| binary solo said: Democrats have a much better record at controlling debt. Whenever Republicans want to reduce spending they also correspondingly decrease revenue with tax cuts, which makes the exercise neutral or negative in terms of debt. But more often republicans merely move spending from things they don;t like spending on (education, health welfare) into things they do like spending money on (defense, law and order, private prisons, farm subsidies) and don't actually reduce spending while giving tax cuts to people who already have way more money than they need. |
Pretty much.
The theory is if you let rich people pass less in tax, surely that money will make it back to "regular joes".
Except it kinda doesn't, lol. Rich people as it turns out are usually rich because they don't throw away their money in stupid ways and even if they aren't "money smart" the first thing rich people do is hire people like accountants/managers to handle their money who do know how to keep that money indefinitely.
And if they do invest, it's not in some local factory, it's going to be in the "global market", holding/buying stocks/bonds, buying debt, property overseas, etc. etc. And those companies under pressure to maximize profit to look appealling to said investor ... guess where they go to make products? In fact the tax system incentivies you never "cashing out" of the stock/bond market, you want to hold them basically until death and never liquidate assets unless you have to. You use dividends and interest earned from your investments to pay for your mansion, yachts, wife, mistress' shopping trips, cars, etc.
"Average Joe USA" ain't gonna see a damn nickel of that money, lol.
