Money spent on a bad cause is bad ya, but it’s still money in the economy. My initial reply was around OP’s comment of “wealthy people actually bring very little into an economy,”
That’s fair, but ‘can’ doesn’t always mean it will, and I imagine most of these cases come down to politics?
What if Paxton loses? Also are you saying that everyone with lets say > $100 million is personally spending more money that will harm the economy rather than just regular spending which helps it?
Not taxing them in hopes they will spend more is wrong, but the do spend.
And not everyone is as bad as Musk when it comes to this and there are counterparts to him supporting the other side in similar (but maybe not as much) ways.
in case you were reading and already replying to what I wrote, i made a meaningful edit with net negative/very little. My bad on that one. Sorry if I put you down the wrong path on a reply!
Correct me if I’m wrong here, and excuse my completely made up numbers, this is just an example and they have no bearing on what actual values might look like.
You’re saying that not taxing the ultra rich means were losing out on a hypothetical $100 billion dollars a year. That $100 billion we lose out on, doesn’t make up for the $10 billion they spend, and it never catches up. If we taxed them more, we’d always come out ahead.
And you’re right, and thats why we should raise taxes and close loop holes. Trickle down does not work.
Further, of that $10 billion they spend, you’re saying its a net negative adds very little to the economy.
I’m just not convinced thats the case, and if there are (edit decades of) studies out there that say this is the case that have no relation to how we should tax them more because that would be better, I’d be curious to see it.
If they just all hypothetically vanished, and the world moved on without them and that spending stopped, the economy would notice it. Again, it wouldn’t be this catastrophic thing, but it would be noticed.
Edit: Actually to be fair, net negative isn’t right and wasn’t either of our arguments, “very little” is more appropriate. My bad on that one.
Money spent on a bad cause is bad ya, but it’s still money in the economy. My initial reply was around OP’s comment of “wealthy people actually bring very little into an economy,”
ok but money spent in bad ways does not benefit the economy as a whole, often it doesn’t even interact with the majority of the economy
op isnt wrong
again this is pretty standard trickle down economics and not new, there are decades of studies on this
it generaly gets lumped as an externality cost and market warping and not a benefit
Trickle down as a reason to lower taxes doesnt work.
It doesn’t mean that things still dont go down.
This isnt about should we or should we not tax them. Yes we should tax them.
no i’m saying money isnt some magical positive in the economic sheet, not all expenditure is the same
money spent can actually hurt economies
ie lobbying for tariffs is the classic example
That’s fair, but ‘can’ doesn’t always mean it will, and I imagine most of these cases come down to politics?
What if Paxton loses? Also are you saying that everyone with lets say > $100 million is personally spending more money that will harm the economy rather than just regular spending which helps it?
Not taxing them in hopes they will spend more is wrong, but the do spend.
And not everyone is as bad as Musk when it comes to this and there are counterparts to him supporting the other side in similar (but maybe not as much) ways.
again decades of study on this topic
not new, outliers im sure exist but as a rule bad
rather we just eat them to be sure
Decades on trickle down economics as a reason to keep taxes low yes.
Decades of studies on how much people spend in general with no relation or links to their taxes?
im confused on the separation here
im talking about trickledown as again part of the individual billionaire but its just one way they distort markets
in case you were reading and already replying to what I wrote, i made a meaningful edit with net negative/very little. My bad on that one. Sorry if I put you down the wrong path on a reply!
Correct me if I’m wrong here, and excuse my completely made up numbers, this is just an example and they have no bearing on what actual values might look like.
You’re saying that not taxing the ultra rich means were losing out on a hypothetical $100 billion dollars a year. That $100 billion we lose out on, doesn’t make up for the $10 billion they spend, and it never catches up. If we taxed them more, we’d always come out ahead.
And you’re right, and thats why we should raise taxes and close loop holes. Trickle down does not work.
Further, of that $10 billion they spend, you’re saying its
a net negativeadds very little to the economy.I’m just not convinced thats the case, and if there are (edit decades of) studies out there that say this is the case that have no relation to how we should tax them more because that would be better, I’d be curious to see it.
If they just all hypothetically vanished, and the world moved on without them and that spending stopped, the economy would notice it. Again, it wouldn’t be this catastrophic thing, but it would be noticed.
Edit: Actually to be fair, net negative isn’t right and wasn’t either of our arguments, “very little” is more appropriate. My bad on that one.