Reply #18: Let me defend Free Market Repubs here

[corporalclegg9]

I'm going to defend the Free Market Repubs. This defense does not imply that those politicians in office today are not corrupt, or that they necessarily agree with Free Market Repubs. I am simply stating the premise behind tax cuts the way SINCERE Free Market believers would probably want it stated.

Lots of people complain how those of the opposite party mislead the public with phrases that skew people towards a particular view. This thread asks justification for "tax cuts for the rich". This, of course, is skewed language. A traditional Free Market supporter would say that whoever levied the tax to begin with was TAXING the rich, and that they are just undoing an injustice. The problem is, there's no base point from which we can define a "tax hike" or a "tax break". That's why we have politics. :-)

Free Marketers believe that the lower the tax rate, the more incentive people have to work harder, and thus produce more for society. This obviously makes sense on some level (i.e. the Laffer Curve, where if taxes are at 100%, nobody would bother working and we would collect no taxes).

In addition, Free Marketers would say that by lowering taxes, we free up money to be invested. Even though we're taking away money that the gov't could be spending, Free Marketers would say that private industry can spend it better.

Anyway, I'm a relatively nice guy, and I tend to think that most humans aren't generally nasty and out to stick it to everyone else, which is why I'm presenting this defense in the name of TRUE, traditional supporters of the free market. This is not to say that Bush and those in power don't skew this theory to their own benefit, I just think that it needs to be stated that not all proponents of "tax cuts for the rich" are really trying to stick it to the poor. Many of them do believe the theory.