If you look at their views it's a clear choice. Benefit the middle class by cutting their taxes or cut the taxes of the upper class so they can "invest" in the economy.
Grow the economy from the middle class out or the upper class out.
We tried something similar to this in Pakistan where the government is now only useful to the Rich.
That is a false dichotomy. How about raising everyone's tax rates? How about lowering them?
I live within walking distance of two millionaires in my neighborhood. And no, I do not live in a gated community. There is no homeowner's association (HOA) to keep the neighborhood trimmed and clean. My front yard often looks messy sometimes with uncut lawn and toys from the local children. There are cars parked on the streets instead of being forced inside like some upper scaled neighborhoods. The millionaires' houses are larger than the rest. Why not? Your home is the next closest thing to you after your clothes. So as you gains financial success, why not make this thing more comfortable for you and your family? They drive better than average cars. Why not? Often their cars are their offices so why not make those things comfortable as well?
But neither millionaire have servants or superpower sportscars or trophy wives. Most of those who achieved 'millionaire' status
DO NOT have actual income of one million a month. Put yourself in a millionaire's fine shoes. As you work, usually more than the average 40hrs/wk, do you stash away your income year after year? No, you save some and
INVEST some. Then as time go by, if you are mostly conservative with your investments and continued savings, your
NET WORTH is
ESTIMATED to be in that 'millionaire' strata.
Get it?
Demonizing 'the rich' is easy to do by bypassing real life experience of those who worked hard and earned their 'millionaire' status ethically and legally through conservative investments and savings by insinuating they actually have income of a million or more per month and did it through immoral and even illegal means. Such arguments appeals to the baser of human feelings: Envy. It says: 'Instead of going to the woods and chop down some trees and build up your house, go over to the larger house and take off pieces to build up your house. Hurt those who resist. The end justify the means.'
Like it or not, those labeled 'the rich' are indeed 'job creators' and usually each millionaire is the company's first employee. Most of them have years of barely sustaining income, often intruding into savings, before they turned a profit, and most early profit income are meager, hardly spectacular as often glorified in movies. Without these people, there would be no 'middle class' and everyone would be in 'the poor'. But then again, since there is no 'the rich', no one would know he/she is a member of ' the poor', right? Now, is that not the ideal society: No rich, no poor, and of course, no middle class? Yes, it is called 'communism'.
Reduce tax
RATES for everyone. In a capitalist society, wealth will be generated and the government will receive increased revenue without reducing everyone's 'take home pay', which the most important monthly figure by everyone. Some will hoard their income, some will invest and fail, some will invest and succeed. But no matter which way, more wealth will be generated which will give the government increased revenue.
Like it or not, without those willing to 'invest', there will be 'middle class' to grow.
