> Republicans are also openly for reducing burdens (both regulation and taxation) on the wealth producers so they can make more of it and spread it around.
Wow, you really do drink the trickle-down effect Kool-Aid.
Wow, you really do drink the trickle-down effect Kool-Aid.
The burden on wealth producers is very low, one of the lowest points in the modern era.
You would expect in this era of hyper-rich and low-taxation that the wealth would be spreading around.
But it's not. Record profits for corporations (read: wealth producers) is turning into record stock highs, record numbers of billionaires and record lows for the middle class.
I refuse your argument because the world around me clearly shows that our "wealth producers" have figured out how to depress labor costs and increase investor returns. Great for them, but that concept is 100% contrary to your "wealth producers spread wealth".
No, wealth producers rightfully squeeze labor costs and rightfully return the biggest amount of money to themselves, their boards, and their investors. That's not spreading wealth downwards, it's spreading laterally only.
It's a pretty well supported fact that lessening the tax burden on the mega rich doesn't cause them to go opening businesses and it's surprising people ever believed such nonsense. Why would a rich person take a risk on a new business venture when the a fund can provide a steady, predictable return year after year with very little downside?
A businessman doesn't open more businesses when he has more money.
A businessman opens businesses when investors will pay and the market will support it.
Turns out, a businessman doesn't need his own money to start businesses, because without a market, there's no point of starting the business, and with a market, there is investment available to seize it.