Annie
Not So Junior Member
Yeah, you're geekier than moi.
Oh the corporations are evil was there undoubtedly, but so was lower taxes.
Take the Quiz
- Thread starter Phantasmal
- Start date
Yeah, you're geekier than moi.
Oh the corporations are evil was there undoubtedly, but so was lower taxes.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Just one problem with that Annie. Whenever they have tried it, it hasn't worked. Show me one time, just one where when taxes were cut that general revenues increased? This is the most fundamental prediction of SSE yet when tried, it doesn't happen. Now in the realm of science that means you're working with a false premise. This is why SSE is flawed. Sounds nice on paper. Sounds even better if your benefiting disproportionatly from those tax cuts. That doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I think a lot of people get tired of that old strawman about "evil corporations". Being objective about the reality of corporations doesn't mean you're hostile towards them. It just means you except the reality of their nature.Yeah, you're geekier than moi.
Oh the corporations are evil was there undoubtedly, but so was lower taxes.
You may believe, if you wish and to paraphrase a former GM CEO, That what is good for corporations is what is good for America.
I'm not that naive. It is the function of any company or corporation to earn and maximize profits. For any manager of a corporation, that too is their ethical obligation. It is also what they were hired to do. There is nothing wrong with that. This is what these institutions are structured and organized to do and they do it well and we all prosper from that and we give these corporations limited liability so that we may share in that prosperity with out corporations having to bear all the risk.
But you'd be a damn fool to believe that what is in the interest of a corporation is always in your best interest because the reality is, if your best interest conflicts with a corporations ability to maximize its profits they will sacrifice or disregard what is in your best interest with out a second thought.
That is why it is a legitimate function of our government, via the interstate commerce clause, to regulate commerce in the PUBLIC's interests.
Because if a corporation has to chose between profits and the public interest then "The Public Be Damned!"
The fact is, is that unless coerced, corporations are utterly with out a social conscience and since it is society which provides them the means, via limited liability, to even exist, the price they have to pay is regulation of commerce to protect not only the public interest but the interest of individuals and individual consumers.
I don't know about economics all that much, I just know through life experiences that Reagan lowered taxes and things went so bad that Bush 41 had to raise them and he lost an election to Clinton, who raised them further and the economy, although some will argue it was inflated, did great, then Bush 43 comes along and lowers taxes and the economy goes to hell and it is then up to Obama to make a very hard decision whether to keep the tax cuts or to raise taxes. There will be this argument will go on forever...
That is not a bad thing!Looks like I read a tad too much.
It is what I have witnessed over the years and wrote a post about it.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Try this:
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
Problem is I cannot find studies by 'liberal' think tanks. I find many by Heritage and Cato, but realize that regardless of sources used, many will just say, "Shocka"
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
kids!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Why would you want to look at data from a liberal think tank (or a conservative one for that matter.)? They have an agenda and cannot be trusted to be objective. There are plenty of sources of objective data one can draw on from government and academia to be able to draw this conclusion about SSE.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Actually, there's not much from the government about economic theory. Academic studies will be as biased as the think tank ones. Thus I posted the link to gov. site.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
None of them really surprised me. Though I did guess wrong on a few. Pretty much the ones that had ignorantly vague answers like 'a lot more' or 'a little more'.
That said, the one on 'how many corps didn't pay taxes in 1995' was ignorant at best.
If a corp posts a loss in a given year, then it is not going to have any revenue on which to pay taxes.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Their conclusions on the data maybe but I do think those are good sources to obtain the data.
Conservative
Repent, America!
I did lousy. Are the "right" answers accurate?
Annie
Not So Junior Member
If you are referring to academics, I disagree as they use the data from US gov. It's what I used to do, play with stats.
In actuality, the academic papers would be the same as the think tanks and just as biased.