The futility of tax breaks for the wealthy

With the presidential election coming up in less than three months, the ongoing debates between Republicans and Democrats continue without much compromise or mercy from either sides. We shouldn't expect anything less. Clearly, one of the core aspects of argument between the two parties revolves around the economy, and with that, are taxes. Republicans have long claimed that giving tax breaks to the rich will create jobs. The logic behind this is quite simple but flawed. If companies/wealthy CEOs receive tax breaks, the extra money can be used to hire more workers and create more opportunities to others. Essentially, the "untaxed money" would trickle down, eventually, to the bottom of the social pyramid. Unfortunately, this type of logic only works when the mind is thinking in a rudimentary way. Democrats, on the other hand, like to hand money right to the middle/lower class families. This allows for easy distribution of relief, whether it be lower taxes or simply higher tax returns. In this case, the money goes straight to the people who need it, without the middleman.  The Republican way of thinking is disparagingly flawed. Giving the wealthy more money to spend is essentially assigning a middleman between the 1% and 99%. As people should all know, the person in between always takes a cut of the pie before it finally reaches its destination. There's no way of telling what these companies and CEOs do with the money. The hope is that they spend it on new workers and better products, but unfortunately, the decision is entirely up to their discretion. None of the money is regulated by the government. It's like saying here's a few million dollars; it'd be nice if you spent it on giving a bit of it out as a charitable act, but you don't have to. Even if the money does create jobs, the openings won't be in America. Instead, it'll go to a factory worker somewhere in China or India. Furthermore, why are we giving such profitable companies MORE money? It makes utterly no sense to give someone a tax break if their company has been going through years of record profits but less hiring. The idea is fundamentally unsound to give free money without guidance. Ever increasing gaps of money owned by the rich and poor will eventually become unstable, where the 1% own 99% of the wealth. In this instance, where Donald Trump, one person, is worth more than 37 thousand Americans, there should be no way that he gets more tax breaks to hoard his wealth.

Tax breaks for the rich can work with government regulation. Congress can take less money, but the money they don't take can't be going to lavish dog weddings and ridiculous parties. If the money that was supposed to be taxed goes directly into the company, whether to hire workers or better products, giving tax breaks can work. In the end, the rich would still be paying less money, and the money goes where it should be going. But this requires a non-corrupt government. If we can't even trust an entire political party to make sound decisions regrading the economy, is there really a point in trusting another? In the end, what's most obvious is that the Republican method does not work. It cannot succeed without proper execution and CEOs who actually care.

Besides, I rather have $500 today than a possible $1000 investment return in five years.

I hate beauty

My meeting with Shay Mitchell