Here’s a quick economic lesson: less taxes mean less federal revenue to spend on things like social programs. When Reagan slashed his own method of income but spent ungodly amounts of money on the military…remember SDI?…he essentially created a problem for someone down the line to have to solve.
Enter Bill Clinton. Yes, I know he was a Democrat, silly, but he epitomized what actual Republican values were. He got more people off of welfare than pretty much any other President in history while creating an economic boom rivaled only by FDR and Truman.
All Democrats…hmmmmmmm…
As far as what you’ve suggested, history (and by history, I mean the last fifty-five years) has demonstrated that trickle-down or horse-and-sparrow or whatever bullshit economic model you’re steadfastly holding to simply does. not. work.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trickle-down/
…plus a link to the actual paper, which you’ll never read:
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf
I am an active union member. I make a good living. even though every week, I get 42% scalped out of my paycheck in state and federal taxes. If the ultra-wealthy were actually made to pay their fair share, I shouldn’t have to lose half my paycheck…and those leeches would still be ultra-wealthy.
Win-win-win.