Pretty stupid op-ed.
Quote:
One way to examine that decision is to put aside all ethical considerations and simply look at where tax dollars will do more to stimulate the economy. There the conclusion is clear: You get much more bang for the buck putting money in the hands of unemployed people because they will promptly spend it.
In contrast, tax cuts for the wealthy are partly saved — that’s both basic economic theory and recent history — so they are much less effective in creating jobs.
|
The unemployed will spend it at walmart—your fave place. I guess that stimulates China to buy more T-bills, so maybe he's right.
The rich, he says, will "save" the money, not "spend" it. How, pray tell, will the rich save the money? Stuff it into fine linen mattresses? Cause that's what they'd have to do for it not to be spent. That MUST be what he means. If they
invest the money it is spent by the companies to grow their business (you know, hire people, buy raw materials, etc). Maybe they WILL waste it by putting it someplace safe—like T-bills or munis. What else might they spend their disposable money on (it is THEIR money, after all we are talking about, just money not confiscated by the feds)? Another house? Who remodels the house? Who builds the furniture? Do they buy stuff to furnish from China at walmart? Do they buy chinese melamine cabinets at lowes? No, they hire a cabinet maker. They buy higher end stuff—the stuff expensive enough that Americans can make money doing the work—craftspeople.
That article is rubbish.