The rich create jobs for the poor and middle class. If we alienate the wealthy and/or tax them too heavy, we will lose out on their ability to produce jobs.
And there is some truth to that claim. However, it is only one way to look at the economy of our economy. It is also a severely limited top-down approach.
Look at it from another view:
The poor and middle class sacrifice to create wealth for the rich. If you alienate them (which is the de facto mode in the world and the US), you lose your ability to gather your wealth. And, you may face a terrible, terrible revolution.
*And by this I don't mean the Tea Party or Noise-Maker crowds. I'm talking about several friends who are sensible people and sincerely want to help the poor and disenfranchised. They are attracted to fiscal conservatism because they're convinced it's the responsible and best way to lift all boats.
someone making decent money isn't paying the higher taxes of, say, a flat/fair tax, or in their income bracket. if the loopholes that wealthier people enjoy were eliminated their taxes at current levels would be far, far greater. a fair tax would likely necessitate lowering tax rates, which could be lowered in the neighborhood of 16-17% to raise the same amount of government revenue, if that’s what you’re counting on.
ReplyDeletesmall businesses, you know the group they say they're uplifting, also benefit from loopholes. most pay no federal income taxes. so, this debate really plays to consumptive politics and the ever growing difficulty of making any real progress as long as things are viewed politically. just so.
then, there’s the explanation about incentives. it is a worldview, charitably put, that is axiomatic at best. i’m sure no worker said it, and it’s been repeddled like the mythologically inaccurate horatio alger.
our same federal gov't takes a very anti-business/market view on foreign investment in the us. to be sure, foreign investments are crucial to our way of living (consider who all those mbs were packaged and sold to, and the pandering that is done to china and cheap mercantilism to keep them buying dollars/treasuries), well more than is comfortable, as they always must with aging empires. and still, contrary to the free market theory about incentive, the policies of our representatives charge and stimulate ever larger gov't and private debt-burden; the added risk of default as we push off the costs and subsequent innovation; totally debasing the currency; the motivation for personal savings (as if); at the same time real productivity that is in competition with cheaper and cheaper foreign labor is discouraged (hardly the free market). other forces, like the the ratcheting influence of gses in the financial industry (guaranteed bank deposits to too big to fail to complicating default/bankruptcy), among others, also makes no sense. it's rather amazing that these class warfare views still permeate campaign elections and the country too, as a different working of black or white, poor or horatio alger. you can tell a sucker when he can identify-with-the-message.
the time when every man identified with the elite may be ending even though some of the changes may well sound elitist. i actually might eliminate as many of the hurdles of starting a business or career in order to increase self-employment and competition. independent mentoring/interning could be a radical substitute to formal schooling. community/low start-up capital required banking. gradually removing minimum wage laws that really serve inflationary gov’t policies is the only way to globalization. removing bars to entry lowers costs all around.
my attitude regarding the rich is similar to yours: as much as they add jobs for workers those workers provide a critical mass and dependency class/cottage industry for them to enjoy wealth, often merely as a benefit of their class. wealth independent of society is a riot (waiting to happen).