That's funny.... Steak and spuds are normally the more expensive choice here, compared to the shrimp (or lobster). Funny how a different cultural basis changes things like that. Came across as the middle-class being squeezed to fatten the rich, while feeding the poor.
To half re-iterate what I said earlier... it's quite clear the trickle-down economics, or whatever you call it... just doesn't work. Tax breaks for the wealthy are used by the wealthy to make themselves even more wealthy, not to create business and jobs. Tax breaks do have their place, when they're tied to specific goals and ideas (Build Factor in with high unemployment, receive tax benefits. Provide healthcare for employees, write it off your tax). Tax breaks for the sole benefit of putting more money in the hands of people who have more money already are self defeating.
Generally, people will just hold onto it and use it to make themselves wealthier.... and it's easy enough to do that without building factories or doing things which create jobs. There's enough money created in Wall Street through the sole virtue of being pushed around and around and around in ever more confusing manners.
You've got to start at the bottom.
Also remember, who's going to suffer more?
A) 20k a year. Looses 20% in tax. Pays 6k to the state, and is left with 16k to see to his own needs
b) 50k a year. 40% in tax. State gets 20k out of him. He's left with 30k to himself.
c) 100l+ a year, 50% in tax. State takes 50k. He's left with 50k.
While that's a bit arbitrary and off the top, it illustrates the point. The wealthy have far more capacity to pay, and just not feel it. But... those on 20k and 50k are the one's who're supporting the bottom of the economy. They're the ones buying all the little white goods that keep things going. Rich people don't buy 20 new Chevrolets... they buy an armoured Bentley.... but I guarantee those 20 Chevrolets will have a far more positive benefit on the economy. Because somebody's got to build them. Those people have to be paid. And those people being paid a wage will then go out and buy their own car/computer/whatever.
If you've got the people at the bottom buying, selling and generally turning over, they'll feed back into the top. You get them buying by making them secure. Put them in a stable residence, get more free cash into their hands somehow (either buy reducing their tax burden, or somehow reducing their outgoings.).
How much more money would you have id you didn't have to pay for Health Insurance say? Deduct maybe an addition to the tax that's assumed to provide a decent Healthcare system from the state... chances are, unless you're super-healthy... you'll find yourself better off with more cash in hand, and less outgoings to worry about. Now, what'll you do with that cash? Go out and buy stuff. Or, you might buy Health Insurance anyway... which is going to be a good deal cheaper as the State is providing a viable alternative, so people don't have to buy insurance. That's how it works here, and it's something that works far better. Per Capita, our government spends less on Healthcare than the US, but in general we're better off. Isn't that funny?
When you've got the people at the bottom steady.... you're going to push everything up.
Otherwise, you're just lifting the people at the top. Which is fine for them.... sure, isn't that exactly what they want? It's Power and Influence. It's always about power and influence.
One other thing. The State is answereable to me. A Private company, is answerable to it's shareholders.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
To half re-iterate what I said earlier... it's quite clear the trickle-down economics, or whatever you call it... just doesn't work. Tax breaks for the wealthy are used by the wealthy to make themselves even more wealthy, not to create business and jobs. Tax breaks do have their place, when they're tied to specific goals and ideas (Build Factor in with high unemployment, receive tax benefits. Provide healthcare for employees, write it off your tax). Tax breaks for the sole benefit of putting more money in the hands of people who have more money already are self defeating.
Generally, people will just hold onto it and use it to make themselves wealthier.... and it's easy enough to do that without building factories or doing things which create jobs. There's enough money created in Wall Street through the sole virtue of being pushed around and around and around in ever more confusing manners.
You've got to start at the bottom.
Also remember, who's going to suffer more?
A) 20k a year. Looses 20% in tax. Pays 6k to the state, and is left with 16k to see to his own needs
b) 50k a year. 40% in tax. State gets 20k out of him. He's left with 30k to himself.
c) 100l+ a year, 50% in tax. State takes 50k. He's left with 50k.
While that's a bit arbitrary and off the top, it illustrates the point. The wealthy have far more capacity to pay, and just not feel it. But... those on 20k and 50k are the one's who're supporting the bottom of the economy. They're the ones buying all the little white goods that keep things going. Rich people don't buy 20 new Chevrolets... they buy an armoured Bentley.... but I guarantee those 20 Chevrolets will have a far more positive benefit on the economy. Because somebody's got to build them. Those people have to be paid. And those people being paid a wage will then go out and buy their own car/computer/whatever.
If you've got the people at the bottom buying, selling and generally turning over, they'll feed back into the top. You get them buying by making them secure. Put them in a stable residence, get more free cash into their hands somehow (either buy reducing their tax burden, or somehow reducing their outgoings.).
How much more money would you have id you didn't have to pay for Health Insurance say? Deduct maybe an addition to the tax that's assumed to provide a decent Healthcare system from the state... chances are, unless you're super-healthy... you'll find yourself better off with more cash in hand, and less outgoings to worry about. Now, what'll you do with that cash? Go out and buy stuff. Or, you might buy Health Insurance anyway... which is going to be a good deal cheaper as the State is providing a viable alternative, so people don't have to buy insurance. That's how it works here, and it's something that works far better. Per Capita, our government spends less on Healthcare than the US, but in general we're better off. Isn't that funny?
When you've got the people at the bottom steady.... you're going to push everything up.
Otherwise, you're just lifting the people at the top. Which is fine for them.... sure, isn't that exactly what they want? It's Power and Influence. It's always about power and influence.
One other thing. The State is answereable to me. A Private company, is answerable to it's shareholders.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?