Skip to main content

View Diary: The 2003 Tax Cuts -- Top 10% receive 90% the Benefits (209 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They did have more in their pocket... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    And if those rich dudes took that money and invested it back in developing US infrastructure, then it would have been great.  Trouble is that they are instead investing it overseas where the growth rates are higher.  

    The theory amongst the trickle downers has always been that if you cut taxes for the wealthy, they invest that money and stimulate the broader economy.  This is true to a degree.  However, there's nothing in this to give them any benefit to doing so.  So they will invest wherever they can get the greatest returns and in the past few years, that's not been here.

    Just remember, if trickle down was such an automatic winner, the french revolution, and the bolshevik revolution never happen.  These demonstrate that the natural tendancy is for the wealthy to accumulate more  wealth and for that wealth to concentrate.  They have little incentive to spend it.  They only invest it to make more money and given that they have the money, they have the greatest leverage to demand strong returns.  Who do you think gets a better interest rate, somebody investing 10,000, or somebody investing 10,000,000?  

    Government has to step in and create an environment that promotes distribution of wealth.  It doesn't necessarily need to tax the rich to give to the poor per se, but it can construct a regulatory environment that tends to cause the money to flow that way on it's own.  Our government has failed to do this for some time now and we're seeing the consequences.

    --- The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Bush invaded Iraq based on good intentions. Thus we are staying the course on the path to hell.

    by sterno on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:38:28 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site