It reduces their rate of growth to be more consistent (but still at a deficit) with the economy’s capacity to pay.
Effectively the same thing.
When one looks at income stagnation for working people, one really needs to look at increases in involuntary transfer payments.
So your claim is that taxes has increased, and that these increases are responsible for income stagnation. Is the claim that taxes, as a percentage of income, has increased for working people? Show me the numbers to back that claim. Aren’t right-wingers constantly saying that rich people pay all the taxes and that the lower classes pay nothing? Or is the claim that rich people have seen an increase in taxes, rendering them too poor to invest? If so, the facts points out the reality of the exorbitant increases in income for this group, directly contradicting that claim.
That’s why childlessness and taxation are the primary enemies of prosperity for working people.
I dont’t think the lower classes should pay more taxes.
So, the real cures for low income are full employment and child-rearing.
Well, I agree that this is important, but you haven’t actually addressed the issue I brought up, which was income inequality. When it comes to income inequality, several factors play into it, but my point was a straightforward moral argument. I was simply saying - given the situation we have, with a high income inequality and low taxation (as a percentage of income) - who should we ask to sacrifice? The moral thing would be to ask the people who have benefited from the system and the recent income inequality (which is a fact). Unless you have a moral argument against this, the best thing you can do is make an economic argument, apologizing for why we cannot raise taxes.
You could say: “look, economically, it’s not viable to raise taxes. Corporations and rich people are either amoral or immoral, and will not sacrifice. They would rather take their money and invest in China, where there is people poorer than you who are willing to work in terrible conditions for less than you. If Americans struggle and starve as a result, they couldn’t care less as long as they squeeze out a couple of more bucks. Sorry about that. Unfortunately, we must ask the poor and the middle-class to sacrifice yet again.”
Do you see right-wingers taking this position? No. Until that changes, I have no interest in excuses.
PS: you might want to investigate the relationship between high employment and increases in income. High employment means that employers need workers. There are less unemployed, and thus more competition to find workers. But there is no straightforward casual relationship between employment and income increases. You have to look at the factors that come together.
For instance, certain industries pay a very low wage. People are willing to work for this wage because there is a lack of higher paid work available to them. The problem for the US, and much of the western world in general, has been deindustrialisation. Less manufacturing and less blue collar jobs. What has increased is service-sector jobs, high tech etc. This has resulted, on average, in a need for more highly skilled staff.
Now, there is a large portion of the population that isn’t suited for that kind of work. So, the lower paid worker at Walmart, who could be suited for a low-tech manufacturing job before deindustrialisation, can get paid a pittance since Walmart need not fear competition from these high-tech employers. Thus, the fact that jobs are created doesn’t necessarily result in higher wages for everyone. Things are a lot more complicated than that.
