Oh really? Repugnants in Congress sold the tax cuts for the rich by claiming they would pay for themselves through increased revenue from more economic growth. NOT. Total revenues for 2018 dropped, adjusted for inflation, by $83 billion despite a modest 3% growth in the economy. In reality, that is what counts not snake oil, the tax cuts for the rich are contributing to a widening federal budget deficit on track to top 1 trillion says New York Times economic analyst Jim Tankersley.
So, as progressive Democrats ponder the disaster that is Donald Trump they should keep this fact central in their thoughts: in the three decades the top 1% have double their share of the nation's wealth because of neoliberal trickle down policies. What we need now, is income redistribution. US Person suggests is
a wealth tax levied on the richest 1% of Americans to claw back some of the extreme wealth accumulation that has occurred at the expense of the middle and poor classes since the Regan administration. An excise tax on financial speculation transactions by which the wealthy derive the majority of their capital. Financial speculation in esoteric derivatives was largely responsible for the Great Recession of 2008, and it can happen again in the absence of any legislation to restrain irresponsible speculation. End corporate tax welfare embodied in preferential rates for capital gains and accelerated depreciation schemes. Raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hr. Putting more spending power in the hands of the greatest number of people will assure economic growth since the economy is largely driven by consumer spending (~70%). There is more that can be done, but US Person is not running for office, and perhaps dear reader you would rather not be disturbed on the day of the BIG GAME.
*After publication of Patrick Henry's fiery extemporaneous speech in Virginia's House of Burgesses against the imposition of taxes without consent of American colonists, known as the "Virginia Resolves", riots occurred in every major city of the English colonies to protest Parliament's taxation without representation. The Act passed in 1765 in part to defray the empire's expense of the Seven Years War (French & Indian War). The first city to erupt in violence was Boston, which had two organized, proletarian mobs accustomed to street brawling on Guy Fawkes Day (known as "Pope Day" in Boston). This time, the mob turned their attention to the city's customs officials, stamp distributor, and Lt. governor, sacking their homes. The mob forced the distributor to resign his office before he issued a single stamp. After the riots no provincial governor would enforce the legislation. So the Act was effectively nullified by the "Sons of Liberty's" direct action, forcing Parliament to repeal the Act the following year on economic grounds. Recitation of this historical event does not mean US Person endorses violence as a means to achieve political and social reform., but it has played a definite and sometimes effective role in this nation's and other democracy's politics (France's Gilete Jaune Movement is good recent example).
