Supply-side economics is more about giving money to corporations to fund their expansion, assuming they use the money to do that.
People more on the left scale, usually promote government spending, raised taxes or focus on long-term projects to improve the economy. The idea of putting money into education and research is to increase productivity level of workers so that they can outcompete others in the international marketplace, or developing new technologies which gives you an edge or it's generally considered "useful government spending". That is, the spending is an increase in demand, which is temporary and the long-term effect is an increase in productivity.
Besides, naturally, the balance of power greatly favors hirers over employees. A person who is a business owner can, if things go totally belly-up, sell his/her business and capital investments and go down a notch to becoming a regular employee somewhere else. The employee, on the other hand, depends on that job for his/her own survival—and frequently, his/her family's.
^^^
And what about small business owners who, themselves, aren't rich? I'd say lower upper class and upper middle class small business owners are the majority of individual employers, even if not for the highest number of jobs. They shouldn't get victimized because of the income of some swanky CEO's.
edited 2nd Feb '11 8:34:12 AM by Barkey
I just want the swanky CE Os to stop enjoying their tax-evading advantage conferred to them by the complex tax code and their ability to hire accountants.
While the rest of us who don't have household incomes of a quarter grand a year foot the bill for their shenanigans.
edited 2nd Feb '11 8:37:43 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
^^^ Which is why, if it were up to me and I had to increase taxes for some reason, I'd for sure do it via increasing capital gains taxes.
Actually, quite frankly, even if the income weren't needed (I'm generally not a fan of taxation for taxation's sake, of course), I'd still support increasing capital gains taxes. I'm all for giving real small-business owners a tax break and pay for it with investment-targeted taxes.
Why capital gains? My goal there is to redirect focus from stock valuation towards long-term buy and hold profit and stability. I think this policy would line up incentives in a much more healthier way for the economy at large.
edited 2nd Feb '11 9:27:26 AM by Karmakin
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveAlso, Hedge Fund Managers should have to pay taxes too.
Apparently, their income is counted as capital gains, not regular income, for some reason.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Playhttp://www.epi.org/publications/entry/pm120/
I have to say, in my dream economy, I would tie Capital Gains rates to private employment rates and use the additional funding for public hiring/other alternatives to maintain full employment.
edited 2nd Feb '11 10:17:14 AM by Karmakin
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveAs everyone said, this was a joke.
I forgot about Poe's law and that people, Hispanic, White, or otherwise, actually think like that.
Also I don't pothole when I'm being sarcastic since loudly announcing that you're being sarcastic makes it even less witty than it already is.
edited 2nd Feb '11 11:20:29 AM by saladofstones
Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.Who told you sarcasm was witty? You should stop listening to them because they're a lying liar who lies.
Fight smart, not fair.

It's not that awkward or even biased. It simply comes down to which fundamentals you subscribe to. For example, if you believe that supply-side economics is a bad way to look at the economy, the generally you're going to disagree with pretty much everything the Republicans do over the last 30 years. Likewise, if you think that supply-side economics is the BEST way to look at the economy, then you'll agree with them.
Strangely enough, my problems with this Sot U are much among the same lines, in that I view the Moderate/Centrist outlook on education and productivity to be the solutions to national economic woes as a form of supply-side economics and as such I generally disagree with it. Not that I think that supply-side economics is never the answer..if there was ever a shortage of investment available for R&D (meaning a shortage of investment overall, and not an allocation problem), or a real shortage of educated workers then I support supply-side policies. But these things, in my view, are so extremely rare, they're such a minute exception to the reality that our markets are driven largely by demand.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve