Epic Fail. Look at the global response to "trickle down".
I challenge anyone to point out one example of any economy, large or small, that grew and became successful as a result of cutting taxes. I'm talking long term sustainability, not a year where revenues went up for a minute, but LONG TERM.
Supply side economics is like crack cocaine to markets. There is a rush at first, then the markets get violent, then the markets crash leaving nothing but destruction in their wake. Trickle down doesn't work in the long term.
Straight up, once a person has reached a certain level of personal financial security, they continue to work harder not to put food on the table or designer clothes in their closets. They keep working for two reasons;
1. The joy of the work.
2. The excitement of competition (to be the best).
Do you think Metallica will stop writing music and performing at concerts if they are taxed at a higher level?
Do you think Donald Trump would stop developing real estate, writing books, and starring on TV shows if he is taxed at a higher rate?
Do you think Exxon-Mobile will stop selling gasoline if they are taxed at a higher rate?
Do you think that strippers stop stripping when house fees are increased?
Just think about that last one for a second. Funny how when house fees are high, there are more strippers. The clubs are encouraging the strippers to keep working. The strippers see the club as being more valuable because those house fees are re-invested into nice decor, nice dressing rooms, good security and advertising to bring in more customers.
When managed properly, the clubs with high house fees are totally worth it. A poorly managed club without any house fees is not worth the bother.
Do dancers who pay no house fees work more hard or less hard than ones that have a large house fee to cover? Dancers who have no house fees to pay may come to work and sit around and get drunk. Because there is no obligation to actually put any effort forth. Eventually the dancers that do work hard will move to clubs that have high house fees to get the benefits of those house fees- namely spending customers.
This is why supply side economics won't work. The club is the government in this scenario and the dancers are the businesses. In the short term, a zero house fee can be a boon to the strip club. But then the club ceases to invest into fixtures and advertising, the dancers get disgruntled with the lack of business, the good dancers all leave to the clubs that actually have customers and the remaining dancers are the low quality girls that can't get hired anywhere else.
Think about it. All the best and most desirable clubs that girls want to work at all have very high house fees.
All the nations that have the best infrastructure, health care, education for their citizens, and highest income levels all have high taxes.
Coincidence? I think not!





.


Bookmarks