The answer, which she never got near, was that government's raising taxes on the wealthiest (corporate or individual) could potentially decrease the money supply, such that fewer dollars were chasing the existing goods. However, since that answer depends on government controlling its own spending rather than just pumping those dollars out on something else, it's as fantastical as a chimera or a unicorn.
4 comments:
Another followup that Doocey might have asked, also, is what is the wealthy's (or anyone's) fair share of taxes.
No one in the journalists' guild wants to ask that, though.
Related to that, when Whatsername said it was sad that that the middle class pays more in taxes than those who don't pay any at all, he might have asked whether she was including those at the bottom of the economic ladder in those who don't pay any taxes at all.
Eric Hines
The answer makes it clear it will be someone else's fault when something goes wrong.
AVI..."The answer makes it clear it will be someone else's fault when something goes wrong."
Antoine de St-Exupery would like a word...
"A chief is a man who takes responsibility. He does not say 'my men were defeated,' he says 'I was defeated.'"
I almost thought she (and the Presidentish) must be thinking, "We can't control inflation at all, but if we bleed the rich they can cover all the suddenly increased bills." That assumes there's thought involved, rather than the Machiavellian calculation to change the subject to bad rich people, a time-tested tactic.
With every year that passes, I hear almost every boneheaded political and economic kvetch turn more thoroughly into "Everything would be perfect if Mean Mommy would open her purse and let me have five dollars for candy." Or more briefly, everyone should live happily ever after in a womb that has received care and protection from someone like Justice Alito, but discreetly, so we don't have to think about it.
Post a Comment