The Economic consequence of lowering taxes on the rich would be lower overall taxes on everyone else too. Remember, the consumer pays all of the “Richs” taxes. If the Rich doesn’t pay as much in tax then they will lower prices, because competition makes them lower prices.
Lets say for instance Jeff Bezos runs a 10% profit margin at Amazon, but Amazon pays 10% “Corporate Taxes” so that means that it actually will take 10% more money to run Amazon, because they cannot operate at a loss. They MUST by the rules of Economics make a profit, enough to cover payroll and all the costs of business and the COST OF THEIR TAXES, so if Amazon pays 10% more, they MUST pass that onto the consumer in the form of price hikes.
YOu will in fact if you eliminated the 10%, see a reduction in costs of 10%. You say “They will just pocket the money”, well sure if they were a Government granted monopoly like School Districts of public utilities but they have to compete against Target and Walmart, and Walmart for sure, which I think only runs a 6% profit margin, will lower their prices to undercut Amazon.
Newsflash: they can print to INFINITY. They don’t even need to print, they just type an amount on a computer and it “tops up” the account. How much do you need from the “rich people”?
They can just print that amount if they wanted it. The “rich people” you are blaming are playing the same game as you and I, they are just extremely productive.
Instead of blaming them, blame the people who put us 34 trillion in debt…
Imagine if that 34 trillion went to US!
Good read. The synopsis from the beginning of the paper:
> We find tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality in both the short- and medium-term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth or unemployment. Our results therefore provide strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to boost the wider economy.
Time to turn that downward curve into an upward smile.
4 comments
The Economic consequence of lowering taxes on the rich would be lower overall taxes on everyone else too. Remember, the consumer pays all of the “Richs” taxes. If the Rich doesn’t pay as much in tax then they will lower prices, because competition makes them lower prices.
Lets say for instance Jeff Bezos runs a 10% profit margin at Amazon, but Amazon pays 10% “Corporate Taxes” so that means that it actually will take 10% more money to run Amazon, because they cannot operate at a loss. They MUST by the rules of Economics make a profit, enough to cover payroll and all the costs of business and the COST OF THEIR TAXES, so if Amazon pays 10% more, they MUST pass that onto the consumer in the form of price hikes.
YOu will in fact if you eliminated the 10%, see a reduction in costs of 10%. You say “They will just pocket the money”, well sure if they were a Government granted monopoly like School Districts of public utilities but they have to compete against Target and Walmart, and Walmart for sure, which I think only runs a 6% profit margin, will lower their prices to undercut Amazon.
Newsflash: they can print to INFINITY. They don’t even need to print, they just type an amount on a computer and it “tops up” the account. How much do you need from the “rich people”?
They can just print that amount if they wanted it. The “rich people” you are blaming are playing the same game as you and I, they are just extremely productive.
Instead of blaming them, blame the people who put us 34 trillion in debt…
Imagine if that 34 trillion went to US!
Good read. The synopsis from the beginning of the paper:
> We find tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality in both the short- and medium-term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth or unemployment. Our results therefore provide strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to boost the wider economy.
Time to turn that downward curve into an upward smile.