Re: Explaining the hubris of the left on income inequality
posted at 7/14/2014 12:36 PM EDT
In response to ronreganfan's comment:
In response to high-road's comment:
So what ever happened to all the benefits these 'job creators' were supposed to rain down on society?
We've all heard the wingnut speil: "If the rich get richer everybody wins."
Well ... where are all the jobs?
Where are all the 'rising boats'?
Where's all the wealth that's supposed to flow down the hill, enriching everyone?
Oh, I get it:
When the wingnuts embrace the 'trickle down' theory of their betters, it's not economics ... it's more of a 'trickle down and tell them it's raining' type of theory.
And it's "winning" Charlie Sheen style ....
Job creators are not investing, they are doing stock buy backs instead. Why?
The democrats have made investing their capital too expensive. Better to buy back shares, which in turn raises the price of the stock.
So you're saying that rich people would rather hoard their money, with no appreciable benefit or return, rather than make an investment that would produce a return ... because taxes are "too damn high"?
You're argument is that rich people don't want to be rich, they just want to be taxed less?
You're saying that to the job creators, a return of 70% on an investment is worse than a 0% return on an investment?
You do realize that a corporation, as much as you like to think of them as people, can't actually be it's own shareholder. Those shares that a company buys are absorbed by the corporation which means they have no value to the company ... other than as an expense.
And why would a company need to prop up it's share price when the stcok market is at historic highs?
And this is your argument in light of taxes being at historic lows ... and in spite of the fact that when taxes where 2-3 times higher, at 70-90%, the economy experienced the longest period of economic growth in it's history.
To summarize ... all we have to do is ignore the basics of investing, recent tax history and the recent economic past .... for your theory to be believable.... Got it.