Right. And that is exactly why taxes need to be increased on the parent corporations back to the 90% level we had when Republicans weren’t greedy, self-obsessed paychopaths.
Yes, but the tax cuts were conditional upon actually contributing to society in providing jobs. That was the entire point. It is a much better system than letting someone amass an ord as much wealth as possible without contributing anything to to the society that gives them the freedom to do so. They wanted tax cuts they had to earn them. They weren’t just freely given and guaranteed in exchange for a pac donation. The system that we have now that conservatives keep defending is called corruption in any other Nation.
Yes, actually, I did read it. It just happens to be conservative propaganda, as USA Today has always been. There is no situation in which corporations paid more money by decreasing their taxation. It’s a simple case of A being less than B.
Now, if you’re trying to use Limbaugh economics, what you’re saying is that EMPLOYEES paid more taxes to cover the corporate tax burden. The Limbaugh case: if you give a millionaire a tax break, he will buy a private jet. People need to fuel, maintain and clean that jet. The taxes on their labor offsets the tax cut for the millionaire. Labor pays the tax burden for the lazy shit who buys planes for free.
This isn’t “economics 101”; it’s neofuedalism. Oddly enough, it should be something that conservatives would strongly oppose, but they equate wealth with intelligence and leadership, and they have nothing at all to do with each other.
Right. And that is exactly why taxes need to be increased on the parent corporations back to the 90% level we had when Republicans weren’t greedy, self-obsessed paychopaths.
Eisenhower ftw Reagan sucks ass
You realize the rate was never really used? The amount of deductions were much greater back then. In effect you’d be giving them a huge tax cut.
Yes, but the tax cuts were conditional upon actually contributing to society in providing jobs. That was the entire point. It is a much better system than letting someone amass an ord as much wealth as possible without contributing anything to to the society that gives them the freedom to do so. They wanted tax cuts they had to earn them. They weren’t just freely given and guaranteed in exchange for a pac donation. The system that we have now that conservatives keep defending is called corruption in any other Nation.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/09/fact-check-viral-post-exaggerates-tax-rates-under-eisenhower/9588111002/
So then you agree that corporate taxes are too low and need to be raised back to Eisenhower levels.
No. We’d collect less money. We have one of the highest rates in the world.
Jesus how many hours of radical fascist radio do you listen to all day??
Zero but the article covered this but you didn’t read it.
Yes, actually, I did read it. It just happens to be conservative propaganda, as USA Today has always been. There is no situation in which corporations paid more money by decreasing their taxation. It’s a simple case of A being less than B.
Now, if you’re trying to use Limbaugh economics, what you’re saying is that EMPLOYEES paid more taxes to cover the corporate tax burden. The Limbaugh case: if you give a millionaire a tax break, he will buy a private jet. People need to fuel, maintain and clean that jet. The taxes on their labor offsets the tax cut for the millionaire. Labor pays the tax burden for the lazy shit who buys planes for free.
This isn’t “economics 101”; it’s neofuedalism. Oddly enough, it should be something that conservatives would strongly oppose, but they equate wealth with intelligence and leadership, and they have nothing at all to do with each other.
I think stories should be linked as bibliography for content in comments.
That comment would be better with a link and the relevant thesis either quoted or articulated by you.