Cains 9-9-9 plan,or Perry’s flat tax will devastate the economy

[eflatminor]

I have just logically demonstrated the clear and undeniable flaw in conservative economic theory...

No, you did not. Not even close. But let me be clear before I DESTROY your argument. I'm not arguing "conservative" economic theory, I'm arguing in favor of limited government, typically the Austrian or Chicago school of economics. With that said, you're dead ******* wrong and here is why:

1) A slight reduction in the overall level of income among the 47% that do not currently pay federal income taxes would not "result in a net loss of economic activity". Why? Because you forget that a low, flat tax rate with a wide base will BOOST investments in job creating ventures, thereby increasing the number of folks paying taxes, which increases economic activity and therefore, revenue to the federal government.

2) You stated "The excess of earnings in these categories (richer people) go into the earners stock portfolios where it artificially inflates the value of the stocks". Not true. It is government intervention into markets that creates bubbles and artificial inflation. You're blaming rich people for what is caused by The Federal Reserve.

3) Perhaps most ignorantly, you state "...increasing economic activity through increased government spending". You don't get much dumber than that! Do you not realize that any money the government spends must first come out of the economy, typically from the most productive citizens and organization, then it is run through the corrupt and inefficient government bureaucracies before a single dime can be spent on 'stimulus'? What you are suggesting would be like me taking $100 out of the grocer's till, sticking a portion in my pocket to cover expenses, and then giving the rest to a homeless guy...who will hopefully buy food from the grocer. That's not stimulus, it's theft.

Now shut the **** up and go read something other than Keynesian or Socialist propaganda. It's nauseating to those with a brain.

 

[auditor0007]

Put simply, my issue with Cains 9-9-9 plan and Perry’s flat tax is that they would have a devastating impact on the economy, and here’s why.

Because the entire lower 50% of earners make only 12.7% of the income in America, their budgets are constrained, meaning that there are goods and services they would buy, but don’t because they simply don’t have the money. As a result any reduction in the income of the lower 50% of earners will result in an immediate point by point reduction in consumer spending. Because consumer spending is 70% of economic activity directly and indirectly impacts all other economic activity, reductions in the income of these earners result in a net loss of economic activity.

The upper 50% of earners make 87.3% of the overall income with the top 5% making fully 35% of the income. This means that the budgets of the upper 50% of earners, and the top 5% in particular are bloated, meaning they buy all the goods and services they are going to buy regardless of increases or decreases in their income of less than 90% of their total earnings. The excess of earnings in these categories go into the earners stock portfolios where it artificially inflates the value of the stocks they invest in. Increases in stock prices not related to actual increases in profits from economic activity are what’s known as stock bubbles, which have a destabilizing effect on the economy.

In short, increasing earnings by decreasing the tax rates of the upper 50% of earners by a few points will not have an impact on consumer spending, but will destabilize the economy by creating more and larger stock bubbles. Whereas the opposite is also true, increasing taxes on the upper 50% of earners will have a stabilizing effect on the economy by reducing the size of stock bubbles and increasing economic activity through increased government spending.

However the opposite is also true with regards to the lower 50% of earners, reducing their income hurts the economy by reducing consumer spending and enlarging already existing stock bubbles on Wall Street through the decrease in economic activity. Likewise, increasing their earnings will cause an immediate increase in consumer spending resulting in increased economic activity. This will result in a stabilizing effect on the economy by creating real, sustainable economic growth that will shrink stock bubbles without reducing stock prices by providing real, sustainable increases in corporate profits.

Perry and Cain talk about how “fair” their plans are, and their right, when we all live together in an economically devastated third world country it will be survival of the fittest, and what could be more fair than that?

Perry's plan just leaves us way to short on revenue. From a fairness standpoint, I don't see anything inherently wrong with it; it just doesn't bring in enough revenue. Cain's plan, on the other hand, would force create a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. Just as it is at the state level where the highest income earners pay the least taxes, Cain's plan would move the federal tax system to the same place where the highest income earners paid the least percentage of taxes and the lowest income earners paid the least.

The good thing is that Cain's plan will never see the light of day. Americans may not be the smartest people in the world, but they aren't that dumb either.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm a conservative and if Obama came out talking about impowerment zones within our cities, we would rightfully call him a commie. I will be fair to both parties and Cain is just unacceptable to me.

This is something Obama wishes he could say out in the open. Yet he is our front runner? WTH?

 

[deepthunk]

I have just logically demonstrated the clear and undeniable flaw in conservative economic theory...

No, you did not. Not even close. But let me be clear before I DESTROY your argument. I'm not arguing "conservative" economic theory, I'm arguing in favor of limited government, typically the Austrian or Chicago school of economics. With that said, you're dead ******* wrong and here is why:

There are numerous “experts” who would argue with me just as you do, such as, Dr. Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. However the Mercatus center is directly funded by the Koch brother’s expressly with the intention of disseminating conservative economic theory which the wealthy see as benefiting them. Dr De Rugy says it in her own words in fact “I work for the Mercatus Center and Charles Koch is the chairman of our board and one of our main donors.” - An Interesting Interview - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online that is why you and so many others are being misled, your receiving economic data which is biased and misleading, which is intentional.

1) A slight reduction in the overall level of income among the 47% that do not currently pay federal income taxes would not "result in a net loss of economic activity". Why? Because you forget that a low, flat tax rate with a wide base will BOOST investments in job creating ventures, thereby increasing the number of folks paying taxes, which increases economic activity and therefore, revenue to the federal government.

In order for those ventures to be successful there must be a sufficient level of economic activity to sustain them, therefore economic activity must increase steadily as the number of new ventures attempting to compete in the market increases otherwise those ventures will fail. If there is not a surplus of activity in the market said ventures enter, they will either fail or drive another business out, resulting in no net gain for the economy as a whole.

Since consumer spending is 70% of economic activity directly, and nearly all activity indirectly (that which is not related directly to consumer spending is affected by it, such as the buying and selling of commodities, the production of heavy manufacturing equipment, and so forth), consumer spending must increase before new ventures can be successful.
Because these new ventures of which you speak will fail or drive another venture out of the market without an increase in consumer spending, they will result in no net increase in revenue.

2) You stated "The excess of earnings in these categories (richer people) go into the earners stock portfolios where it artificially inflates the value of the stocks". Not true. It is government intervention into markets that creates bubbles and artificial inflation. You're blaming rich people for what is caused by The Federal Reserve.

You forget, it was specifically the deregulation of the financial market that caused the toxic asset crisis which caused the real estate bubble to burst, and it was the over valuation of real estate that created that bubble. Said bubble was a result of an increase in value that was the result in an increase in the demand of investors without a corresponding increase in demand through consumption (I.E. new home purchases).

3) Perhaps most ignorantly, you state "...increasing economic activity through increased government spending". You don't get much dumber than that! Do you not realize that any money the government spends must first come out of the economy, typically from the most productive citizens and organization, then it is run through the corrupt and inefficient government bureaucracies before a single dime can be spent on 'stimulus'? What you are suggesting would be like me taking $100 out of the grocer's till, sticking a portion in my pocket to cover expenses, and then giving the rest to a homeless guy...who will hopefully buy food from the grocer. That's not stimulus, it's theft.

I said that it has a stabilizing effect, because instead of the money going into the stock portfolios of the wealthy where it can create more overvaluation, and more stock bubbles to burst and harm the economy as a whole, it goes to civil servants who spend on consumer goods and the goods and services the government buys. Thus increasing real economic activity and creating real, sustained growth on Wall Street.

Now shut the **** up and go read something other than Keynesian or Socialist propaganda. It's nauseating to those with a brain.

Well, since you have no brain I’m sure your feeling just fine.

Such statements are merely meant to fluster and inflame in the vain hope that I’ll get to angry to think clearly and form a rational response; such tactics will not work with me I have experienced them from some of the best. Furthermore the insinuation that I’m just a liberal is meant to misdirect, it is as though you desperately scream “don t listen to him, he’s one of them!”

Last but not least, on my life and until my dying breath I will NOT “shut the **** up”. I will speak loudly and with pride, the size of my mouth and the volume with which I speak shall only increase as time goes on. To god himself I swear it!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

States are free to tax their citizens in an attempt to create a "social safety net". The federal government has no such authority.

Yes, it does.

Or did you simply forget to cite the case where the Supreme Court overturned Helvering vs. Davis and Steward Machine?

 

[rdean]

Michelle says turn it over. 9-9-9 becomes 6-6-6 and the Devil is in the Details.

 

[deepthunk]

Michelle says turn it over. 9-9-9 becomes 6-6-6 and the Devil is in the Details.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ok its getting obvious that none of you have a real logical argument to present in opposition, I’m gonna go watch doctor who, let me know if you come up with something.

You have had your ass handed to you for downright stupidity here. If you can't see that you are truly clueless and pathetic.
Eastern Europe has had a flat tax for years. The results have been less money spent in tax collection, more tax compliance/less cheating, and overall more revenue for the government.
None of what you fantasize came to pass there. It won't here either. Even critics of flat tax don't claim what you do.

 

[The Rabbi]

Michelle says turn it over. 9-9-9 becomes 6-6-6 and the Devil is in the Details.

I always knew RDean was a secret admirer of Bachmann.

 

[eflatminor]

I have just logically demonstrated the clear and undeniable flaw in conservative economic theory...

No, you did not. Not even close. But let me be clear before I DESTROY your argument. I'm not arguing "conservative" economic theory, I'm arguing in favor of limited government, typically the Austrian or Chicago school of economics. With that said, you're dead ******* wrong and here is why:

There are numerous “experts” who would argue with me just as you do, such as, Dr. Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. However the Mercatus center is directly funded by the Koch brother’s expressly with the intention of disseminating conservative economic theory which the wealthy see as benefiting them. Dr De Rugy says it in her own words in fact “I work for the Mercatus Center and Charles Koch is the chairman of our board and one of our main donors.” - An Interesting Interview - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online that is why you and so many others are being misled, your receiving economic data which is biased and misleading, which is intentional.



In order for those ventures to be successful there must be a sufficient level of economic activity to sustain them, therefore economic activity must increase steadily as the number of new ventures attempting to compete in the market increases otherwise those ventures will fail. If there is not a surplus of activity in the market said ventures enter, they will either fail or drive another business out, resulting in no net gain for the economy as a whole.

Since consumer spending is 70% of economic activity directly, and nearly all activity indirectly (that which is not related directly to consumer spending is affected by it, such as the buying and selling of commodities, the production of heavy manufacturing equipment, and so forth), consumer spending must increase before new ventures can be successful.
Because these new ventures of which you speak will fail or drive another venture out of the market without an increase in consumer spending, they will result in no net increase in revenue.



You forget, it was specifically the deregulation of the financial market that caused the toxic asset crisis which caused the real estate bubble to burst, and it was the over valuation of real estate that created that bubble. Said bubble was a result of an increase in value that was the result in an increase in the demand of investors without a corresponding increase in demand through consumption (I.E. new home purchases).

3) Perhaps most ignorantly, you state "...increasing economic activity through increased government spending". You don't get much dumber than that! Do you not realize that any money the government spends must first come out of the economy, typically from the most productive citizens and organization, then it is run through the corrupt and inefficient government bureaucracies before a single dime can be spent on 'stimulus'? What you are suggesting would be like me taking $100 out of the grocer's till, sticking a portion in my pocket to cover expenses, and then giving the rest to a homeless guy...who will hopefully buy food from the grocer. That's not stimulus, it's theft.

I said that it has a stabilizing effect, because instead of the money going into the stock portfolios of the wealthy where it can create more overvaluation, and more stock bubbles to burst and harm the economy as a whole, it goes to civil servants who spend on consumer goods and the goods and services the government buys. Thus increasing real economic activity and creating real, sustained growth on Wall Street.

Now shut the **** up and go read something other than Keynesian or Socialist propaganda. It's nauseating to those with a brain.

Well, since you have no brain I’m sure your feeling just fine.

Such statements are merely meant to fluster and inflame in the vain hope that I’ll get to angry to think clearly and form a rational response; such tactics will not work with me I have experienced them from some of the best. Furthermore the insinuation that I’m just a liberal is meant to misdirect, it is as though you desperately scream “don t listen to him, he’s one of them!”

Last but not least, on my life and until my dying breath I will NOT “shut the **** up”. I will speak loudly and with pride, the size of my mouth and the volume with which I speak shall only increase as time goes on. To god himself I swear it!

Wow, that's a lot of grasping at straws for someone that was sure he had made an unimpeachable argument. Anyway, I will respond one more time but after that, it's up to you to read something other than Keynes...deal?

Okay, first, that you mention one professor at George Mason, which has NOTHING to do with the long established school of Austrian economics. Again, you need to read.

Secondly, you state "consumer spending must increase before new ventures can be successful". Not only is that not true (a company that produces items more cheaply than the competition can still be successful even in an economy of decreasing consumer spending) but you overlook the fact that in low tax, free market environments, more people are employed and therefore more spending takes place...even if everyone is paying taxes, rich and poor alike. Again, we have plenty of examples of this, including other countries currently thriving under a low, flat tax while everyone else is going down the toilet.

Next, you make the blatantly false statement "it was specifically the deregulation of the financial market that caused the toxic asset crisis". Wrong Tonto! The crisis was brought on by government requiring banks to make bad loans to people that could not afford those loans and by government backing mortgages through Fannie and Freddie. The Community Reinvestment Act is a perfect example of the laws and regulations aimed at "The American Dream of Home Ownership" (remember that?!) that lead to banks making bad loans then getting them off their books as fast as possible. The bubble was cause by government meddling, not deregulation...which as been steadily increasing in just about every segment of the market for decades.

Lastly, stimulus does NOT have a stabilizing effect. Of course, you're assumption about stock investments is way off but more importantly, you think all the taxes for stimulus taken from productive citizens doesn't negatively effect job creation, but it does. If you're assumption was correct, we should have low unemployment and a stable economy today, having recently enacted the largest stimulus the world has ever seen. It didn't work because they never work.

You're right, I should not have told you to shut the **** up. Please, continue bloviating about that which you are ignorant. It only helps our side.

 

[deepthunk]

Ok its getting obvious that none of you have a real logical argument to present in opposition, I’m gonna go watch doctor who, let me know if you come up with something.

You have had your ass handed to you for downright stupidity here. If you can't see that you are truly clueless and pathetic.
Eastern Europe has had a flat tax for years. The results have been less money spent in tax collection, more tax compliance/less cheating, and overall more revenue for the government.
None of what you fantasize came to pass there. It won't here either. Even critics of flat tax don't claim what you do.

You can claim that I’ve “had my ass handed to me” all you want, but just because you say but does not make it so and in fact I have provided rational arguments for ever statement made in opposition to my original post, arguments that have not yet been defeated.

In fact I have already responded that statement about Europe, it’s in economic crisis and those countries that are not are too small to be relevant. For example the economy of Estonia is dwarfed by that of California alone, what it does or does not do cannot be used as a model for what would happen in the United States.

Repeating the same wrong statements over and over does not make them right by virtue of repetition.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Put simply, my issue with Cains 9-9-9 plan and Perry’s flat tax is that they would have a devastating impact on the economy, and here’s why.

Because the entire lower 50% of earners make only 12.7% of the income in America, their budgets are constrained, meaning that there are goods and services they would buy, but don’t because they simply don’t have the money. As a result any reduction in the income of the lower 50% of earners will result in an immediate point by point reduction in consumer spending. Because consumer spending is 70% of economic activity directly and indirectly impacts all other economic activity, reductions in the income of these earners result in a net loss of economic activity.

The upper 50% of earners make 87.3% of the overall income with the top 5% making fully 35% of the income. This means that the budgets of the upper 50% of earners, and the top 5% in particular are bloated, meaning they buy all the goods and services they are going to buy regardless of increases or decreases in their income of less than 90% of their total earnings. The excess of earnings in these categories go into the earners stock portfolios where it artificially inflates the value of the stocks they invest in. Increases in stock prices not related to actual increases in profits from economic activity are what’s known as stock bubbles, which have a destabilizing effect on the economy.

In short, increasing earnings by decreasing the tax rates of the upper 50% of earners by a few points will not have an impact on consumer spending, but will destabilize the economy by creating more and larger stock bubbles. Whereas the opposite is also true, increasing taxes on the upper 50% of earners will have a stabilizing effect on the economy by reducing the size of stock bubbles and increasing economic activity through increased government spending.

However the opposite is also true with regards to the lower 50% of earners, reducing their income hurts the economy by reducing consumer spending and enlarging already existing stock bubbles on Wall Street through the decrease in economic activity. Likewise, increasing their earnings will cause an immediate increase in consumer spending resulting in increased economic activity. This will result in a stabilizing effect on the economy by creating real, sustainable economic growth that will shrink stock bubbles without reducing stock prices by providing real, sustainable increases in corporate profits.

Perry and Cain talk about how “fair” their plans are, and their right, when we all live together in an economically devastated third world country it will be survival of the fittest, and what could be more fair than that?

Too late! Obama has already devastated the economy. When the U.S. economy completely collapses next year, let's revisit this topic.

 

[deepthunk]

Michelle says turn it over. 9-9-9 becomes 6-6-6 and the Devil is in the Details.

Ya know ever since I learned that Bachmann was an open minded, tolerant religious moderate she’s been one of the few from the right that I like, having just done some research I’ve discovered that not all her policies are bad. In fact she’s the only candidate on the right I would consider voting for right now, it’s a shame her own party turned on her, but what can one say, Perry’s a silver tongued devil that could sell ice cubes to penguins.

 

[deepthunk]

Michelle says turn it over. 9-9-9 becomes 6-6-6 and the Devil is in the Details.

Speaking of Bachmann, I was just reading about her problems with the New Hampshire walkouts, I just feel like mentioning that her national team has every right to criticize employees of a state campaign if they aren’t doing their jobs right, maybe they would feel more at home teaching kindergarten if they can’t handle the heat of a political campaign office.

 

[deepthunk]

Night kids, I’ll respond to the other BS in the morning when I want to bump my thread back to the top.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ok its getting obvious that none of you have a real logical argument to present in opposition, I’m gonna go watch doctor who, let me know if you come up with something.

You have had your ass handed to you for downright stupidity here. If you can't see that you are truly clueless and pathetic.
Eastern Europe has had a flat tax for years. The results have been less money spent in tax collection, more tax compliance/less cheating, and overall more revenue for the government.
None of what you fantasize came to pass there. It won't here either. Even critics of flat tax don't claim what you do.

You can claim that I’ve “had my ass handed to me” all you want, but just because you say but does not make it so and in fact I have provided rational arguments for ever statement made in opposition to my original post, arguments that have not yet been defeated.

In fact I have already responded that statement about Europe, it’s in economic crisis and those countries that are not are too small to be relevant. For example the economy of Estonia is dwarfed by that of California alone, what it does or does not do cannot be used as a model for what would happen in the United States.

Repeating the same wrong statements over and over does not make them right by virtue of repetition.

You are pathetic in what you don't know.
You have provided no rational statement. You have provided rationalizations.
Estonia is not irrelevant because of its size. What is the tipping point when a nation becomes relevant? There is none.
Russia also has a flat tax and it has worked very well. You cannot dispute these facts so you must invent extraneous reasons to dismiss them.
And you failed to back up your contention that a flat tax would ruin this country. The opposite is the case.

 

[deepthunk]

You have had your ass handed to you for downright stupidity here. If you can't see that you are truly clueless and pathetic.
Eastern Europe has had a flat tax for years. The results have been less money spent in tax collection, more tax compliance/less cheating, and overall more revenue for the government.
None of what you fantasize came to pass there. It won't here either. Even critics of flat tax don't claim what you do.

You can claim that I’ve “had my ass handed to me” all you want, but just because you say but does not make it so and in fact I have provided rational arguments for ever statement made in opposition to my original post, arguments that have not yet been defeated.

In fact I have already responded that statement about Europe, it’s in economic crisis and those countries that are not are too small to be relevant. For example the economy of Estonia is dwarfed by that of California alone, what it does or does not do cannot be used as a model for what would happen in the United States.

Repeating the same wrong statements over and over does not make them right by virtue of repetition.

You are pathetic in what you don't know.
You have provided no rational statement. You have provided rationalizations.
Estonia is not irrelevant because of its size. What is the tipping point when a nation becomes relevant? There is none.
Russia also has a flat tax and it has worked very well. You cannot dispute these facts so you must invent extraneous reasons to dismiss them.
And you failed to back up your contention that a flat tax would ruin this country. The opposite is the case.

“failed to back up your contention that a flat tax would ruin this country”
Actually I did explain it in plain English, if your not smart enough to underatnd then I’m not going to bother to repeat myself over and over.

You should also know that republicans in Arizona tried a flat tax, and despite the fact that Arizona is one of the most conservative states in the country, it angered so many voters, including the majority of conservative voters, that they couldn’t drop it fast enough.
In fact one could say the feedback on that little plan just about sounded a political Brown note in Phoenix, Flat-tax proposal dropped for now and I predict in a general election it’ll be a political Brown note for the campaign of whatever fool tries it.

 

[The Infidel]

Live within our means?


You mean gut the social safety net in this country so the wealthy can riegn like kings over us by dangling jobs and or ripping them away.

How did so many Americans get brainwashed into thinking the wealthy in this country are a gods who should rule over us?

Sure, so let's keep increasing the size of that safety net to cover education, healthcare, welfare, etc, etc, etc so those wealthy are SURE to move your job overseas. Great ******* plan.

States are free to tax their citizens in an attempt to create a "social safety net". The federal government has no such authority.

 

[The Rabbi]

You can claim that I’ve “had my ass handed to me” all you want, but just because you say but does not make it so and in fact I have provided rational arguments for ever statement made in opposition to my original post, arguments that have not yet been defeated.

In fact I have already responded that statement about Europe, it’s in economic crisis and those countries that are not are too small to be relevant. For example the economy of Estonia is dwarfed by that of California alone, what it does or does not do cannot be used as a model for what would happen in the United States.

Repeating the same wrong statements over and over does not make them right by virtue of repetition.

You are pathetic in what you don't know.
You have provided no rational statement. You have provided rationalizations.
Estonia is not irrelevant because of its size. What is the tipping point when a nation becomes relevant? There is none.
Russia also has a flat tax and it has worked very well. You cannot dispute these facts so you must invent extraneous reasons to dismiss them.
And you failed to back up your contention that a flat tax would ruin this country. The opposite is the case.

“failed to back up your contention that a flat tax would ruin this country”
Actually I did explain it in plain English, if your not smart enough to underatnd then I’m not going to bother to repeat myself over and over.

You should also know that republicans in Arizona tried a flat tax, and despite the fact that Arizona is one of the most conservative states in the country, it angered so many voters, including the majority of conservative voters, that they couldn’t drop it fast enough.
In fact one could say the feedback on that little plan just about sounded a political Brown note in Phoenix, Flat-tax proposal dropped for now and I predict in a general election it’ll be a political Brown note for the campaign of whatever fool tries it.

No, you did not explain it. You spun a scenario based on nothing but your own opinion. Totally fact-free. I guess I don't understand Moron.
Arizona did not try a flat tax. There was a proposal to implement one that was not passed. It is hardly the same thing. Nor is that responsive to the idea of a flat tax working or not working. Every place one has been implemented, it is still in effect and working well.

 

[deepthunk]

You are pathetic in what you don't know.
You have provided no rational statement. You have provided rationalizations.
Estonia is not irrelevant because of its size. What is the tipping point when a nation becomes relevant? There is none.
Russia also has a flat tax and it has worked very well. You cannot dispute these facts so you must invent extraneous reasons to dismiss them.
And you failed to back up your contention that a flat tax would ruin this country. The opposite is the case.

“failed to back up your contention that a flat tax would ruin this country”
Actually I did explain it in plain English, if your not smart enough to underatnd then I’m not going to bother to repeat myself over and over.

You should also know that republicans in Arizona tried a flat tax, and despite the fact that Arizona is one of the most conservative states in the country, it angered so many voters, including the majority of conservative voters, that they couldn’t drop it fast enough.
In fact one could say the feedback on that little plan just about sounded a political Brown note in Phoenix, Flat-tax proposal dropped for now and I predict in a general election it’ll be a political Brown note for the campaign of whatever fool tries it.

No, you did not explain it. You spun a scenario based on nothing but your own opinion. Totally fact-free. I guess I don't understand Moron.
Arizona did not try a flat tax. There was a proposal to implement one that was not passed. It is hardly the same thing. Nor is that responsive to the idea of a flat tax working or not working. Every place one has been implemented, it is still in effect and working well.

A flat tax takes money out of the pockets of people who already cant afford the consumer goods they want and need for the sake of giving to a tiny minority of people who wont buy more consumer goods, because they have no need of more and make up such a small percentage of the population that their purchases of consumer goods wouldn’t impact the market anyway, in essence the buying power of 150,000 of the richest is outweighed many times over by the buying power of 150 million.

All the new ventures in the world aren’t going anywhere because there’s not enough economic activity to support them.

Not to mention that it’ll never get passed because all but the most die-hard minority of conservative voter will spit in your face for trying. In other words what fly’s in a primary won’t fly in a general election, and if you try you might as well be throwing said election.