i really dont get it

[danyboy27]

I really dont understand how politicians and economists can still claim that corporate tax cut and deregulation will create more jobs and stimulate the economy, I really dont.

Its really obvious that if you give money to corporations and CEO, they will keep it for themselve or spend it in a third world country, or invest it in bubble that will eventually explode.

is anyone here have an explanation on why this myth is still so widely used and widespread???

[GPDP]

Because it's useful?

If you tell a lie long enough, etc.

[danyboy27]

Because it's useful?

If you tell a lie long enough, etc.

for a complicated issue, i would understand, but this is just so blatantly false, i didnt find any worker foolish enough to believe in this kind of crap.

[Bardo]

I wouldnt get it either if I were to believe that politicians genuinely care about public interest. They are highly trained professional spin doctors and they know exactly how to persuade the public.

[Sadena Meti]

I think the basis of the lie is this idea that the rich businessmen just love doing business. They don't do it for the money, they just want to work, and work as much as possible. So if we give them more money, they won't hold on to it, they'll immediately put it into the love of their life, working more and more.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It creates more jobs...for third world countries.

[Che a chara]

Is there a method to their madness ? It's more than likely down to greed and their over-inflated egos. Fat cats, corporations etc. who have that much money need to feel important and they run on a power trip. Most of their arguments are based on greed and nothing to do with stimulating the economy, with such rhetoric as "The rich already pay their more than enough share of taxes", when the truth is those who can afford it don't miss a dime.

You'll also hear being slabbered from their mouths the usual spin that the more money you have in your account, the more likely you will use that money to employ or invest, and not spend on yourself. Out of spite and bitterness you just know the filthy rich will now indeed invest or spend their ill-gotten gains abroad to make a point.

[Che a chara]

Plus, deregulation means pro-discrimination and exploitation -- a capitalistic right-wing libertarian's wet dream.

[DarkNation]

Don't they assume that if business gets more money they will use it to expand within their own country? Expansion means job creation, in theory, but we all know how things are in the end.

[danyboy27]

I think the basis of the lie is this idea that the rich businessmen just love doing business. They don't do it for the money, they just want to work, and work as much as possible. So if we give them more money, they won't hold on to it, they'll immediately put it into the love of their life, working more and more.

but this is against human nature! this is so fucking obvious its against human nature, its just so damn outrageous!

back then this kind of thinking was used to justify kings, and ultimately the system was replaced beccause it was not functionnal at all, beccause of human nature.

this is so fucking obvious and simple to understand, any 12 year old could understand the basic logic behind it.

you would think all those PHD guys out there would actually be smart enough to catch up with this kind of logic.

tricke down economics dosnt work, they dont, there is no correlation between economic growth and neo-liberalism, statistics prove it.
for those who doubt it, look at the damn video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvANcGUJndM

[SJBarley]

I think that as many other comrades have mentioned, it comes down to perseverence and greed. That say it so much that even they themselves begin to believe it, if they truly cared about the people then a much simpler solution would to be put money into education not remove it from every aspect of society, but then if they put it into their education in 20 years we'll have a clone set of politicians claiming the same thing. Perhaps the revolution draws nearer...

[Che a chara]

It's fucking crazy that people are that gullible, selfish and brainwashed to think that austerity cuts are the way forward. so dangerous -- economically and socially, whereas taxing the filthy rich has little if absolutely no detrimental effect economically or socially.

[danyboy27]

It's fucking crazy that people are that gullible, selfish and brainwashed to think that austerity cuts are the way forward. so dangerous -- economically and socially, whereas taxing the filthy rich has little if absolutely no detrimental effect economically or socially.

what is even more batshit insane is that, those austerity measures could make rich people life a living hell.

creating more and more poor people is more than likely to disturb the social climate, increase criminality, and eventually force them to protect their asses south america style with private armies and electrified fence to keep the poor from chopping them off or kidnapping them in their sleep.

No wonder some powerful people dont want these cut, the status-quo is in reality more beneficial to the rich than living under siege 24/7.

[Drosophila]

It does stimulate the economy....for about a year. Then you have a massive deficit and high inflation. It's an incredibly stupid thing to do.

[Sasha]

But it makes the rich filthy rich wich feeds the poor individuals delusion that maybe they could become that too.

[Roman_von_Ungern]

The thought is that it will make it easier and cheaper for them to hire labor. But it never quite works out.

[danyboy27]

But it makes the rich filthy rich wich feeds the poor individuals delusion that maybe they could become that too.

there is a reason why governements worldwide started to implement social measures in the 1700 and 1800s.
beccause the new rulling class was able to stack so much wealth with the buildup of industries, it created that extremely insane gap between the rich and the poor, and then shit started to hit the fan at an accelerated speed; wildcat strike, riots, sabotage, destruction of rich folks property, some where killed, the people couldnt accept the conditions in wich they lived, they couldnt accept 16 day works, or unfair contract or working in dangerous places.

if the politicians would have stood by and did nothing, the whole system of inequality would have collapsed on itself, so they decided to make several compromises over the decades in order to keep the machine up and running.

going back in time will eventually create more trouble than its worth for the rulling class, and personally i find it pretty funny that their glutony will probably be the ultimate cause of their own demise.

[Robespierre Richard]

I really dont understand how politicians and economists can still claim that corporate tax cut and deregulation will create more jobs and stimulate the economy, I really dont.

Its really obvious that if you give money to corporations and CEO, they will keep it for themselve or spend it in a third world country, or invest it in bubble that will eventually explode.

is anyone here have an explanation on why this myth is still so widely used and widespread???

It's basically like this:

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c3241-20.jpg

Any other questions?

[RGacky3]

You repeat a lie enough ... Strangely though, even though its repeated and repeated, most people don't buy it still, mainly because you have evidence, and proper economists out there (the ones with nobel peace prizes).

[JTB]

I really dont understand how politicians and economists can still claim that corporate tax cut and deregulation will create more jobs and stimulate the economy, I really dont.

Its really obvious that if you give money to corporations and CEO, they will keep it for themselve or spend it in a third world country, or invest it in bubble that will eventually explode.

is anyone here have an explanation on why this myth is still so widely used and widespread???
It is a matter of dogma and faith. Basically, it's a religion in which the Corporation is God and the Republicans are the papacy.

[JTB]

for a complicated issue, i would understand, but this is just so blatantly false, i didnt find any worker foolish enough to believe in this kind of crap.
Doesn't matter what the masses think. Who pays for politicians' re-election campaigns? They know whom they work for. Most of the masses now accept the two-party dichotomy, so there's no real risk of losing power.

[JTB]

Until the People are prepared to take to the streets en masse, nothing will change.

[Dimmu]

I really dont understand how politicians and economists can still claim that corporate tax cut and deregulation will create more jobs and stimulate the economy, I really dont.

Its really obvious that if you give money to corporations and CEO, they will keep it for themselve or spend it in a third world country, or invest it in bubble that will eventually explode.

is anyone here have an explanation on why this myth is still so widely used and widespread???

They claim it because they know that people will fall for the lie.. We are facing the same situation in Finland where we the state will make cuts in the our budget, but the corporate tax will be lowered because "it will attract more companies and create more jobs".

And unfortunately many people agree with this theory because they think of corporations as some sort of altruistic institutions.

Economists are just propaganda spreaders, they mostly come from the upper class and they usually work in the corporations which will benefit from the tax-cuts. So its not so surprising that they claim this absurd shit. People buy it because they dont know how basic economics work and they are encouraged to stay uninformed and rely on these "experts".

[Bud Struggle]

They claim it because they know that people will fall for the lie..

And people do. And people just have to take responsibility for their lives.

Before any Revolution starts--that has to happen.

But they don't--so we have what we have. The Revolution is all about people taking charge of their own lives--there's nothing more to it than that.

Nothing.

[danyboy27]

And people do. And people just have to take responsibility for their lives.

Before any Revolution starts--that has to happen.

But they don't--so we have what we have. The Revolution is all about people taking charge of their own lives--there's nothing more to it than that.

Nothing.

humm, what?

i am not sure, you dont argues against supply side economics, or for, what is the purpose of this post?

[Dr Mindbender]

I really dont understand how politicians and economists can still claim that corporate tax cut and deregulation will create more jobs and stimulate the economy, I really dont.

Its really obvious that if you give money to corporations and CEO, they will keep it for themselve or spend it in a third world country, or invest it in bubble that will eventually explode.

is anyone here have an explanation on why this myth is still so widely used and widespread???

Because they think we're stupid.

[Bud Struggle]

humm, what?

i am not sure, you dont argues against supply side economics, or for, what is the purpose of this post?

People complain but do nothing. Vote Republican next time. Vote Democrat the time after that. It works. It's a good life for 90% of us.

[Revolution starts with U]

90%? Really?
Do you think you're precious tea party would even have been able to get a foot off the ground if people were happy with the situation in america? They sold some old and upper middle class stooges some line about how the real exploitation comes from the government, not the people actually in control of the government.
If anything could ever make me a Stalinist, it would be Bud Struggle :cursing:
(I didn't get much sleep last night...)

[inyourhouse]

I really dont understand how politicians and economists can still claim that corporate tax cut and deregulation will create more jobs and stimulate the economy, I really dont.

I think they sincerely believe that lower corporate tax rates lead to faster economic growth. In my opinion, the empirical evidence does seem to support that view. For example, a 2005 study by Arnold and Lee (http://www.aiecon.org/advanced/suggestedreadings/PDF/sug334.pdf) of 70 countries over the period 1970 to 1997 finds that "the corporate tax rate is significantly negatively correlated with economic growth". Specifically, "[t]he estimates suggest that cutting the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points can increase the annual growth rate by around 1.1%" (p. 1041). A recent study of 21 OECD countries between 1971 and 2004 by Arnold (2008) (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/5kzc0ms9f6kb.pdf?expires=1303006975&id=0000&accname=guest&checksum=DC1990B06CC8D3EA91A1D33F33A362E5) reinforces this conclusion, finding that "corporate income taxes have the most negative effects on GDP per capita" (p. 18) compared to property taxes, consumption taxes, and personal income taxes. A more interesting result found by Devereux (2006) (http://www.aei.org/docLib/20060602_Devereux.pdf) based on a study of 20 OECD countries over the period 1965 to 2004 is that corporate tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have risen despite a fall in average corporate tax rates. The implication is that "only at low rates of tax does the rate have a positive impact on tax revenues. Above moderate rates, further increases in the tax rate may actually reduce revenues" (p. 25).

I'm not aware of any studies that have reached the conclusion that reducing corporate tax rates doesn't increase growth. So, overall, the evidence does tend to support the policy views of these politicians and economists you mention. The apparent fact that the growth effects are relatively stronger than other tax cuts and that the revenue maximizing rate is low itself suggests that supporting corporate tax cuts a reasonable position. To be honest, I don't really think it's fair to imply that they are ignorant or malicious simply because they have a view that differs from yours.

[JTB]

Because they think we're stupid.
Well, people do keep voting for them...

[Revolution starts with U]

Just FYI I thanked that post cuz it is one of the few pro-capitalists posts that actually tries to prove itself. And, today, I'm just glad to see a capitalist at least trying (possibly, that study could be outright bogus) to be honest.

[danyboy27]

People complain but do nothing. Vote Republican next time. Vote Democrat the time after that. It works. It's a good life for 90% of us.

bud, are you for or against supply side economics? this is a pretty straightfoward question.

if you are for, argues in favor, if you are against, well argues against.

Its really annoying when you change the subject of the conversation like that.

[Bud Struggle]

bud, are you for or against supply side economics? this is a pretty straightfoward question.

if you are for, argues in favor, if you are against, well argues against.

Its really annoying when you change the subject of the conversation like that.

I'm not for it or against it. I try to be a realist--sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. The bottom line is that I'm not for any particular rules about anything. If it works and people are better off--then that's the plan. I'm not tied to anything. AndFWIW that's the secret of being a good businessman--you do what works not what some book or formula says. That's why MBAs work for Entrepreneaurs--I know it kind of frustrating to argue with me--it's difficult to pin me down, so you guys call me a troll and such--but I don't mean to be--I do what works best in the situation I'm in.

In my little world I try to make money when the Democrats are in or the Republicans are in or the Tea Party is in. Hell, I'll make money after the Revolution and you Communist are in. That's the plan.

Nothing mean, nasty or personal.

[danyboy27]

I'm not for it or against it. I try to be a realist--sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. The bottom line is that I'm not for any particular rules about anything. If it works and people are better off--then that's the plan. I'm not tied to anything. AndFWIW that's the secret of being a good businessman--you do what works not what some book or formula says. That's why MBAs work for Entrepreneaurs--I know it kind of frustrating to argue with me--it's difficult to pin me down, so you guys call me a troll and such--but I don't mean to be--I do what works best in the situation I'm in.

In my little world I try to make money when the Democrats are in or the Republicans are in or the Tea Party is in. Hell, I'll make money after the Revolution and you Communist are in. That's the plan.

Nothing mean, nasty or personal.
but the fact prove otherwise, it didnt work.

[Bud Struggle]

but the fact prove otherwise, it didnt work.

It worked for some and not for others. It worked well for this kid that grew up poor. What can I say? It worked for me.

There really is no yes and no answer to any of this. That's what makes it so difficult.

[Sadena Meti]

Well, people do keep voting for them...

There's a great bit in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy which explains this well.




"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see ..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and
coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced
down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so
straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders
are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the
people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse,
"why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got
the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government
they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they
want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong
lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

[Dumb]

These supply side/demand side debates are never going to end as long as one operates within a capitalist framework. Cut corporate taxes and social spending, and you increase profits at the expense of consumers and labourers...raise taxes, "invest in the economy" and enable unionisation, and you've just bolstered consumers and labourers at the expense of profits.

The only way to eliminate the constant back-and-forth between capital and labour is to eliminate one or the other.

[RGacky3]

I'm not for it or against it. I try to be a realist--sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. The bottom line is that I'm not for any particular rules about anything. If it works and people are better off--then that's the plan. I'm not tied to anything. AndFWIW that's the secret of being a good businessman--you do what works not what some book or formula says. That's why MBAs work for Entrepreneaurs--I know it kind of frustrating to argue with me--it's difficult to pin me down, so you guys call me a troll and such--but I don't mean to be--I do what works best in the situation I'm in.

In my little world I try to make money when the Democrats are in or the Republicans are in or the Tea Party is in. Hell, I'll make money after the Revolution and you Communist are in. That's the plan.

Nothing mean, nasty or personal.

Bud, if your not here to talk about politics or economics, or what you think is the best society we should fight for, then what are you doing here?

Look your a buisinessman, fine, good for you, but we are people that want to make the world a better place for everyone, you obviously have no interest in that, so again, why are you here?

Its frusturating arguing with you because you don't make arguments or even discuss the topic being discussed, you just make blanket statements that you don't back up, whatever you reason for that is, your still just a troll.


There really is no yes and no answer to any of this. That's what makes it so difficult.

The answer is does the system do what the proponents of it say it will do when implimented, in that sense Catpialism failed.

[danyboy27]

It worked for some and not for others. It worked well for this kid that grew up poor. What can I say? It worked for me.

There really is no yes and no answer to any of this. That's what makes it so difficult.

But it didnt worked for you, you didnt experienced it.

You and your father lived in an era of kenyesian economics bud, in time when even the republican understood that the rich had to pay taxes to build road and school, and if i remember well your father was an unionised worker, wich mean he had a decent (somewhat) wage, decent wage meant food on the table, a good headstart for education, a home.

you might not realize it bud but those things today are not has widespread has they where back then, and the services to the population significantly decreased.

[SacRedMan]

Almost all politician promise work. It's their job.

[StockholmSyndrome]

There was a very interesting article in Bloomberg Businessweek recently about all the tricks and schemes that the super rich use to avoid paying taxes in the United States. Most of it involves setting up holding companies in tax havens overseas and doing fancy financial transactions. So, even though the highest corporate tax bracket in the US is 35%, GM last year paid an effective tax rate of something like 4% and this is not an anomaly. It seemed like the article was trying to make the point that the high tax rate is what gives the companies the incentive to do these things in the first place. Also, since there is a tax when companies decide to bring the money back here and reinvest it in the United States, they have more incentive just to keep it overseas. The argument was that if the US lowered its corporate tax rate to something like 20%, and gave a temporary tax holiday so that companies could bring their overseas money back here, they would be more likely to stay and invest their surplus back in the United States and we would ultimately get more revenue from corporate taxes in the long run. Also, the article seemed to support President Obama's idea of lowering "tax expenditures" which are basically just tax benefits and credits that are given to S corporations and account for billions in lost tax revenue.

In my opinion, lowering the corporate tax rate in the US is ridiculous. The main problem in my mind is that we are trying to deal with transnational corporations operating in a global economy by implementing policies at the national level. It seems to me that we should just work on closing the loopholes that allow companies to avoid paying taxes, and we should also create more robust institutions for global regulation of the global economy.