false dichotomy, even if you believe SF spends money wrong, that doesn't justify the tax cuts for the rich
you say:
> I used to believe taxes were a good way to redistribute wealth
and then, you don't believe that works because:
> I moved to San Francisco and saw how a welfare super state prioritizes its spending
So you are suggesting that the ONLY other possible option when the rich are taxed is that those taxes are mismanaged, but that is just not true: certainly there are varying degrees of "mismanagement" possible. In particular some of those mismanagement scenario might still result in better outcomes for less wealthy.
Given your other comments I'm sure you are already thinking: "who even cares about the less wealthy" but that seems to be the topic of the discussion, the original post is about how tax cuts don't result in "trickle down", which is how they are marketed and sold to the less wealthy.
SF spends over a billion dollars a year on the homeless, and I have trouble finding a homeless person who receives 10 cents. The money, I'm suggesting, is almost all stolen, it ends up in salaries, pensions and political donations - with almost nothing reaching the homeless.
Collectivism is a great concept. It's academic, and you have the ability to accuse strangers of "not caring about the less wealthy". Personally, I think you are a fool who is being taken advantage of by politicians who are stealing your money to pad their pockets.
My challenge to you, is try to find some of the billion dollars SF spends each year on the homeless to reach just one individual. Just one person. Then come back and ask me for more money.
And the fact that SF government doesn't work doesn't negate that tax cuts for the rich don't trickle down, so why should the 99% support these cuts if they are not going to benefit from them?
I don't want you to vote against your interests, I want all others to vote in favor of theirs (against politicians that sell the tax cuts as "trickle down economics")
Rather than raising taxes and cutting spending, our leaders, including Democrats and the Fed have printed enormous amounts of money to help the poor. The average American family last year received over $50,000 in COVID related support including the Child Tax Credit, expanded SNAP benefits, Unemployment insurance and ability to wave loans including student debt and mortgages.
What is the point of tax increases when we have exactly the same result printing money?
Ironically, the primary driver of inequality, that you complain about is the FED's purchases of bonds which suppresses interest rates on the long end - and holding interest rates down on the short end. This makes stocks appear to be cheap. The stock market is correlated with the FED's balance sheet. Adjusting income taxes, will do little or nothing to address wealth inequality.
It's funny because it's not even about increasing taxes, it's just about the CUTS. You are going to be ok, don't be scared...
Just one thing tho:
> Your point sounds like, no tax cuts because my slogan says so
ehm, nope. I don't have a slogan, I have some research (the original post https://academic.oup.com/ser/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ser... ) that contradicts the 90s slogan that still is used today to justify cutting taxes. So hopefully this and more peer reviewed studies will put the practice justified by the 90s slogan to rest.
> your punitive tax increases
again, never even talked bout INCREASES, only stopping cuts. Do you know the difference between not cutting and increasing? If you do are you just trying your hand at fearmongering? Nah... you seem the kinda folk who would only argue in good faith.
I responded to this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29845491