To follow up on bobrek's post yes him doing something alone won't substantially change the system but it will set an example and show that he is already willing to personally do something to address what he sees is a problem. For instance I am for reducing carbon admissions and would support legislation that helps to address that. At the same time though I am not driving an inefficient gas guzzler setting my thermostat to 80 in the winter and 70 in the summer. So while Gruener alone might not change the system if he sets an example that many like him in his current situation follow they can start addressing the problems that they site on their own. For record I encourage people to volunteer at hospitals.
Actually we expect people to do both since regulation is only as good as enforcement and there are many problems where regulation is impractical.
If 2/3 of the rich think taxes should be raised on their bracket for the purposes of deficit reduction, they could collectively get 2/3 of the way to their goal through individual action. Is that last one third so important that getting 2/3 of the way there is meaningless? Is the goal so unimportant that they cannot just give half again what they are recommending and cover the whole amount on their own. Alternative solution to the one I posted above. People are allowed to keep a receipt of who they vote for, attach said to their tax return, and pay the amount of taxes that their presidential candidate suggests is appropriate.
Same old, same old. Another business owner stating that lower taxes has little to nothing to do with whether or ont he would increase hiring or investment. Then he goes on to say: “What American businesspeople know, and have known since Henry Ford insisted that his employees be able to afford to buy the cars they made, is that a thriving economy doesn’t just need investors; it needs people who can buy the goods and services businesses create.” Then as usual the "free market" big government hating conservatives jump in and say nope demand won't increase supply the government can artificicially create demand by lowering taxes for those that create the supply. This will work great. This is proven since after the Bush tax cuts we had the worst job creation decade in 80 years. I love hows cons always think they know what's best for these businessowners even though you are advocating for the exact opposite of what they say is effective.
If 100% of the top bracket had their taxes raised it wouldn't completely reduce the deficit, so 2/3 of it doesn't really get them 2/3 of the way to their goal. It only helps. As far as people talking about the rich investing the extra money, that doesn't happen in an economy like this. Studies have shown that the rich will save and horde the money. With or without tax cuts they will invest the money and expand business when there is a demand for goods and services. If the money goes to the middle class and poor who need to spend it and can't afford to horde it the demand will go up and that will lead to more investment by the wealthiest. They aren't going to hire more employees and expand if nobody is buying anything, and in hard time like these people are buying as little as possible.
