US Politics |OT|

[xboxgreen]

sundin13 said:

xboxgreen said:

Depends on what you define as rich and what life style they choose to live. Someone who has 3 million dollars in net worth is consider rich to me. If they want to travel a lot and see the world they can. However, they will have to be careful not to overspend or else they will lose all of of their money. A rich billionaire life style might be an entrepreneur who wants to use their money to create new products, services and innovation. That requires a lot of money sometimes.

If you start taxing rich people a lot more they will find ways to recoup their loses. Usually at the cost of the middle class. People end up poor a lot because of their own doing majority of the time. They don't invest and pay off their debt. Then when something comes up like a layoff, they don't have any money and blame everyone else. Even though if they invest their money they would've been fine.

Teachers are a good example on how to become rich. Teachers may not get paid the most but are one of the demographics that become millionaires more frequent than any other profession. Because it is all about time and budgeting.

Not to mention if you tax too much you end up losing more tax revenue. For example, if you tax rich people a much higher rate then the billionaires will leave and stop investing in the United Staes. If you tax middle/poor class too much they will stop working because there will be no point in working.

I feel like I'm going to really need to see some support for the claim that rich people will recoup their losses of taxes at the cost of the middle class. Like, okay, say you're a rich ass doctor working for a big city hospital, and suddenly you start getting taxed a few thousand more per year. What are you going to do, start stealing kidneys from poor people?

I understand the argument when it comes to business taxes. It is flawed in my opinion, as it largely ignores market factors (ie supply/demand and competition), but there is some logic there. Some amount of cost is going to be passed on in many circumstances. I would argue that taxing huge multinational companies helps smaller companies maintain a competitive position and overall, if the tax money is being spent in a productive manner, it can still function as a means to maintain a more equal income structure. 

But when it comes to individual taxes, things don't work that way:

More broadly, beyond the 2017 law, a 2023 review of the trickle-down literature by Carnegie Mellon University economist Max Risch found that “across different income tax policies that statutorily affect the rich, the evidence suggests the burden is predominantly born by the rich.” In other words, research indicates that tax cuts at the top don’t generally benefit workers with low and moderate incomes. By contrast, Risch concludes that “substantial evidence suggests large direct, but also potential ‘trickle-up’ effects from providing benefits to low-income or vulnerable households.”

The 2017 Trump Tax Law Was Skewed to the Rich, Expensive, and Failed to Deliver on Its Promises | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Doctors have a lot of leverage. They can simply demand more to make up the thousands of dollars in tax / inflation easily. Which means the middle class will pay more.

Smaller companies can compete without taxing large companies a lot of money. Looks at how games from smaller studios like expedition 33 is out selling other AAA games.

Also, trickle down economics is a term coined by the left to make fun of supply side economics. Would you rather take billions of tax dollars from Apple and split the money with the American people which will give them a few months of relief (demand economics)? Or let Apple keep the money to create the next big product like the iPhone which will create a lot of high paying jobs and boost the United States GDP (supply economics)?

Last edited by xboxgreen - on 19 July 2025