Sasha Abramsky Quotes

You want to continue with the social safety net: the good, the bad and the ugly parts of that, you have to have a vibrant economy. You have to have growth of the economy.

I don't see basic income as a panacea, but we must have a new income distribution system. The old one has broken down irretrievably.

Tax cuts that actually go to working-class, middle-class people, I'm not opposed to.

The growing inequality of wealth and income distribution is both a moral and economic problem. If the wealthy are unwilling to pay more taxes, then this is going to lead to spending cuts. And if you put off the table things like national defense, then you're going to end up cutting more and more out of programs that aid the poor. So, I think there are consequences to this idea that tolerance for inequality requires us to - to just do nothing to make the wealthy contribute a higher share of resources to fund the government.

If you stimulate the economy by means of a tax cut, the people that you tend to be benefiting are the better off.

Trickle-down economics - it didn't work. The whole idea was supply-side economics: give rich people a lot of money; they'll spend it, it'll go into the economy. Here's what we found out - rich people, really good at keeping all the money. That's how they got rich. If you want it in the economy, give it to the poor people. You know what they're really good at? Spending all their money.

The long-run historical tendency of capitalism has not only been to increase real incomes more or less proportionately nearly all along the line, but to benefit the masses even more than the rich.

Liberals believe government should take people's earnings to give to poor people. Conservatives disagree. They think government should confiscate people's earnings and give them to farmers and insolvent banks. The compelling issue to both conservatives and liberals is not whether it is legitimate for government to confiscate one's property to give to another, the debate is over the disposition of the pillage.

Margaret Thatcher said,you know the problem with socialism is that eventually it will run out of other people's money. And she was absolutely right.

What the Trump tax plan is a plan to give tiny little tax cuts to most Americans, raise taxes on perhaps one in five families and shower benefits on people who earn millions of dollars a year. And this fits with a fundamental principle the Republicans have been pursuing for a long time. The rich aren't investing and creating jobs, because they don't have nearly enough money, and so we need to get them money. And the way the Republicans want to get it to them is tax cuts first, and then to take away help for children, the disabled, the elderly and the poor.

Successful businesses create jobs; that is true. But the notion that if we cut taxes enough for the very rich and for already hugely profitable businesses, then all that money will trickle down to everyone else in the form of job creation is simply false.

Our argument is everybody ought to be paying lower rates, and we ought to be focused on growing the economy and rebuilding the middle class.

My biggest worry is that Obama says he's going to tax the upper 5 percent by raising their taxes by 20 percent. But among that 5 percent are the corporations that are hiring middle-class Americans.

Barack Obama's enemies are the people who make this country work. Barack Obama's enemies are those who succeed. Those are the people whose income he wants to redistribute. Those are the people whose income he wants to take, using the power and the force of the federal government to do it.

Same way we have enough money to bail out Wall Street, we need to put a down payment on Main Street.

To reward work, to grow the middle class and strengthen the economy, to give millions of Americans the respect they deserve... It's time to raise the minimum wage.

The 'progressive' tax-and-spend agenda has been put on trial. The policies not only lead to much slower growth but also benefit the rich and politically well-connected at the expense of everyone else.

I'm a capitalist, and I believe that universal basic income is necessary for capitalism to continue.

Expanding the EITC can get us close to a universal basic minimum income.

Universal basic income is not a solution in search of a problem - it is the obvious solution that has been in front of us for years. It only requires us to have the vision, empathy and courage to adopt it for the American people before it is too late.

With the Korean economy faltering, Seoul City will do its best to address problems regarding people's economic livelihoods - the most important part of this effort being public housing.

President Obama's assault on the free-enterprise market and venture capitalists is anti-American and shows his greatest insecurity: his lack of private sector experience and his inability to understand the economy and help businesses thrive in these uncertain economic times.

Having an economy that works for the 99% is achievable.

We need a budget that will foster economic growth for all of our people, and we need to make taxes more simple and fair for working families - not give handouts to the rich.

Lula's political culture translated into a government project that sought to include the poor in the budget with minimal efforts in terms of structural transformation. The inclusion of the poor would trigger the economy, creating a virtuous cycle of mass consumption market, increased tax collection, more investments, and more benefits.