2 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote
It's been clearly shown, that taxing takes a large chunk out of the circulation. So that statement is untrue.
Wait. So you clearly stated that billionaires spend all of their money, and even if they don't (?!?) that money goes into a bank to be invested elsewhere, BUT taxes are taken out of circulation?
What do you think is done with the tax money? When a country has 'debt', who do you think the debtors are?
If there were huge swaths of the population clamoring for new products, then maybe businesses would invest in new jobs and it might be possible for all that excess cash to get back into circulation, but what is currently going on is that there is no demand. None. People aren't spending because they don't have enough belief in their short term prospects, so they, too, are holding on to what they have in an effort to wait it out.
And businesses know this, so they won't spend and the cycle continues.
The only entity that can forcibly break this stalemate is government and more specifically, spending by government to get people working. And without taxes, the only option is to deficit spend which, while unpopular, does have the advantage of giving the wealthy something to invest in.
So, frankly, the idea that lower taxes will result in more jobs has the potential to be true. But only in the roundabout way that it'll happen if and only if the wealthy get to take a cut.
I choose, however, to skip the middleman as you so eloquently put it and get that money out of 'investments' and into the hands of people who will actually spend it and keep it moving in the economy.