My biggest problem with this conservative/libertarian philosophy that the less we tax industrialists, the more likely they are to give back to America in philanthropy, programs/services and jobs is the conceit that the wealthy care about nationalism anymore.
Has "trickle down" economics ever been proven to work, let alone in a globalized economy?
Short answer: No.
We have actual test cases of this theory, in the form of every nation before they implemented a social welfare system. In every case, any remotely objective measurement of poverty and misery was higher before than after.
The "charitable" giving, especially of the rich, isn't always directed towards the poor, either. A lot of it is donating to their (often Ivy League) alma maters, supporting fine arts, etc. There's a bunch of research on altruism, and while I haven't read it, I'm pretty certain that "charity is an awesome, market-driven, comprehensive replacement for government services that will help the poor if only we tear down the New Deal" is
not the conclusion they draw.
And what's up with conservatarians always describing corporate executives and the holders of capital as "the people who create jobs"? It's as if our economy is solely the work of our entrepreneurial overlords, and that we should all be glad that they deign to employ the rest of us. Nah, I know what's up. It's just rephrasing the Galt myth.
Not picking on you or anything, but one of the most frustrating things is seeing lower and middle class people defend the wealth accumulation of the wealthy because they know that one day their hard work/plans will get them to be one of them-when of course this will never actually happen and they'd be better off redistributing the living heck out of said wealth accumulation and having the proceeds benefit people of their station.
There's a
neat little exchange in 1776 that sums up the whole thing.