In The Dawn Of Trump It Is Clear That The Rich Should Inherit The Earth
The 1% reap what the 99% sow
It has been the priority from the very start. The ruse of job creation is the draw, the buy-in or inducement to fulfilling that notion. The message: the rich predominate our society and disproportionate tax cuts are befitting of not only their preservation, but to their indispensable promise for sustaining our economy.
This is a major leap of blind faith into the proposed premise — that economic growth is certain to follow for the greater good, but before taking that dastardly step we should contemplate whether the tax proposals proffered by the White House maximizes utility (an essential job function of policy making for government) for society at large or merely predisposes you to all things libertarian and discrete.
For republicans this fits into their magnum opus of conservatism only with a profound libertarian bent.
Is it that the current taxation of the rich is so egregious, or is it the redistribution thereafter that is so unbearable for them?
First and foremost there has not been many instances that prove that lower taxes increases the likelihood of job growth. There simply aren’t any corollaries that prove that. Corporations need employees to be competitive and to take advantage of opportunities that require human capita not only to capitalize on but to thrive. They did it when corporate taxes were as high as 52.8% in 1968–69. Besides, the current rates of taxation are statutory (illusory even) and is not exactly what most businesses or individuals pay, especially the wealthy individuals and savvy entities who have been afforded the entitlements to reduce their liabilities through lobbying, exemptions and deductions that some accountants and lawyers perceive as a lucrative sport.
If you are honestly relying on comparisons to cement your argument then continue to watch your step as the ground is loose, icky and not dry. Marginally with increases to income it is not even close to arguable. The proponents for reducing the statutory rate love this chart below.
These countries are sociopolitically and socioeconomically different — significantly from the US (with some exception to U.S. Virgin Islands). And of this list only Japan has a GDP per capita ranking in the top 20 in 2016.
Any changes in the tax code would have incalculable medium to long term impact or effects, and while there is quite a bit of just cause to reform taxes across the board, the disproportionate benefit to the rich is quite a trade-off compared to what it would cost the rest of us for that foreseeable future. But it’s that incommensurability that gets us every time. Thus in our own self-interest how do we know that this would be for the greater good and not contrary to it.
What is immediately measurable is the difference in what you get to keep. For the rest of us, it is not necessarily a win per se. Rather, it would just be less of a hindrance for our social mobility in our pursuits for economic empowerment or financial security. And for the relatively wealthy it would seem to inspire a cordoning off of society that would make even the normally blurred lines more conspicuous. That is because our public good infrastructure would experience seismic shifts away from what we have come to constitutionally expect from our government due to a growing deficit. A deficit that would call upon the private sector to fill which is not without significant cost — both monetarily and qualitatively.
There is this huge discrepancy in the wage gap and its relation to decent pay and benefits. According to NPR 45 percent of working Americans have no taxable income and get refunds. Something else the wealthy do not have to concern themselves with is payroll taxes, which are pay as you go so to speak. Yet there are many who only somewhat agree that the tax rate on income should be lower.
That’s weird! That most people would only somewhat agree — politically with this poll is revealing in so many ways. I will not even speak on those who generally disagree. As someone who has labored in the realms of blue, pink, grey, and white collared industries — 5 to 6 days a week, for over 8 hours per day — this would be a no brain-er. With the time and expense on being credentialed scholastically or technically for positions in our career paths, along with the added expense of getting to and from — it would behoove us to implore our government to make taxes less of a hindrance for social mobility within the vast middle class. Along with time and expense of the commute, the expectation of being groomed or equipped for work daily, I strongly agree that a lower tax rate would be fair enough.
There is income and then there is wealth. While there is some synonymy with these two words they are both fundamentally different and in many instances it isn’t interchangeable. The process in which one generates wealth (through preserved assets and its valuations) is different than the process to which one generates an income (a stream that may generate wealth if it is successfully stored after expenses).
It’s that storing part after all the living expenses that can be tricky though, arduous even, and complicated to achieve. Expenditures that seem frivolous or undisciplined are the bane of conservatives. They are frowned upon in many aspects and seen as self-punishing behaviors that are not deserving of empathy, let alone sympathy. Yet it is those very same expenditures that contribute substantially to the economy, especially towards the generation of wealth for those who are able to successfully store appreciable, interest-earning assets.
