Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor

I didn't have enough room for all of my rebuttals, but here are the most important ones.1. "Much of the rich give it back once their security is established."I don"t deny that there are rich people out there who have given back to the community. However, not every rich person does so. There are many rich people who don"t give back to the community and keep their wealth to themselves. When we gave the rich a huge tax cut in the 1980s, wealth inequality skyrocketed. Why? Because a lot of the rich people just kept on to that extra money they had. It doesn"t necessarily make them evil human beings, but the point is that it didn"t "trickle down." Like I"ve said, the prosperity of the 1980s was basically a Gilded Age. A lot of the new wealth went to those at the top.2. "It uses ommission of neccessary conceptd to imply the idea of "favoring the rich".Reaganomics has favored the rich. Just look at how much wealth inequality has skyrocketed since the 1980s. It"s crazy!3. "Nevermind that many wealthy and successful people start with little or nothing and fight their way by hard work. Simply focus on them having more. Nevermind that many are poor by choice. Take from the worker. Give to the nonworker. Slavery?"Many poor people are not poor by choice. Not all rich people are rich because they earned their money. Some rich people got lucky and won a lot of money. Others may have inherited their money. Of course, a lot of rich people are hard workers and I don"t deny that. But, do they work so much harder than the average worker that it justifies the level of wealth inequality today? I don"t think so. The levels of inequality that we are experiencing today are way higher than they were during the mid-twentieth century, and the workers were not more productive during that time than they are today. In the mid-twentieth century, we had a balance. The poor and middle class were rewarded fairly for their efforts. The rich didn"t have too much. Nowadays, the poor and middle class have arguably gotten more productive and have a smaller share of the wealth than they did in the mid-twentieth century. There may be some abuse to the welfare system, but a lot of people on welfare are truly struggling to get by and a lot of these people are full time workers.A lot of this can be explained by Reaganomics. For example, we stripped a lot of the regulations on the big banks since the 1980s. Because there were less regulations on the banks, the banks were able to make risky behaviors which enabled the 2008 recession. Let"s not forget that millions of Americans lost their jobs and homes during that recession. It wasn"t because they were lazy and chose not to work. It was because Wall Street was greedy and chose to get richer at the expense of the average man. People wanted jobs but just couldn"t get them. It wasn"t their fault.Why don"t we find a happy medium like we did in the mid-twentieth century? The successful people can still be successful, but the poor and middle class shouldn"t be forgotten like they are today. I"m not for socialism. I"m for finding a balance between capitalism and socialism so the economy works for everybody. I agree with you in the sense that many wealthy people are hard workers, and they should be rewarded for it. But, from a moral standpoint, I think that they should pay their fair share in taxes. Rich people didn"t become successful on their own. There were several institutions that helped them along the way. They should have a moral obligation to help pay back for the resources that they benefited from. In the mid-twentieth century, levels of inequality weren"t nearly what they are today and the economy worked for everybody. The rich still got rewarded.4. "Conservatives don"t care any differently for the rich than Liberals do. The point for Conservatives is not to "help the rich", but to minimize the harm done to incentives by tax policy so individuals have more opportunities to become better off."Try telling that to the Republican politicians who continually try to give tax breaks to the rich and deregulate large corporations. They are trying to "help the rich." Reaganomics is basically socialism for the rich. It is obvious that the "trickle down" theory has been a disaster every time it is used. Look at the 1920s. Look at the 1980s. Look at how things are now. The poor and middle class have been pissed on during these time periods. Why do the politicians keep on trying Reaganomics even when it fails? Because they want to keep the rich in power. Look at the people donating to a lot of the politicians. Politicians accept a lot of donations from large corporations and the wealthy. Is it a surprise that the politicians are looking out for their interests? The politicians are doing this because they want to serve the interests of the rich.Are people really going to not try to move ahead because they are going to have to pay a little more in taxes? No. Again, look at how things were in the mid-twentieth century. Yes, the rich had to pay their fair share in taxes. Did the economy not work because of this? No. If you raise taxes on a rich person a little bit, guess what? That person is still rich. With loopholes, many corporations essentially pay nothing in taxes. It won"t kill them to pay their fair share. They can still remain rich, but they should have a moral obligation to pay their fair share in taxes. They paid more in taxes in the mid-twentieth century and still chose to work hard. Asking them to pay a little more in taxes today will not ruin the incentive to work. They still have opportunities to become better off even if they have to pay a little more.5. "If we tax the "rich" to death we cause? Insecurity for employers, which actually does "trickle down" with job cuts and lack of hiring."I"m not advocating we tax them to death. I"m just asking that the rich pay their fair share in taxes. Many large corporations already pay nothing in taxes with all the loopholes. It won"t kill them to pay their fair share. There is no evidence that tax cuts for the rich have led to economic growth and there is no evidence that raising taxes on the rich harms the incentive to work. In fact, history shows that raising taxes on the rich does not make them less likely to want to work. They will just suck it up and deal with the higher rate. They make not like it, but that"s not what matters. Just because a rich person paid a couple thousand dollars less in taxes does not mean that that person is going to inevitably go out and there more people just because he or she has extra money. Why would a rich person do it just to do it? They hire people based on need. If rich people have more money, a lot of that money won"t be pumped back into the economy. So, if they have more money sitting around, there"s less money to be pumped back into the economy. However, if a poor or middle class person has more money, that person will probably spend that extra money, which increases demand for an employer, making them hire more people.6. "Who opposes Supply Side Economics? Barrack Obama does, and it has worked beautifully to the tune of a national debt that surpasses $19,000,000,000,000."Contrary to what many Republicans believe, Barack Obama is not a communist. In fact, he"s not even that liberal. He"s a moderate at best. Even though Obama wants you to think that he"s very liberal and is on the side of average Americans, he"s on the side of large corporations and the wealthy. Even though Obama has said that he opposed supply side economics, his actions say otherwise. Actions can speak louder than words. Obama renewed a lot of the Bush Tax Cuts. He had a Democrat controlled Congress at the beginning of his term, and he could"ve passed tax increases on the rich if he really wanted to. But, instead he chose to negotiate with the Republicans on taxes. My point? He wants to keep Reaganomics going to keep the rich in power but he does not want the American people to think that way. Taxes are lower under Barack Obama than they were under anti "trickle down" presidents in the mid-twentieth century and the debt problem wasn"t nearly as bad as it is today.7. "If the anti "trickle down" economics supporters get their way, why should anyone try? Why go to medical school, law school, or try to push a business to a higher level? Why try to reach the next tax bracket? They'll just take it from you and give it to someone who has all of their basic needs taken care of for free already."If we really did tax the high achievers to death, then they wouldn"t have an incentive to work. But, that's not what I"m advocating for and I"m sure that"s not what most anti "trickle down" people want either. We just want the rich to pay their fair share in taxes. It has worked in the past, and it would work today. There was a time when the rich paid their fair share in taxes, and the economy still grew. Again, we have to find that happy medium. Tax them enough so it is fair, but not too much so they decide not to bother with working hard. If you taxed 98% of their earnings, then yes they aren"t going to bother earning more. That"s why the balance is so important. If a system isn"t broken, then don"t try to break it. The higher taxes on the rich has worked before, so there wasn"t a reason to give the rich gigantic tax cuts like Reagan did.8. "I heard Obama say,"You didn't get it on your own!" Who cares? And how does HE know? Based on what? What if they did? Who is he talking to, all of them?"Rich people didn"t acquire all their wealth on their own. They may have been the ones who chose to go the extra mile to earn it, but there were still institutions that helped them to get there. Take schools for example. Don"t you think that they should have a moral obligation to help pay for the institutions that helped them be successful?