Yeah, that's supply-side economics in a nutshell. The problem is, it didn't actually work the way Reagan's advisers said it would, and instead sowed the seeds for the problem that ended up spawning the Occupy movement and turning a good portion of our generation into straight up communists in the long term, as well as tripling the national debt during his 8 years in office in the short term.>>218143>why funnel more money into the government since it mostly wastes it anyway?
Well, I don't know what AOC's ideal budget is, to be honest. I've only just started paying attention to her. But the government does waste a lot of money, some of it on things I find morally inadmissible -- that I agree on. I also think that, in doing so, it's failing
to spend money on things that it actually should
be spending money on -- also morally inadmissible. You and I can both agree that the budget needs an overhaul, no?
To finance Medicare for all, tuition-free universities, student loan forgiveness, that
would take a massive budget overhaul, among other things. But some of those things are things we kind of should be overhauling anyway. The pharmaceutical industry in the US jacks up its prices like crazy, and American university tuition prices are exorbitantly high. Most of the rest of the first world doesn't have these problems, and think we're pants on head retarded for having allowed them to develop in the first place.
Is pouring government funds into all of these necessarily the solution, though? Well, only if we have those funds. Otherwise it'd just be more deficit spending. That's not sustainable, and it fucks over the post-zoomers the same way the boomers fucked us. I don't know what kind of budget AOC would propose to accommodate all of these things, so I'd have to see the math she's done before I could side with her on all of her social programs. But I do know that her tax policy is one way to increase the funds at our disposal. And as far as that tax policy's effectiveness is concerned, she knows what she's talking about
>and tbh i dont see anything wrong with reagon's tax cuts either, hell during the economy spiked during the 80's and massive change to the economy leading for the new technological era we see today
Reagan's tax cuts were not accompanied by the drastic cuts in government spending he promised, which resulted in, as I was saying to Zeke, a tripling of the national debt. Reagan also created a lot of tax increases
to compensate for the marginal tax cuts, most of which disproportionately affected the lower and middle class, and slashed social programs (keeping his promise of cutting government spending?), choosing to allocate more of that deficit spending to putting stoners in prison (...whoops, I guess not), because that was a really important issue worth fucking over the economy even harder for.
Reaganomics was not without its positives in the short term, but you can't look at only the short term, and you can't ignore the negatives.>>218144>Not really, it just implies that such a high tax rate on people who earn more is wrong.
It sounds pretty close to "You did the work to earn it, so why should you give up any
of the money you earned". Not saying that's the argument you're making, just that the same logic applies.
And I'm not necessarily agreeing with the specific rates or cutoffs, more with progressive tax as a whole, and an increase in marginal rates for the highest brackets. There comes a certain point where you can't even physically live a lavish enough lifestyle to actually spend your money, and you're just hemorrhaging it.
>I dont see how owning money and owning land are one in the same.
Owning any two things aren't one and the same. If I owned every PS4 in the world, I'd be a greedy asshole, but that wouldn't be as harmful as if I owned every milligram of insulin in the world. But I think there comes a point where you should be limited in how much of any given thing you can have, including or perhaps especially
That's not to say I think the government should be aiming for equality of outcome. But the current economic trends that have accompanied the neoliberal policies implemented since the 70's and 80's are not sustainable. We're moving toward either borderline feudalism or a French Revolution-esque uprising if the gap between the absurdly wealthy and everyone else continues to grow unchecked.
>How is transferring that money to the government going to help the situation? The money will still be out of circulation, and possibly less likely to re enter circulation.
Well, the idea would be for it to fund things that we desperately need to fund, like environmental reforms, healthcare, reducing poverty, etc.
>The extra money in my check every week says otherwise. Its enough to cover a bill, so its basically like my phone is free compared to what i was being taxed before, which is a huge help. I can actually almost afford health insurance now.
It doesn't hurt you, but it benefits the top quintile even more than it benefits you, and in practice hurts all
quintiles in the long run due to the national debt. But more than anyone else, it will hurt the bottom quintile. I'm gonna guess that social programs and "welfare queens" will be the first thing nu-Reagan takes aim at in his second term when he needs to offset the decreased tax revenue to pay for his wall.
And you shouldn't have to afford
health insurance. That's something everybody needs, and something we need to catch up with the rest of the developed world on.
>Rich peoples money normally isnt just sitting in a giant checking account, its largely invested in the stock market, where it does a lot more good than if it were sitting as a "surplus" in government funding.
But a lot less good than if it were mitigating the national debt, funding sustainable energy solutions, resolving the healthcare crisis...
>Where it seems you are suggesting that that's okay.
Well, to me personally, if I were making $100 million a year and only got to keep $30 million, I'd be okay with that, as long as my $70 million were going to things that matter. If I didn't like what the government was spending it on, I'd make charitable donations of my own choosing and deduct it. I'd probably continue donating from my $30 million to other things that matter, until I'm left with like $1 million. A million dollars a year is still a way more luxurious lifestyle than I care to lead, but it's good to save some and have financial security. But even though I'd be okay with it myself, I don't think that people who make $100 million should be mandated to pay up 70% of the whole damn thing to Uncle Sam. In fact, I don't think I'd even change the current brackets or rates -- I'd just add more brackets. There used to be 24 income tax brackets, now there are only 8.>>218145
Honestly, even as a highly individualistic person in most regards, I can't imagine myself pinching $100 million worth of pennies. My moral compass would not allow me to do that while there are people living in the streets, unemployed/unemployable, unable to afford medical treatment. I would feel, at that point, that I'm
infringing on their