xboxgreen said:
sundin13 said:
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.â€Â 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.â€Â 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)?
|
Again, give me evidence. All the research I'm seeing indicates that income taxes on the rich are predominantly borne by the rich. You just keep stating that it will get passed on, but at some point, you need to actually prove it.
You're also kind of conflating income taxes and business taxes here, which are different things. If the CEO of Apple was taxed a bit more, the extremely profitable company wouldn't suddenly cease to exist. But I feel like you completely don't understand demand economics. If poor people have more money, they will have more money to spend, which they will then spend on goods and services, which will then allow those exact same businesses to sell more product and create the same high paying jobs and boosting the same GDP. Also, you don't need to be a billionaire to create a business or a create jobs. Putting more money in the pockets of the lower and middle class allows them to be in a better position to also create businesses and have a chance to build their local economies and build wealth.
