Trickle-down economics, the theory behind tax cuts for the wealthy, has been exposed as voodoo economics again and again. Tax cutting for big business and the 1% is the Republican theory behind job creation.

Trickle-down doesn’t work. It never has. The national disaster known as George W. Bush, a big proponent of tax cuts, had the worst job creation record in the past fifty years.

Big corporations pay a tax on profits, unless of course they are a multi-national and can disguise their profits as “off-shore income,” in which case the tax rates drops from 35% to 5.25 %. Assignment: guess how many big corporations are multinationals. Guess how much of the income is “foreign” earnings.

Come now the Republicans with plan after plan featuring more tax cuts. Especially irritating to the elephants are taxes on capital gains, even though these gains are taxed at a lower rate than income (15%). “That money has already been taxed multiple times!” they scream. Yes, it has.

If you work for a wage, you pay income tax. Tax number one.

If you use your after-tax income to buy a stock and if the company you invested in makes money, it pays a corporate income tax. Tax number two.

If the company gives you a dividend, that is income to you on your investment, and you pay tax on it. Tax number three.

Another example: you take your after-tax income and, instead of buying a stock, you buy groceries. Or clothes. Or gasoline for your car. Guess what! You are paying a sales tax with money that also has already been taxed! Amazing, isn’t it? It’s the same damn thing. The right-wing no-tax geniuses have yet to figure out that what is being taxed is the transaction. That principle is thoroughly accepted and embedded in the tax code. (Speaking of tax codes, both the left and right wings agree that it should be simplified—they differ on how.)

The wheels of big business have always squeaked more loudly and therefore have gotten most of the tax breaks. Small business usually draws the short straw. Lew Prince, a St. Louis small businessman, recently made a very cogent observation. As a response to the call for lower corporate tax rates, Mr. Prince observed: “And anyone who thinks that lowering my tax rate would affect hiring knows diddlysquat about running a business. I hire more workers if I think I’ll do more business. The costs of finding, hiring, and paying new employees are business expenses. They’re deducted up front from taxable income. Any business paying taxes on these expenses needs to fire its accountant.”

There is no economic evidence that cutting taxes to corporations or the wealthy leads to more business and more jobs. It can lead to greater profit for a business, but this is money that does not trickle down—it sticks to the fingers at the top. It goes to investors and CEO’s. It does not spread through the economy as the elephants would have you believe. Businesses do more business, as Mr. Prince so eloquently points out, if they have more customers, i.e. people with money to spend. People have money to spend if they have jobs.

Why is there such resistance to the idea of rebuilding the infrastructure? It would create a lot of jobs. It would be an investment in the country’s future. It would stimulate a lot of businesses, big and small, and it would stimulate the economy.

This is not a new or original idea. What would be new and original is somebody showing why it’s a bad idea. Rebuilding our country’s infrastructure is prevention. Its costs are far less than the inevitable alternative. The only problem with this idea, as far as I can see, is that it requires looking beyond the next election cycle, something Congress is historically reluctant to do (term limits, anyone?).

There would be a lot less yelling about taxes if people had money to tax.