I agree. Not sure where the ideas that a country where people cannot afford any goods because they have no money need more tax cuts, especially for the rich.
Poor people don't get many advantages from lower taxes because they often don't have to pay that many (especially if they are not working). And rich people will use the extra money to invest... but they may very well invest abroad, and in the current situation they actually just prefer to keep their money to their chest.
A government that paid for construction work, or subsidised jobs useful for the community would help a lot more than one cutting the taxes.
Though of course it doesn't follow common sense, so there's no way society will stop believing Fox news and friends.
Because taxes take money from productive sectors and redistribute them to the less productive. Not sure where the ideas about taking money from some people and giving it to to others came from. No person is keeping their money in a chest.
Government spending is the least efficient form of spending, and governments in the past few years have spent too much. Look at how much debt local, state, and the federal governments have accumulated.
By lowering taxes business have more money, and thus are more secure - they can handle an uncertain future better. So if a business has 100k in savings it can then hire another worker, and be ok if the economy goes down a little bit. If they only have 10k then they won't hire a new worker because it could put them out of business if the forecasted sales are wrong.
But you have no idea if the rich will actually invest that money in the country, and if they'll do it now. Currently it looks like the answer to both of those questions is no.
As for government spending being inefficient, I know that's a common theme, but a lot of studies have shown that it isn't so clear cut. Sure, there are examples where that it is actually true. But most of the time people just use anecdotal experience and the conclusions are wrong.
In the UK, despite everyone complaining of the NHS (the national health service), it actually performs a great job.
As for if it's fair or not to take money away from the rich to give it to the poor, personally I think it is. Not because I want a communist society (far from it, I think communism has no basis in reality) but because of the old saying: "It needs money to make money". For example...
A rich family has already covered all their primary needs with their 20%, and with another 30% they cover the less important stuff. Since they have no use for the rest so far, they may either invest it or put it in a bank. Hopefully they'll get extra revenue from it which they can invest again, and so on.
The poor family, instead spends 100% just to pay for primary needs and a few non-essential goods. They are not left with anything to invest. If the want to get a new house or start a business they need to borrow money. That's basically saying that the poor get taxed for trying to get a house or start a business, so compare to those who are rich they need to earn more from that business for the net revenue to be positive.
But even if you don't think it's fair, it still helps the rich to give money to the poor, though only in the long run. A lot of poverty means more criminality. A lot of sick people means higher chances of contagious diseases. The rich gets a benefit from making sure that the poor are not too poor.
But anyway, these last two points are personal, and I understand if you don't agree. In either case I still think that giving money to the poor in an economy downturn is good to start up an economy where people are weary of investing.
Keynesian teaches wealth is created by fooling people into investing in things that they would not ordinarily invest in.
But all it does is misallocate investment into things that are unsustainable and that ultimately collapse, like the housing bubble. Or the dotcom bubble. Or the recent mini-bubble in the stock market.
And the only response offered by the Keynesians to their collapsing bubbles is an even bigger bubble.
Nothing can ever be allowed to return to normal in this bankrupt theory. A return to organic growth with investments in things judged to be a value to the people who actually are playing with their own hard-earned money is somehow vastly inferior to the judgement of the illustrious leaders who spend other people's money to make it through the next election.
In other words, when you've used up one credit card, its time to obtain another. And this is the only way to become successful, according to the Keynesians.
To defer consumption and invest in one's ability to produce works for the individual and it works for societies in the long run. And societies that cannot act sustainably, that eat their seed corn before it is even harvested, will fail.
Poor people don't get many advantages from lower taxes because they often don't have to pay that many (especially if they are not working). And rich people will use the extra money to invest... but they may very well invest abroad, and in the current situation they actually just prefer to keep their money to their chest.
A government that paid for construction work, or subsidised jobs useful for the community would help a lot more than one cutting the taxes.
Though of course it doesn't follow common sense, so there's no way society will stop believing Fox news and friends.