Quote Originally Posted by Sasquach991 View Post
It would be nice to get an actual rebuttal. Tell me why it's not true.
Higher taxes on the wealthy doesn't curb their spending and investment because it's meant to address the hoarding issue. We're not interested in cutting into their cyclical consumption or investment. That's why one of the caveats of progressive taxation is that investment can lower your bracket. This is one reason why high taxes on the rich work so well, because it promotes investment instead of hoarding. Currently, our paradigm is the opposite. Soooooo much money has been hoarded, that the richies say they're waiting to use it on good investments, but they don't realize (or more like don't care) that it's because of all that hoarding that the consumption cycle is disrupted and those investments opportunities are not arising

Turnaround spending? Explain. I'm no economics expert and really don't care to be.
Taxes don't just disappear. In fact, they're the highest economic multipliers. It's only when the wealthy are taxed so little that they have so much money they use to corrupt governments that tax dollars are secretly returned to the rich that tax dollars lose their big multipliers. The US government is the largest employer of a middle class than any institution on the planet, and many of what tax dollars pay for are things that greed would like to do away with, but would have egregiously detrimental effects on the masses.

Also, all tax dollars are spent, but not all tax cuts are. If you reduce taxes, you can expect only a fraction on the dollar to return to the economy, but when increase spending by the exact same amount instead of cutting taxes you get the entire sum returning to the economy

Hoarding practices? So people who are in a 50% tax bracket should not try to find ways to pay less taxes.
They should, but nobody in the US is in that bracket (except possibly some measure of poor people when you combine all taxes). Look at it this way, if taxation is progressive and people are paying the top rate, imagine how bad it would have been if that top rate was low because the only reason they're in the top rate is because they have soooo much money that they're not recycling it, and thus the aggregate economy suffers.

All us normies do cyclical consumption. That's what economies are based in. But the rich don't want to do their part in cyclical consumption. Why should you and I be structurally determined to recycle 100% of our wealth through the economy, yet richies should only be structurally required to do a fraction of that?