NJ Governor

[12th Doctor]

Yes, Dazzleman, one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that the wealthy have a moral obligation to society to give a small portion of their money back to the less fortunate, while conservatives believe that they should be allowed to keep it.

Please.  That's not what we believe at all.  We believe that the weathy do have that obligation, that's what trickle-down economics is all about.  We just believe that it should be done through charity and not wasteful "entitlement" program.

[12th Doctor]

But in trickle-down economics, there is no requirement for the rich to trickle down the wealth to the poor. You can say that's what you WANT them to do, but ultimately through government policy you are saying that they can choose to do that if they want, or they can keep it for themselves if they want. That's why trickle down doesn't work very well, because a large percentage of the wealthy keep the money (or spend it overseas, creating new factories for their corporations in other countries where labor is cheaper, or spend it on overseas vacations or buying houses overseas), and thus the benefit that is derived from it is more than made up for by the cuts in government spending that must be made to compensate for the tax cut. I would not oppose tax cuts for the rich if they were tied to a requirement that they spend the money on something that will help the less well off (for example, tax credits for corporations for hiring new workers in the US).
And actually, making them pay 40% of their income in taxes is still going to leave them with a lot if they make millions of dollars per year. Historically, tax rates on the rich have been a lot higher (91% in the 1950s, still 70% even into the early 1980s) and they didn't do irreprable harm to the economy, rather the economy was quite prosperous during much of the 1950s and 1960s. Certainly a 40% rate on the wealthiest is reasonable.

Percolate-up economics would work a lot better, since the people at the bottom would be much more likely to spend the money on things that would help the economy (buying a new car, a new house, taking a domestic vacation, etc.). Thus, the total size of the tax cut needs to be much larger if you are giving it to the wealthy for it to have the same economic impact as a tax cut for the poor would have, and thus there is the additional benefit to the economy of not running up the deficit as much. I believe that the tax structure should be more progressive, with higher tax rates on the rich and lower tax rates for the poor.

Why should it be required.  We do live in a free society.  Don't we?  Besides, the fact remains that a lot of weath does trickle down.  Charities still take in Billions every year.  Plus that, when you put money into government programs, you waste most of the money just trying to get it where it needs to go.  That's the nature of beurocracy.

Even if the wealthy take the money and put it into stocks, bonds or the bank, it still helps out the economy as a whole.  Money in the bank can be distributed as loans.  Someone can buy a house because a rich guy put money in the bank.  That gives the bankers jobs too.  You can't sit there and say that because rich people aren't doing what you want them to do with there money that they are not doing anything for the economy.  Everything works as a butterfly effect.  A ripple here can cause a wave a mile away.  That's the way things work in the real word.

Give weathier people tax cuts, because they earned the money and because they give the most.  Let them spend it and put that money into the economy without some government middle man or beurocrat telling him where it should go.  Let it getout there without it being taken away from every single time it passes to a new agency or travels down the government latter and watch what happens.

And if I were in charge of things, I would cut taxes for the middle-class in half of what they are now, so don't think that I only favor the rich.

[12th Doctor]

Yes, Dazzleman, one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that the wealthy have a moral obligation to society to give a small portion of their money back to the less fortunate, while conservatives believe that they should be allowed to keep it.

Please.  That's not what we believe at all.  We believe that the weathy do have that obligation, that's what trickle-down economics is all about.  We just believe that it should be done through charity and not wasteful "entitlement" program.

Trickle-down economics doesn't always work though. This letter to the Guardian best sums up why:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll admit it's fuzzy math, but it's an apt illustration of what can happen, and often does happen.

Nothing on your tax return says you can't give more in taxes.  These liberal eleites want everyone to pay more, so why don't they?  its perfectly legal and withint he law.

That's a fair point, but what exactly do you mean by "liberal elites"?

Government programs don't always work either.  Look at the impact of the "Great Society" on the inner-cities.

[12th Doctor]

Also, don't forget that the Bush tax cuts eliminated the income tax burden of millions of lower income families.

[12th Doctor]

Yes, we live in a free society, however, I feel that a person's worth is not determined by their income or the amount of money that they have. Earning money does have a lot to do with hard work, but also a lot of it is luck, being in the right place at the right time, and many people inherit wealth from their parents without having to do any hard work at all. That is why those who have been successful and gotten the breaks should give some back to society, for the betterment of all of us. I'm not talking about communism here, confiscating all of it or anything. I'm just saying give enough to help others, while still leaving them filthy rich, just not quite as filthy rich. I don't think that's too much to ask of people in order to make the world a better place for everyone else.

Yes, I realize that some of the wealth does trickle down in trickle down economics, but I think that a very high percentage of it doesn't, as opposed to giving the money to the people at the bottom of the economic ladder who are much more likely to use it in a way that is productive to the economy. Demand creates supply, not the other way around, which is why supply side economics is not the most optimal way to grow the economy. The consumers are the ones who really drive the economic vehicle of this country and are the ones upon whom the economy is most dependent moreso than the producers. Obviously there needs to be both supply and demand, but in capitalism supply will follow demand since it is profitable to do so, but demand will not necessarily follow supply since it is not in the consumers' best interest. In the long run, tax cuts for the wealthy do more harm than good to the economy, as they create a larger debt which will ultimately cause a reduction in government services which disproportionately benefit the less well-off.

Yes, tax cuts for the middle class and poor do benefit them, but if they are accompanied by tax cuts for the rich as well then overall the poor and middle class are losing more than they are gaining in the long run. They may see some short term benefit, but in the long run there will be much more bad than good for their personal economic fortunes.

I also don't agree that government is as wasteful or inefficient as you. Yes, bureaucracy does cause some waste, but there is bureaucracy in every organization, businesses included. Ultimately, the fact that businesses make a profit while government doesn't is the biggest reason why government is more efficient when it comes to providing good services to the masses at reasonable cost. Government doesn't generate huge amounts of wealth for those at the top like business does. It provides much more benefit, disproportionately, to those at the bottom economically. Thus, for the great majority of people, they will get more bang for their buck from government than from private business, in my opinion.

Ultimately, as I've said before, it comes down to which of the 2 moral principles involved is more important: that people be allowed to keep their money, or the societal obligation of those with more to give some of it back to those with less. Although almost everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, agrees with both moral principles, they disagree as to which is more important and should receive more emphasis in public policy, and to what degree one should win out over the other.

The problem is that you are looking at this so one dimentionaly.  You aren't seeing the beniftsa to the economy brought about by allowing people to spend money as they will.  You also don't give people in general enough credit.  People take care of people.  That's the way society works.  In societies that have freedoms and large middle classes, there is always a lot of charity.  That is, when people can afford to spend.  Anyway, government waste is a huge problem and if you don't think so then you are ignoring reality.  The government doesn't have to compete and turn a profit so it can be and is more wasteful.  
Government control doesn't help either.  Just look at the millions of pages of government regulation that are produced every year.