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

[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.