Quote:This is great except it doesn't work. Tax breaks at the top never trickle down. Not in the late 19th century. Not under Reagan. We have a Right that wants to blast welfare programs (blame the poor) when the biggest welfare recipients are large corporations that don't need them and prove time and again the "horse and sparrow theory" is bunk.


The Waltons don't need $7.8B in tax breaks. Every single Wal-Mart in America actually costs tax payers between $900K - $1.75M a year. Roughly $3K -$6K per worker. And who the hell can live off of a Wal-Mart salary? The farce tax breaks at the top creates jobs is absurd, especially when you look at the types of jobs most create.


But hate the poor people who have a deck stacked against them while billionaires lobby to pay less and less. If you think this gets any better in the next four years, you need to put down the crack pipe. Especially since Trump's proposed Labor Secretary wants to change overtime rules which impact exec bonuses.

 

First of all, tax breaks and cuts DO incentivize expansion and growth. The issue today is the expansion isn't occurring in the US, but elsewhere. Slashing corporate taxes and regulation doesn't just help large businesses grow in the US, but it also massively helps small-to-mid size businesses grow as well. That, and protecting against severe undercuts from developing nations while also enabling fair global trade.

 

Second, nobody should be attempting to live off of a minimum-wage job, specifically the kind provided by Wal-Mart. They are mostly low-skilled, low-intelligence labor positions designed for the elderly and those in-training/education. If you are trying to live off that type of job, you are likely on some form of welfare already.

 

If someone wants a wage they can live on without welfare, they SHOULD have either education, training, or experience. Apprenticeships, undergraduate degrees acquired BEFORE leaving your parents wings, and primary school trade-skills programs are all methods for acquiring the necessities to have a living wage. If you don't have any of that, then you will not (and should not) be able to acquire a living wage, and that is reality.

 

You can complain that acquiring the necessary skills to qualify for positions offering a living wage is too expensive, and I can agree to an extent. However, there are multiple reasons why acquiring the necessary skills can be difficult to acquire. The issue is systemic, unfortunately, and mostly caused by an over-invasive government filled to the brim with welfare grants.

---