Maybe the freedom fries would taste better, too

The thing about trickle down economics is that unlike broader supply side economics policies (which we could still question...) trickle down specifically relies on the surplus of the wealthy finding its way to the less so. But this is generally not the case. Despite records in deregulation and tax incentives through the 80’s up to the current administration, and despite having a larger and more active consumer base than at any point in the history of the planet- we have not seen wages increase meaningfully in relation to profits or inflation for 30+ years. We have also seen the 30+ year trend not favor hiring any more workers than are strictly necessary for basic operations. We HAVE seen unprecedented growth in economic disparity and more “super wealthy” individuals appear while less “middle class” home owners and people with “nest eggs” exist.

The economic reality is that much like communism- “trickle down” seems like a nice theory on paper, but the general consensus of the majority of economists, studies, and in fact- the majority of the political spectrum, is that it doesn’t work. The basic execution and principal are that if you overfeed one of your dogs, you don’t have to worry about the other ones because the first dog will drop enough food for the others to be well fed. That is not how it works out in reality.

That isn’t to say there are not strategic uses for easing tax burdens to the wealthy- but simply giving them money isn’t the way to encourage specific behaviors. Specifying some specific metrics for what must be met in the interests of society to earn these breaks would be a good start- and perhaps packaging it as a “rebate” or “incentive” vs a savings- which must be used in ways that meet a set of criteria. Requirements on domestic construction and hiring, a certain percent of all workers having to be paid above minimum wage by a certain margin, basic benefits that must be received above a base line, things like this which would reward companies which invest in the infrastructure and well being of society vs. a more general thought that by their nature they will simply “give back” a portion of the money.

Likewise- a generally higher tax rate for businesses could be instituted- this would not only incentivize businesses to seek out tax cuts for “doing right” but would also serve as a way to make sure that businesses which didn’t provide for employees or give back to the systems they take from, carry a fair burden of their share.

Remember- business relies upon public works to make profit. How many tractor trailers of goods traverse the country, making money for companies like Amazon? Large trucks cause as much as 99% of non weather or age related wear and damage to US roads. The very roads that tax payers pay for so that companies like Amazon can tear them up to get rich. To put it in perspective- imagine owning a car you let your room mate borrow. Your room mate takes your car to weekend drag races to make money of which they give you none, but they damage your car and only ever pay a maximum of about 30% of repairs- despite doing 99% of the damage.

Wether it is the security for commerce provided by law enforcement, the roads they run on, water or other public or subsidized utilities, etc etc. large businesses actually soak up a lot of resources and pass a tax burden on to citizens who may or may not use their goods or profit from them- but do not directly see any profits while carrying the expense. I suppose a better analogy is a roommate who uses up all of your bandwidth and data running their home business but only pays a very small percentage of the bill despite the fact they are making money from it.

That isn’t to say large business is inherently “bad” and certainly not to say we should do away with it. But it does show us that much like sporting teams or the Olympics are often courted with public funds under the guise that they will indirectly profit local businesses and such (which facts show is generally not the case for most- and quite often especially with the Olympics such things cost more than they will ever make back) that we need to be realistic. We rely on jobs and commerce from these businesses and don’t want to alienate them, but they rely on us too. We need to better integrate them in a way that is fair and constructive.

That’s $486 at an extra .50. A day. But... if our shift is a generously small 5 people- we’d need at least 20 for a full days rotation. An extra $24 a day. Better than nothing. That’s almost $960 a month. So they wouldn’t be as likely to need 3 jobs- maybe more like 2. Except... that’s assuming that they get paid on fries sold off their shift, and that full time and part time employees get that number regardless of how many hours they worked. Unlikely- but let’s say we go for it.

The big assumption here though... is that 100% of those profits go to the employees. What are the odds of that? Dubious. What’s even more dubious? That people would pay it. You SAY you’d pay- but famousone pokes a big old hole in that one.

Most places have tip jars. So if ONLY every person getting fries left a .50 tip- the employees would collect the $980 odd dollars already. If every person who ordered ANYTHING left even just a .50 tip- the employees would make even more. Yet... they don’t. So it would seem that most people aren’t really willing to pay the extra out of the goodness of their heart- because there is already nothing stopping them.