I'm a Republican, big believer in Supply Side Economics (Trickle Down), but he makes a damn good case against it at the end of his book.>Wait, how can you believe in trickle down economics AND taxing the rich? Those are contradictoryIf a government is running a budget deficit, which almost all governments are, it makes no sense not to tax the rich, and even less sense to cut their taxes. The whole idea behind Supply Side Economics is that the wealthy have a larger proclivity to invest their wealth rather than spend it. A rich person might save 80% of their wealth while a middle class person will spend 99% of it. We can encourage greater savings & investments if we let the rich keep a larger portion of their money rather than redistribute it to the poor and middle class. And if you understand savings & investments is what builds prosperity, you'll understand why that makes sense.>The Deficit catchIf a nation is running a deficit, they're borrowing from the private sector, siphoning capital from the investor class and blowing it on immediete consumption. If a nation is running a deficit, then taxing the wealthy to close said deficit will only INCREASE total savings & investments. This is because although the rich save 80% of their wealth, they spend 20%... whereas the capital markets that governments borrow from to make up for this shortfall was going to be used for investments in its entirely. Ironically, so long as taxes on the rich are used to close a budget deficit or repay debt... it is more aligned with the logic of Trickle Down Economics than direct tax cuts on the rich.
