communications, health care, energy, and transportation. In combination with efforts to rebalance the financial system, this focused, targeted approach to economic stimulus ended in five months a recession that Bush had not put a dent in in fourteen months and sowed the seeds for the slow but steady recovery that Republicans have been trying to kill ever since.
Taxes takes wealth out of the economy andwhat it gives back is less than the wealth took out.
That's an interesting theory. What's the rationale behind that? Back in the real world meanwhile, because of the progressive income tax structure, tax dollars are withdrawn on average from a relatively high point on the income scale, then exactly the same dollars are immediately spent on average at a relatively lower point on the income scale. Government operations even in ordinary times are therefore mildly redistributive and mildly stimulative. For an average person, some 20-25% of what a few boneheads think of as their own "hard-earned money" comes directly or indirectly from government spending. It doesn't take very many degrees of Kevin Bacon to turn everybody (including TurtleDude) into just another pig feeding at the public trough.
Considering that wealth it takes out of the economy is on the top that includes a great deal of small businesses....
There are almost thirty million small busineses in the US but only about 750K large enough to be affected by increasing taxes on the top two brackets. About half of those are the LLC's that medical doctors have set up for themselves. Most of the rest are similar structures established by successful veterinarians, lawyers, accountants, actors, authors, athletes, hedge fund managers, and even a few economists. These are paper constructs set up for tax and liability purposes. They are not economic engines.
...it hardly matters if you give more to the poor as the return for investment is not only hurt from the taxes themselves but how they are dealt out.
I don't think you have the first notion of how it is "dealt out". I bet for instance you wouldn't have had the first clue that ALL of the following combined -- SSI, the EITC, Section 8 housing, the Additional Child Care Credit, TANF, WIC, and S-CHIP -- cost about $15 billion less per year than Military Personnel & Retirement. Oh well.
As for the later part, motivation for labor and advancement in general is triggered from need of labor and overall want to move forward.
I'll send this off to the Nobel committee right away. Perhaps discovery of the
Theory of Overall Want to Move Forward will seem significant in their eyes. Or not. What you are trying to get at I suppose is incentives, so to test those I'll make you a deal -- I'll give you peanuts per month, but you have to live like a pauper. Sound good? Ready to jump at that? People take that deal only when all the alternatives they have are worse. And as soon as they have better ones again, they back out of the deal. That's how incentives work.
Considered that many of these people are already not motivated(keep in mind I didn't say majority here) giving them what they need from the start not only stops them from wanting advancement or discovering a want for advancement but needing advancement. This is basic human nature and works for rich or poor.
No, this is basic made-up poppycock.
I suspect I can keep up with you and I suspect it hasn't done you any good. Many economist believe in trash and you appear to be either one of them or someone that believes in their trash.
Well, I'm glad you're here. After all, what fun is shooting fish in a barrel if there aren't any fish.
eace
