I hope nobody reading this actually falls for your weaksauce argument... You are literally using the false dichotomy logical fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma again, those are not the only two options:
you say:
> I used to believe taxes were a good way to redistribute wealth
and then, you don't believe that works because:
> I moved to San Francisco and saw how a welfare super state prioritizes its spending
So you are suggesting that the ONLY other possible option when the rich are taxed is that those taxes are mismanaged, but that is just not true: certainly there are varying degrees of "mismanagement" possible. In particular some of those mismanagement scenario might still result in better outcomes for less wealthy.
Given your other comments I'm sure you are already thinking: "who even cares about the less wealthy" but that seems to be the topic of the discussion, the original post is about how tax cuts don't result in "trickle down", which is how they are marketed and sold to the less wealthy.
you say:
> I used to believe taxes were a good way to redistribute wealth
and then, you don't believe that works because:
> I moved to San Francisco and saw how a welfare super state prioritizes its spending
So you are suggesting that the ONLY other possible option when the rich are taxed is that those taxes are mismanaged, but that is just not true: certainly there are varying degrees of "mismanagement" possible. In particular some of those mismanagement scenario might still result in better outcomes for less wealthy.
Given your other comments I'm sure you are already thinking: "who even cares about the less wealthy" but that seems to be the topic of the discussion, the original post is about how tax cuts don't result in "trickle down", which is how they are marketed and sold to the less wealthy.