The following looks at the major facets of right wing economics and the reasons they are fallacies and can never work:
Big government is wasteful.
Any large, hierarchical organization will be prone to areas of wastefulness, this is as true of any large corporation as it is of government, in many cases more so, since most shareholders are really speculators and have no concern for the workings of the corporation private corporations are less accountable to anyone. The problem though lies in the structure, not simply the size, of the organization in question. Simply put, the higher up the hierarchical chain authority is invested, the further from the source of information on what is happening and what ought to happen the authority is. “Edge” organizations, where authority is invested in those closest to the actual operations and management is generally tasked with coordinating different facets are more efficient and less wasteful. Most government spending is in fact necessary in modern society, and more efficiency, while desirable, would lessen the budget only marginally. As a result balancing the budget can only happen by raising overall taxation.
Higher taxes on the wealthy hurt the economy.
This one is a particularly obvious fallacy. The economy is firstly and lastly dependent upon demand. Without demand for goods and services there is no incentive to investment. For every dollar taxed off the poor and middle class a much more sizable portion is removed from economic demand for the simple reason that they need to spend a larger percentage of their income.
Simultaneously the lowering of demand reduces the opportunities available to the wealthy for actual investment, and the result is increased speculation in the stock market and real estate, creating bubbles that undermine the stability of the economy as a whole. Ironically the eventual puncturing of those bubbles hurts the wealthy far more than the poor and middle classes.
Finally, increasing taxes, percentage wise, on those with lower incomes results in lower actual taxation than the same percentage increase on the wealthy, making it less useful in actually balancing the budget – i.e. those with lower incomes don’t make enough as a group at this point to have the deficit reduced substantially out of their incomes.
Income is based on merit.
Were this a meritocracy, the first thing that would have to be implemented would be an absolute standard that applies to everyone in terms of education and inheritance. Otherwise income primarily remains dependent on birth into a particular class or income bracket or the luck of the draw in having a skill set that happens to be in high demand.
This could be changed by banning all private education and tutoring, and taxing inheritance at 100%. The latter would have the simultaneous effect of massively increasing yearly taxation and lowering the incentive to hoarding money.
The main incentive to work is money.
Money is largely a means, money as an end in itself is a pathology found in a minority of people. Money is currently a means to respectability, a means of fostering an advantage for one’s offspring, and a necessity to enjoy a reasonable lifestyle, and it is these things, not the means to them, that is the main incentive to work, and the reason most people do work and work fairly hard. Removing the ability of money to foster an advantage for one’s offspring by banning private education and tutoring and removing the ability to inherit money would mean that the only means to foster an advantage would be to spend more time and personal effort with one’s children. Slashing the income gap between the wealthy, the middle income earners and the poor also increases these incentives to work across the board, improves economic demand, increases the stability of the economy and the financial system, and provides a much more viable claim to a meritocracy.