It matters mainly as a sign (and a cause) of how income is distributed in a society, which in turn is a sign of how people are compensated relative to the value that they add to products or services. I definitely wouldn't want to see some sort of prescribed compensation formula; that would be a crude form of socialism, and just wouldn't work.
The illustrations/examples you gave are policy approaches typically identified with conservatives, and while I tend to be skeptical of them, they have a legitimate place in U.S. political discourse. It's just that the topic of income distribution and how to reward the wealth makers in society has been debated and discussed in every conceivable forum and by everyone and his dog. I just don't feel I have anything to contribute to the discussion at this point besides my somewhat-informed opinion on the matter.
I mean, really, we need to stop using the term 'distributed' because the problem is the dual meaning. Are we saying distributed as in 'statistical distribution,' merely an incidental spread, or are we meaning literally 'distributed,' as if by an entity? The issue comes in when I think some folks mean the first, but others read or think the second. Regardless, nominally speaking, I question why it matters how income is being earned so long as it is voluntary on all parties.
They certainly are associated with conservatives, in as much as the conservatives in the US claim to support those economic policies (while often working directly against them,) but again, not entirely sure why that matters.
The wealthy pay more than the less-wealthy, sure. That's just the nature of progressive taxation. Two things, though: (1) Those tax rates are for earned ("ordinary") income, which everyone, rich and poor, has to pay (though at different rates). (2) For most non-wealthy people, ordinary income is by far their largest source of income. For the wealthy, investment income has a much larger role. And they are taxed differently: for example, capital gains are taxed at 15% (long term) and 20% (short term), much lower than ordinary income.
I mean, as I've already set up, taxation is theft regardless, but I think this misses the point. For one, claiming that the 'wealthy' get most of their money from investing, which is not really true given all that is necessary to be in the top 10% is just over $100,000. Easily doable purely on salary. The top 5% is $150,000. Hell, the top 25% is only around $65,000. And these people shoulder the massive burden of the taxes, across the board. It's not merely the 'wealthy pay more than the less-wealthy,' it's that the 'wealthy' shoulder nearly all of the burden.
I agree with the point about "manipulating the government" (rent seeking).
I can't remember if I said that policies that benefit the wealthy are intrinsically bad for the poor. In any case, I don't believe that such policies are intrinsically or necessarily bad for the poor. It's just how they tend to be structured or implemented that makes them, in effect, much less beneficial to the poor and middle class than to the wealthy. There just seems to be an assumption that "trickle down" really does tickle down. In recent years, I've often read
news items basically saying that when the wealthy receive tax cuts or their income grows, they tend to save the money rather than invest it in job-creating activities. Their reasons for doing so may be perfectly rational from their perspective--maybe in the current economy, saving it gives the best return, or at least less exposure to loss.
It's not so much you said it, but the way you worded it sort of implied that line of reasoning, at least to me. I still don't necessarily see how it matters if they are less beneficial to one group than the other if all groups are benefiting, I suppose? Further, as to the current state, yes, folks do save rather than invest because we're currently in the state of unknowns. Folks don't invest when risk is too great, and the current state of the politics and the like makes it hard to justify. Stability breeds growth in an economic sense, and for that matter, in a population sense, but that's another subject entirely.
I disagree. I think there are a large number of voters who are/were looking for an alternative to Hillary Clinton, and saw in Trump someone who was speaking to their real concerns in an attractive, populist manner. They just need a reason to be comfortable with Trump, but he's not giving it to them. The bottom line is that Trump's core of support is simply not enough to get him elected. He needs to appeal to the large group of independents/moderates who may be up for grabs. To do so, he has to be more of a politician, play the game a little more. I know that's anathema to many of his core supporters, but I have to ask, do you want to be "pure" or do you want to win? One would think that for a Trump supporter, a somewhat-moderated Trump who wins would be better than a pure Trump who loses.
They may be looking for an alternative, but Trump was never going to be that alternative. I think this entire idea that folks just 'aren't comfortable' may be valid, but that really there is nothing Trump CAN do without fundamentally compromising his image (regardless of what one thinks of that image.) Anyone who would care about the issue of who is on his economic advisory board wouldn't be swayed by pandering. I am unsure if he DOES need to appeal to the large group of moderates, honestly. My point is, I don't think this reasoning works anymore, I think the game has fundamentally changed.
And you can see in the clips of his early interviews that it's something he's always had in the back of his mind before making the decision to run.
