Ganked from metahacker

[ironphoenix]

This graph says it all, really.¹ Republicans are for the rich. It's that simple.

Why do so many poor and middle-class people vote for them?

---

1: Well, not really. It doesn't show the cuts to social programs that the Republican tax plan necessarily implies because of the reduction in net tax revenues, which generally hit low-income folks harder.

Comments

[squireofmichael.livejournal.com]

Seconded.

Also because tax cuts for the wealthy generally spur tax revenue, which is the only way government can expand social services effectively. Want better education services? Encourage economic growth. Historically, raising taxes on upper-middle and upper class citizens generally deters economic growth (in America - I can't speak for other countries on that). A better economy means more money changing hands more often, meaning more taxes being levied, meaning more money in the government's coffers, meaning expanded and improved programs. Much as I wouldn't mind getting the extra 20 bucks a paycheck Obama's tax plan would give me, I'd much rather the company I work for have the capital and the market confidence to grow so they can promote me and just give me a raise instead (my last raise tacked on an extra $55 a paycheck, net). Am I happy that that's how things are? Not necessarilly. But you work with what you've got, not what you wish you had.

Chart showing the Bush tax cuts caused one of the highest jumps in Tax revenue in history. (http://taxprof.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg) Graph 3 shows a general plateau across history of federal receipts percentage of American GDP - note that most dips occur directly before a large tax cut. (http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html)

I don't like Bush's federal policies and running us into a deficit, but we're not running in deficit and needing to cut programs because a lack of tax revenue. We're running in deficit because of rampant wasteful and corrupt spending.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Last paragraph: Granted, if I'm doing okay financially and then pick up a $1500/month coke habit, that will probably run me into a deficit. The coke habit, however, may cause me to lose my good job and thus damage my income as well, deepening my problems. (Eventually, Vinnie and Knuckles get involved, and we won't carry that any further.)

Your cited graphs: I don't actually know the Act mentioned in the first graph, but I will note that the graph isn't inflation-adjusted. Also, the jump isn't what's characterized as being the largest in history, but rather, the level in unadjusted dollars. Finally, correlation is not causation; there are a lot of factors which influence this beyond Bush's legislation. I don't see what you're talking about in the second graph when you say to "note that most dips occur directly before a large tax cut."

Main paragraph: Economic growth is encouraged by encouraging investment, not by encouraging hoarding. That's why capital gains rebates are implemented. Also, corporate tax rates aren't part of the discussion here. Personally, if there is a way to control the offshoring of profits, I would like to see corporate taxes at 0 and transfer that burden to individual taxes, so that the money is taxed when it comes out of the company into owners' hands, but not before; this would maximize the value of reinvestment.

As for promotional raises... well, my company and I don't see eye-to-eye on this one. Let's leave it at that, shall we?

[squireofmichael.livejournal.com]

I think my response to theweaselking covered most of this.

The graphs were more to demonstrate that tax cuts have, if nothing else, not had any negative impact on the economy (the single largest factor that drives tax revenues) - and that it's likely they tend to have a positive impact, though you are correct; correlation is not causation.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

GDP is not a terribly good measure of economic health, in my opinion. Balance between rich and poor is, long-term, very important, and GDP is silent on that question, for example.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I'd much rather the company I work for have the capital and the market confidence to grow so they can promote me and just give me a raise instead

You say that like you expect the profits at the top to trickle down to the employees, rather than simply enriching the shareholders and providing bonuses to the management.

That doesn't happen, in practice. It never has.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Yeah, trickle-down seems to have about the same kind of efficiency it does in ecological systems: about 10%.

[squireofmichael.livejournal.com]

It has nothing to do with trickle-down. Trickle-down economics implies that a company gives a damn about making its workers happier or wealthier. It doesn't, I have no delusions about that.

I'm referring to economic growth. When the economy grows, there is more money to be made. What does a company do? It makes money. If there is more money to be made, the company is going to try to get that money. The greater the economic growth, the more opportunity to try to saturate the main markets, as well as tap into niche markets that would have been previously unprofitable. In order for a company to take advantage of the money to be made, it has to have adequate staffing in place. If its staff is not capable of fully taking advantage of the marketshare the company feels it is should be capable of, then the staff grows out of sheer necessity. The expansion of a company is inevitable during economic growth. Expansion meaning more employees, more supervisors, more departments, more products.

It is more cost-effective, practical, and overall good for worker morale (directly tied to productivity) to hire for new and/or higher-positions in-house. Thus my point about promotions/raises. I don't expect my company to give me more money or promote me for just doing my job. I expect them to look at what I have achieved on behalf of their bottom line and say, "Well, hell, this guy makes us money and looks good doing it. Let's put him in a position where he can do that for us even more and give him incentive to do so." Being the capitalistic asshole I am, I absolutely expect them to provide said incentive to make them money. If they don't, I'll find somewhere else to work.

Of course, companies are going to try to short-cut their workers for their bottom-line. Tough shit. It's as much the responsibility of the worker to *not* let them do that as it is the company to not do it in the first place.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

No, that's not what trickle-down theory states.

Most companies hire their senior managers from outside these days. Despite the factors you mention, few people who are stellar line-level employees make stellar executives. Of course, few people make stellar executives, period, regardless of what school's MBA they have. Heck, few people make stellar line-level employees, too. What I'm saying is that it's not the same people. Also, training people up is a cost and a risk (they might leave after getting the training, and they'll probably expect more money: "I absolutely expect them to provide said incentive to make them money. If they don't, I'll find somewhere else to work."), and most companies want to externalize their costs, so they prefer to hire people who already have the skills and track record.

Your last paragraph is exactly what unions are (supposed to be¹) all about.

---

1: As it is, I think they do way too much big-P politics, but then, so do corporations.