Out of curiosity I Googled the Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest individuals in the country. Most own something, a business or a number of businesses. A few invest. But most own businesses therefore most employ workers. Fast forward to the Senate hearing with the leaders from the top five oil companies. They argued that the oil industry needs continued tax breaks. They argued that they can do more for the economy with the money they keep via the tax breaks than the government would be able to do with the taxes collected.
I'm just a social worker. I don't make a lot of money but I know a lot about people and how they behave. Trickle down just doesnt' seem right. But why?
.
In an interesting article on HuffPo earlier this week Dr. David katz explored the issue of obesity. "Is Obesity Bias Evolutionary?" one line stood out. " Why continue to crave what we already have in excess? At a cultural or attitudinal level, this seems sheer madness." He was writing about obesity while I was thinking about those wealthiest at the top. Like Robert Reich said several months ago, the welathiest don't spend in proportion to what they have. They hoard. That helps nobody.
So what about taxes? Well, it seems to me that for these people paying taxes is voluntary. They are equiped with all manner of devices to avoid paying tax, one of which is to re-invest in their own companies. So the question is , is the economy better off when a few hold the wealth or is it better off when those wealthiest stay wealthy, but spread what they would ordinarily hoard amongst the workers in their businesses? Doing so would create more tax payers and expand the market of the businesses and benefit a lot of people. But of course there is a risk. The business might not do well.
In an article last week the writer postulated that if Donald Trump had simply invested his wealth in the markets he would today have greater wealth than he now has by having played with the money by being a "businessman" with many failed ventures. That's why they hoard. Most are not as narcissistic as The Donald. Most crave security, like we all do. That's why they hold onto their wealth or find safer ways to invest and grow. But when the safer way is to hoard or to invest in expanding economies oversees the rest of us don't see the trickle. It drips elsewhere.
Back to the oil executives. " Why continue to crave what we already have in excess? At a cultural or attitudinal level, this seems sheer madness." It starts with those guys and ones like them. They have a say in how their companies spend revenues and on how much they and others are compensated. A little less compensation would enable hiring more people. But how do they get to where they want to share and grow rather than hoard and play safe for individual intersts?
The government needs to encourage them to expand, like The Donald. The government needs to set tax rates higher knowing that they don't want to pay the tax. The way not to pay more tax is to invest in the business, like small businesses do every day. And the way to avoid business failure, to run the business in a manner unlike The Donald, is to maintain regulation and oversight.
That all just seems right to me. Trickle down just doesn't ring true any more than open marriage does. Nice idea but sorry, we shouldn't mess with the security function in our characters.