PatrickG
04-20-2005, 12:36 AM
Okay,
I know Trickle Down Economics likely isn't popular here but I believe in it to an extent. The problem is, it needs a strong and diverse (almost omnipresent and omnifluous) private sector to work.
I really do think that if you give a tax break (or give money to)a guy who employees 20, 50 or 500 people, s/he will hire more employees, especially if s/he's a hands-on business owner who actively works in their field, not just sits behind a desk.
And if you give money to Hollywood millionaires or yuppies, they will blow that money on executive toys or vacations or nice things for their home... which bolsters the job opportunities for people who make those things. Heck, even if it goes to drug dealers and prostitutes, it's creating wealth and bolstering productivity and increasing the value of the dollar in the world market.
The problem, IMO, is with the government. Money sways politicians. Money equals clout. The government encourages this both through the existance of lobbies and by subcontracting and subsidizing. So some people sit on money, large sums of it that they don't need.
And so people in the lower classes wind up working crappy jobs. Private school opportunities become scarce and expensive. Education, the arts and all the cool superfluous industries out there suffer.
But if people blow $4 on a latte, there's one more person who gets to be a barristador instead of a factory worker. If people blow $10 on a movie ticket, they're supporting an industry of people doing what they love. And when a rich person puts a cool pool in their backyard, they're allowing some guy to be a designer of beautiful things instead of fixing toilets.
So here's my proposal: A luxury tax break.
Give people a tax break who A) can demonstrate that they're hands-on in their business/field and could benefit by hiring more people domestically and/or B) who fall into an upper income bracket and will spend their refund/savings on noble and/or useless stuff produced domestically.
I don't WANT people who are going to hoard money to acquire power and influence to get a break... But I do want rich people to spend money on cool/enriching/adventurous and possibly useless things so that all of us average folk can move on to cool/enriching/adventurous and possibly useless jobs for a living.
I know Trickle Down Economics likely isn't popular here but I believe in it to an extent. The problem is, it needs a strong and diverse (almost omnipresent and omnifluous) private sector to work.
I really do think that if you give a tax break (or give money to)a guy who employees 20, 50 or 500 people, s/he will hire more employees, especially if s/he's a hands-on business owner who actively works in their field, not just sits behind a desk.
And if you give money to Hollywood millionaires or yuppies, they will blow that money on executive toys or vacations or nice things for their home... which bolsters the job opportunities for people who make those things. Heck, even if it goes to drug dealers and prostitutes, it's creating wealth and bolstering productivity and increasing the value of the dollar in the world market.
The problem, IMO, is with the government. Money sways politicians. Money equals clout. The government encourages this both through the existance of lobbies and by subcontracting and subsidizing. So some people sit on money, large sums of it that they don't need.
And so people in the lower classes wind up working crappy jobs. Private school opportunities become scarce and expensive. Education, the arts and all the cool superfluous industries out there suffer.
But if people blow $4 on a latte, there's one more person who gets to be a barristador instead of a factory worker. If people blow $10 on a movie ticket, they're supporting an industry of people doing what they love. And when a rich person puts a cool pool in their backyard, they're allowing some guy to be a designer of beautiful things instead of fixing toilets.
So here's my proposal: A luxury tax break.
Give people a tax break who A) can demonstrate that they're hands-on in their business/field and could benefit by hiring more people domestically and/or B) who fall into an upper income bracket and will spend their refund/savings on noble and/or useless stuff produced domestically.
I don't WANT people who are going to hoard money to acquire power and influence to get a break... But I do want rich people to spend money on cool/enriching/adventurous and possibly useless things so that all of us average folk can move on to cool/enriching/adventurous and possibly useless jobs for a living.