Thursday, January 8, 2015
Tax cuts: What do you think?
Read this article from NPR about a recent change in Congressional analysis of the impact of tax cuts. Republicans say that tax cuts increase government revenue by giving more money to job creators, boosting the economy and increasing the tax base. Democrats believe that tax cuts decrease government revenue through foregone revenue. What do you think and why? Explain the reasoning behind your belief. Does trickle-down economics work? Why or why not? Is this just a ploy by Republicans to "institutionalize Republican ideology into the budgetary process" or is it a legitimate analysis of possible economic impact and cost of a piece of legislation? Explain your reasoning for your answer. This is a good introduction to the Laffer curve, a concept you will learn about in AP macro. Essentially the questions is, do tax cuts increase or decrease government revenue? Answer all of the questions posed above and tell me what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
I believe that the Republican ideology is good in theory, but will not actually work in the way they plan it too. American corporations are known to only to think about money and ways they can earn more of it. So, instead of spending this increased amount money to help create jobs and boost the economy, they would instead just pocket the money for more profit. This is also the reason why I believe trickle-down economics doesn't work, because the money is gone before it even has the chance to reach the lower-call people who need it the most.
Republicans have a reputation of being all about the money, and they will spend any amount of it to make more. I feel that this new estimation process is just a way for them to spend more money without making themselves look fiscally reckless in their decisions, thus winning over more approval in their decisions.
Overall, I feel tax cuts decrease government revenue.
I believe that tax cuts would increase government revenue because the money is going back to the society. Then in turn, the people who earn the money from the increase of jobs and the surplus of money from the creator, more money is spent and others have to be available to provide the service. Like shopping, you get extra money from your manager and go to the store to buy clothes; there has to be a sales rep to make the sale. However, I don’t believe that the trickledown theory is efficient because how would the poor people be able to benefit if the wealthy is spending it on large luxury items and not putting it towards the poor. The lower class people would never see the money and if all the money is with the wealthy, then the lower income will never see the money themselves.
It is not a ploy to institutionalize ideology into the budgetary process because it is how they think t it would work. People can think one way would happen and could work if everything was working together, but that is why we have different viewpoints and different ways to think about solutions to the problems. It could very well be a possible economic outcome that would become true.
Overall, I believe that tax cuts would increase government revenue.
The way I see things trickle down economics is worth a try, considering the lack of success the recent stimulus packages have yielded. Trickle down worked thirty years ago with Reagan so I think it'd be worth a shot, plus anything's better than the current stagnancy of the economy. Trickle down, in the past has worked, and quite effectively so. but as far as bringing in more government revenue I do not think it is effective. It is effective in that the stimulus reaches every level of American society, but not in increased revenue for the government. It may just be "smoke and mirrors" but if they can stimulate economic growth I think they're more than worth a shot.
In summation I think for the little guy, it is great, but for big brother, not so much.
I think tax cuts will make the government less money because it will cut out the main source of revenue. The big companies contribute a lot of money through the taxes they pay. I believe that trickle-down economics work because it gives everyone jobs from top to bottom. This will create a happier more prideful nation because everyone will have some money and support them. I believe it is a legitimate analysis of possible economic impact and cost of a piece of legislation because it is a systematic way to try to predict the budget in future years. Also, it is worth a shot to try something new because it does not look like we are doing very well to begin with.
I believe that tax cuts will decrease government revenue because when taxes are lowered, that’s less money that we have to give to the government and more money for us which in turn, increases our overall incomes. In stating this, I agree with the democrats. On the other hand, I disagree with the Republican theory of trickle-down economics. How do we know that the wealthy are going to put a sufficient amount of money towards the poor if they spend most of it on their household/personal items? Another plan should be made because I believe that for some wealthy families, the money will all be spent before it reaches the lower class. Although I do not support the theory of trickle-down economics, I do not believe that this is a ploy, the republicans are legitimately trying to see if this method will have any economic impact. I believe that there will be some kind of impact, I’m just not so sure however if it will necessarily turn out to be a positive impact. Overall, I feel that tax cuts decrease government revenue.
I think that tax cuts increase government revenue … because if people have more money they feel they have more freedom to purchase and to maneuver financially, therefore, increasing sales and revenue. It also makes people want to start their own businesses because in a way, tax cuts would give them freedom to do so. I do believe the trickle-down economics works because if you assume that the trickle down economics will be applied to the rich and the poor, then both high class and lower class people and communities will reap the benefits and have more money. To insinuate that this is a ploy seems a little divisive because both Democrats and Republicans have ideas and “ploys” that they believe are best and will improve four country. So, I think that like any other idea, though it still could be a ploy, still have a legitimate analysis.
-Ahmani Joseph
I think that tax cuts take away a lot of the money that the governmen receives from taxes - the richest people in the United states pay around half of the taxes, and cutting taxes by even a small amount can have huge negative effects in on the amount of money received from faxes. I believe apt tickle down economics is just a ploy institutionalize Republican ideology to the budget process. Making jobs solely by allowing corporations and the top 1% to make a lot of money and letting that money "trickle down" onto lower classes sounds good on paper, but seems highly unprobable to work in reality. This really only seems to benefit those who are at the top of the pyramid, with those in the lower parts are receiving no benefits.
I believe that tax cuts would increase government revenue because it'll reduce costs when buying products which would most likely increase the amount of consumers and the amount of products that they buy. This, in turn, would also increase workload and therefore would increase employment as they would require more people to do the jobs to sell.
I think trickle-down economics is just pure garbage because they're essentially giving the wealthy more money in hopes that they will spend a lot of it causing the creation of jobs; this isn't true because the wealthy don't make the jobs themselves, those who open the jobs are the ones who make them. In addition to that, businesses don't easily open jobs because their profits will go down as they give more jobs.
I think it's a ploy of the Republicans to use tax cuts as a cover and trickle-down economics as the content of that cover. They're thinking more about the immediate benefits they get from the tax cuts while imagining they're in a utopia wherein the more that only they spend, the better everything will be for everyone.
Trickle down economics was first introduced to society by Reagan in the 80's, where his economic policy was a way to get out of the recession. To an extent it worked, inflation decreased, regulations were reduced and spending was controlled, however at a cost, the Federal Debt tripled. Supply side economics would only work now if the economy was rapidly growing and could create a larger tax base. Republicans have stood by this economic strategy since Reagan introduced it, because of how simple the theory is. Cutting taxes is supposed to stimulate the economy by giving money back to the people, which in turn would reduce the government budget and spending. However, this economic strategy would only be successful if the government was able to function with a balanced budget, something Reagan could not accomplish. With so many expenditures now, it may be near impossible for our government now to regulate on a strict budget plan.
So as of today, trickle down economics will decrease government revenue and the money put at the "top" will not reach the "bottom"
I think that tax cuts would increase government revenue because if there are tax cuts in sales tax that would prompt more spending by consumers. Even if there is less sales tax it would be compensated by more buying and revenue. Trickle down economics, in my opinion would work because it would prompt spending. People of the lower and working class could have a chance to afford items that they could not generally afford without tax cuts. I do not think this is a ploy and it is a legitimate way for the government to increase revenue and a good way for high economic impact. This a good way for economic impact because people with less income can help support the economy and raise revenue.
I completely understand the Republican theory and if tax cuts were to havemore of an affect on individual people instead of just large corporations, I think the people would spend the money they'd saved on things that would stimulate the economy. However, tax cuts more significantly impact large corporations and I personally believe that large corporations already have a lot of money and if they're not using it now to create more jobs or provide better benefits, then tax cuts would just lead to more money in the pockets of the wealthy.
I don't think trickle-down economics would work. The rich would just get richer and the poor would stay poor. I don't really see how this could be a legitimate analysis of economic impact. It seems like it's simply a way to cut taxes for the wealthy and making it seem like it's for the well being of everyone.
Overall, I feel that tax cuts would decrease government revenue.
Tax cuts for everyone, including the rich are benifical for the economy because the more money a consumer has, the more they will spend. In regards to trickle-down economics, I am conflicted. On one hand I feel the benifits can be applied to both the rich and the poor thus essentitally giving them more money, but then again it's all dependant upon the rich. AKA if the rich dont spend alot of money then the lower class won't benifit. If the rich keep the money, then tax collections wont be as effective bc the rich can find loopholes in the tax collection system. Tax cuts for the wealthy essentially go into savings and not into creating jobs so its highly unlikley for trickle down economics to work leading to less collection of taxes.
I believe that tax cuts will decrease government revenue because the money that is earned will be pocketed instead of used for benefits for the lower class. I don't believe there will be many corporations that will be willing to pay out more money to provide jobs to others. Even if there are, it won't be a significant amount. Trickle-down economics does not work for the same reason that I have just mentioned. The money earned will not be used for the benefits of others in need. I honestly believe that this is just a way for Republicans to include their ideologies into our budgetary system because it's obvious that an idea such as trickle-down economy will not work as efficiently as they believe.
Democrats believe that tax cuts will decrease tax revenue through forgone revenue, I think that their theory is justifiable. It would have a bigger effect on bigger corporations instead of the individual. Trickle down economics in my opinion would not work. Trickle down economics essentially provides tax breaks to businesses and other upper income levels that will benefit poorer members of society by improving them as a whole. By providing this to corporations and other upper income it will not benefit middle and lower class business and individuals tax cuts directly targeting those with less income would benefit the economy more.Ultimately this is just a way for Republicans to institutionalize the Republican ideology into the budget process because ultimately trickle down economics would not work. Essentially tax cuts decease tax revenue
It’s highly improbable that this question — something that doctorate economists debate over — can be answered by me in any sort of intelligent way. However, for the sake of adding a poorly informed opinion on the matter of tax cuts, I see the issue as follows.
Reaganomics, supply-side economics, whatever you want to call it, is not a horrible theory on face value. The essential problem with the theory is that rather than resting on fact, or scientific theory even, it rests on a pseudoscientific claim that when people have more money they spend that money. If savings accounts were obsolete Reagan might have a better theory on his hands, but the fact of the matter is that when in a recession people do not often spend the money they are handed. Obama’s stimulus package a few years back follows the same faulty logic. It is essentially to say that if you give a person food he will immediately eat it all, rather than rationing it for the future. While they may eat it all, to assume that this would happen and to base the entirety of US economics on the contingency that they eat the food, or spend the money, is essentially leaving the fate of the US government to a coin toss.
Moreover, Reaganomics was a very short-sighted economic program. Many Republicans glorify it for decreasing stagflation and ending the 1980s recession but rarely take time to acknowledge the fact that the national debt grew tremendously and, much more importantly, the poor people in America became exponentially poorer. Then, too, as a final point, oil prices as a result of decreased inflation dropped extremely under Reagan. While that may seem like a good thing at first, what it really does is interrupt a long pattern of flux in oil prices and create a disturbance in the market. Essentially, Reagan set off an explosive boom and bust cycle for oil which has yet to stop today.
This change in oil prices really brings up a larger point that may address the question of whether tax cuts are essentially good or bad. First, however, it needs to be pointed out that Republicans often glorify the market and its ability to regulate itself, citing Jefferson and others on the horrors of an expansive, overreaching government. However, it is essentially trickle-down economics that sets off these non-natural market tendencies better than anything else. Thus, while preaching the wonder of laissez-faire, Republicans often praise an economic system that completely dismantles it.
The fundamental question of tax cuts really then is no longer — “do you want government involved or not?” Instead, it becomes a question of how you want them to be involved. Personally, I would rather taxes not be cut because the ideology 1) disturbs the market and although I do not support capitalism, it’ll be even worse if it’s not working correctly and 2) it inherently rests on a principle of human behavior that science can’t back up. Therefore, not because I support higher taxes or am particularly against tax cuts, but mainly just because of the inherent logical fallacies that plague Reaganomics do I think tax cuts are a bad idea. Note: This too is all without mention that the market of Reagan’s day is exponentially different from that of today, where tax cuts would do little if anything to expand the tax base, as Bush well saw in 2003.
I think that tax cuts will make the government not have as much money, where that is the main source of revenue, But i also think that it is good because the money will go back to the society. Trickle-down economy will work because both classes in the society will be able to use the money as well. I believe that allowing the poor to have as much wealth as possible is good. However, if the upper classes doesn't make a lot of money then it wouldn't be good. Overall i feel like tax cuts will decrease government revenue because they need money and cutting there main source of income would end up hurting the government.
I believe that tax cuts do prevent a large majority of money ever getting to the government itself; however, if tax cuts occur across the economic classes then in theory consumers will spend more and will eventually reach the government once again. I feel that the idea that money going to larger corporations will benefit the lower classes is too kind hearted and frankly not appropriate at his time. With trickle down economics while i believe it is a good theory , i do not believe that it will work in the real world. This idea of trickle down economics provides tax breaks for the large corporations so that they can pocket the money themselves. This then creates an opportunity for the corporations to keep the money that they get from the tax breaks rather than creating job opportunities for the lower classes. Overall i believe that this “trickle down theory” is just a ploy for republicans to get their ideologies into the governments budgetary system since it is quite clear that the money in our time will not trickle down but rather get blocked at the top.
Tax cuts decrease government revenue because there is no guarantee that more money in peoples' pockets mean investments, which will translate into jobs, creating a new tax base. Cutting taxes assumes that people who have all this extra money will invest it in this country. People could use their money in Europe or where ever else they please. Tax cuts are for greedy people only concerned with making more money.
"Trickle-down" economics is an advocate for tax cuts and that in theory, if approached properly it would work, but people are greedy. If people with all this extra money made investments in plants that would create jobs, then the theory would work. Since people are greedy, the money will most likely go towards something useless that won't create more jobs; therefore, i don't believe trickle-down economics works.
This is just republican spin to justify tax cuts. There won't be an economic impact with tax cuts. As stated above we're assuming that the goals of the rich people are to stimulate the American economy. Their goals are to make money so if investing in other countries makes them more money, then that's what they're going to do. If they have no confidence in the economy, they won't invest money at all. It's "voodoo economics"
I think that increasing tax cuts will increase government revenue because it will increase revenue in other ways. The American people will have more money to spend on things that they don’t really need but would like to buy for their entertainment. This will increase the revenues made by businesses and increase the amount of money the government collects from these businesses. Also, the businesses will have more income and more business and thus will feel the need to hire more people of to implement pay raises, this will also increase government income because a portion of that money spent goes to the government. It is for this reason that I think trickle-down economics work, because it allows for businesses to encourage the growth of the economy by hiring more workers and providing more jobs. This increase in jobs will provide more money for the people who will thus spend more money in the businesses, thus the cycle continues and the government revenue increases. I don’t think that this is a ploy by republicans. The economic impacts could be great if tax cuts were put into place because it would encourage the American population to go out and spend the extra money they just received.
1)I think that both sides have a point. The Republicans have seen the way tax cuts work for the government through Raegan and JFK, but Democrats have seen the way it works as well and it not through the same looking glass. Personally, I think tax cuts and “trickle-down economics” is a nice idea, but the reality is, will those corporations and wealthy individuals actually pump the money they no longer have to pay in taxes back into the economy? Generally, that answer would be no. Sure the government would look better to those individuals, but the government itself isn’t necessarily benefiting. Ultimately though, I believe it’s the times that determine if the cuts provide any revenue for the government.
2)Trickle-down economics, in concept, really does sound appealing and sound like it could work. Yet time and time again the Democrats say it doesn’t, as well as some Republicans. In its entirety, this system favors the wealthy and corporations in which do not make up a majority of Americans. By cutting taxes for them and just expecting they somehow get money pumping back into the government through hiring people or donating and what not, there really is no enforcement to make sure this is occurring. Therefore, that money that gets to stay in their pockets really just sits there while the economy continues to dwindle.
3)While it is obvious the Democrats and Republicans enjoy taking stabs at the other, what they do is not always to improve their standing. On this issue, I think the Republicans are actually holding legitimate analysis and should probably be heard out. Now that they have more power in Congress I think they are trying things that maybe never left the ground before, even if it does look like a superficial plot to republicanize the American government.
4)In my opinion, tax cuts decrease government revenue. Money is not being pumped into the government but sits at the hands of the people who choose whether to spend or not. At the same time, not having tax cuts doesn’t allow people to spend largely anyways unless they are of the 1% class. Again, I truly believe it depends on the times and what is going on to truly be able to determine if the tax cuts are beneficial or not.
I believe that tax cuts could increase government revenue, but I also think it could decrease government revenue; I am on the borderline between what the Democrats and Republicans think. First I think that the tax cuts could increase government revenue because I agree with the fact that it will increase economic growth and thus raise the tax revenues. If there are not as many high taxes then the people would be saving loads of money. But I do also think that taxes bring in a lot of government revenue already, and in being in such a state of debt, cutting taxes may not be the best idea right now. I don’t know if trickle-down economics would really work or not, because it’s easy for us to believe that “tax breaks and the like to corporations and the wealthy, projecting that the benefits would eventually reach the lower classes through hiring, spending, services and other transactions”; but would that really happen and wouldn’t it be likely to take a while? I believe that the Republicans are trying to add their two cents in Congress, but I would like to believe that this ordeal has a possible economic impact, it all comes down to what I see happen in the future.
I believe that the tax cuts wouldn't help the government revenue because that is what is keeping the government going. I don't think the "trickle-down economics" would work because they are trying to get more money out of people. With more jobs, more people would get more taxes taken out so that wouldn't help anyone in the long run. Most Americans pay taxes through everything they do and with them going up they help our government go up as well.
(1B)
I think that tax cuts will increase government revenue because with less taxes Americans will have more money in their pockets which will allow them to pump money into the economy boosting government revenue. Plus, this will make for more happy Americans as well. Saying this, I do believe that trickle-down economics does work because when people have excess money they spend it on entertainment, clothes, electronics, etc because of how materialistic most Americans are. I do not believe it is just a ploy by Republicans to "institutionalize Republican ideology into the budgetary process."Less taxes would boost the economy causing government revenue as well as happy Americans.
I believe that the tax cuts will decrease the government’s revenue because we are cutting out money to the government. On the other hand, I disagree with the Republican theory of the trickle- down economics because how are we supposed to know if the money actually goes to the lower class people who need it the most. I don’t think this is a ploy because the people want to see if it will actually work and help economically. Overall, I feel that all it will do is decrease the government revenue because it is not benefiting in either way.
I believe that ultimately tax cuts would increase government revenue due to the amount of money that would be given to the people. And with the money comfortably in the people's hands they may feel more inclined to make purchases due to the decline in costs. However, I personally don’t believe that the trickle-down theory is will be effective because poor people would definitely not be able to benefit on a drastic level if the rich and wealthy spend and spend there money on luxurious items instead of aimed it towards the poor where it's can be most beneficial and effective. If all the money is with the wealthy, then the poor will never see the money and experience its benefits. I believe that it is a plot to institutionalize ideology into the budget process because based on the way our society runs the trickle down economics would never work. The money would never trickle down it will continue to be held tightly in the hands of the rich.
I think that tax cuts would be the ones to increase government revenue by granting improvement. It gives businesses the chance to grow and for consumers to effectively purchase items that they desire. Trickle-down economics does not sound like it would work because it is just a way for the wealthy to pocket money. If that is their idea to reach the lower class, it might not end well. However, it is a legitimate analysis of a possible economic impact on society and cost of a piece of legislation because things could seem to change. Although, tax cuts will be a chance to increase government revenue, even though trickle-down economics might not work.
I believe that tax cuts will decrease government revenue because it enables more people to pocket money rather than giving it to the government. With that being said I do not think that enough large corporations or wealthy individuals will step up to help pay large amounts of taxes on their own to help out the government when they could just use money for their personal life. In my opinion "trickle down economics" will not work due to the fact that this extra money people would have would not go towards things such as creating new jobs or helping those in the lower classes, but instead would go toward useless items or even luxury items for personal enjoyment. I do not agree with the idea of trickle down effect but I do not think that this is just a ploy by the Republicans because of the fact that they hold more power in congress, they are weighing out their options to what they believe is right to help our budgetary system and possibly help bring in more money to the government. With everything being said tax cuts would decrease government revenue because the people would have the power to choose how to spend the money that they have in their hands. And although there is hope that large amounts of money would be brought in, it is less likely for that to actually happen.
I understand both democratic and republican sides. I see how initially the theory of cutting taxes for the upperclass and entrepreneurs could seem pointless but given time it could be beneficial. When president reagan was in office he cut taxes from 70% to 50% using the term "reaganomics" which is based off of the tickle-down-theory and restored the horrible economy at the time. By cutting taxes for upper class business owners, corporation investors, etc. eventually it would allow them to spend their money more widely, the idea being to hire more people which would cut unemployment rates and taxes would not so much be a problem. Long term it would raise the United States income as a whole. Tax income could eventually be higher with more workers than it would be taxing the wealthy more. It could be used to implant republican ideology but could also be beneficial. Essentially I think cutting taxes could increase government revenue.
I think that, in terms of short term results, tax cuts would decrease revenue. Taxes are a big source of revenue for the government and decreasing them would then decrease the government's revenue. However, it is hard to say what the long term results of tax cuts would be. It is possible that trickle down economics could work, however that would take time and the government would not necessarily have the time to spare. This is partially because when Reagan tried trickle down economics, federal debt increased. A sizable increase in federal debt could be detrimental to the country as a whole. Without time and a balanced budget, we may never know if trickle down economics could truly work. Basically, tax cuts decrease government revenue in the short term, however their long term effects are not as definite and could potentially go either way.
Taxes cannot be used all of the time to increase government revenue, so at time cutting taxes may be a wise idea to raise revenues. The method of cutting taxes seems like it would be most effective in times of economic downturn, when people and businesses could use a break and vice versa with tax increases when our country is prospering. Trickle-down economics seems to me like it would work at certain times of economic prosperity as I previously mentioned. The strategy of the Republicans seems a bit fishy or secretive, although it is hard to argue against the plan the Republicans have of sending tax-related bills to the CBO and JCT. The process the Republicans are putting in place seems to favor them in despite the use of a nonpartisan affiliate to explore the bill and calculate the estimated savings and revenue that each bill will be worth. Answering your final question, "Do tax cuts increase or decrease government revenue?" is difficult to answer because I can see possible answers for both sides of the story. I see the Republicans, with their brand new Congress and new powers being sincere in their approach to putting this country on a solid track economically. However, I also see the bill favoring the Republicans by casting some shadows over part of their proceedings in attempting to pass bills. Moving forward, both political parties should move forward with caution, watching not only their own proceedings but those of their counterparts in a unified effort to improve our country through improved legislation.
Historically making tax cuts increased the revenue to the government. John F. Kennedy decreased taxes, this resulted in an increase in revenue to the government. This also happened with Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Every time taxes are increased, money is taken out of the private sector. This money is no longer available for innovation and expansion in the economy. No nation in history has EVER taxed itself into prosperity. Also, inherent government inefficiency causes immense waste of these resources. Government does not NEED more revenue but DESIRES more and more revenue as this feeds the already bloated bureaucracy and expands the power of the government. For more than 70 years the number of government employees has been increasing and the percentage of government employees in the workforce continues to grow. These employees have to be supported by PRIVATE SECTOR workers. As the government grows, it takes more and more money from less private sector workers to pay for the government. The current government has increased taxes and has seen revenues decrease, unemployment increase, and the labor participation rate fall to an all-time low for the past 70 years.
I believe that as long as cutting taxes are in favor of the people, with decreasing unemployment and giving people more jobs than it is a good idea. On the other hand I do not believe that "trickle down economics" works because how can giving benefits to those who already have benefits benefit the society as a whole, I think that is irrational. In all honesty, this is most likely a ploy by Republicans to "institutionalize Republican ideology into the budgetary process" but, if it benefits the society to those who are not as fortunate as others, and those who are doing well than I say go for it. which the democrats stated that they are changing house rules to cook the books to implement their notion that cut taxes pay themselves, and as Bruce Bartlett stated "'It is not about honest revenue-estimating; it's about using smoke and mirrors to institutionalize Republican ideology into the budget process.'" In this I say that if cutting taxes are for the better of the society and not just to aid the government than go for, increase government revenue.
I believe that tax cuts decrease government revenue. This is because there will be less money the government will be receiving and more money in the pockets of people. This isn't entirely a bad thing but one can't be sure of what the usage of the money will be for. I don't think trickle-down economics works because the wealthier people will be benefited more than the poor. The outcome of trickle-down economics will be undesirable when all the money is used for personal wants and needs. I do not believe it is completely a ploy by Republicans because the idea of giving more money to job creators in order to help the economy is a nice idea.. though the possibility of it working as planned is unlikely.
I feel like this ideology may have it's benefits however, there's an option that it won't work. I don't necessarily believe that the possible gained money will cause businesses to create more jobs, due to the fact businesses are naturally money hungry. There may be a few businesses that actually use gained money to incorporate more jobs; however, most will just use it for other reasons within the business. Needless to say, I feel as though so one within the "trickle down economics" or what have you, will not be benefitted as much as the republicans predicted.
I think that tax cuts will not yield more governmental revenue, but rather yield less. If the government cuts taxes then they’re cutting their main source of revenue, but I think it’s a good idea that the “little man” have more money in their pockets. I do not think trickledown economics work either. Giving more money to larger corporations that are already loaded will prove no benefit for the people who actually need the extra money. So instead of buying food for the week to feed a family, the money will be spent on yet another unnecessary Lamborghini. No I do not think it is a ploy by the Republicans to initialize their ideology, but a simple effort being made in order to try to work the budget into their favor once again.
I believe that tax cuts will only decrease government revenue because initially the outcome will only provide more so the corporations pocket money rather than the government. Businesses will get to benefit more with tax cuts because it will take away the extra costs that hey have to put in running their business, which benefits them and the upper class instead of the government that collects the money from taxes and implements it through the countries use. I dont think the "trickle down economics" theory would work because ultimately it would benefit the upper class more than the lower class. Even though the predicted outcome of the theory is that it would eventually lead to benefiting the lower class, the revenue gained from it will be gained and taken by a larger majority of upper class men leaving the other classes in the same difficult economic position.
Post a Comment