Liberals Believe in Trickle Down Economics

[Boss]

You say "no" but then the following statement pretty much lines up exactly to what I posted.

Except that what you said was not correct: ...it refers to government policies that lower taxes (and minimum wages) for wealthy people and businesses and then "supposedly" the businesses and wealthy people charge less for their products and are able to hire more employees and pay them more.

This is what I said "NO" to. That's why I quoted you in my reply. Increasing economic prosperity at the top is more than just lowering taxes. The minimum wage has never been lowered to my knowledge, so not sure where that came from. Decreasing regulation encourages more economic prosperity at the top, and tax incentives to certain types of business investment, lowering prime interest rates, etc. But the reason is not so that capitalists can "supposedly" do any of the things you indicated. All of those things are dependent upon a bunch of other factors which are not necessarily related to economic prosperity at the top.

The reason for increasing economic prosperity at the top is because this will inevitably trickle down to everything below the top. Money is being made so money is being spent. In a capitalist system, if money is being spent, money is being earned. The more it is earned, the more prosperity for those who earn it. The more earned income, the more tax revenue.

Now, if you increase prosperity long enough, demand for 'stuff' increases. If the supply of 'stuff' is not sufficient, this can create new jobs to produce more 'stuff' to meet the demand. Produce enough new jobs and the demand for labor increases, this raises the value of labor to make the 'stuff' that is needed to meet demand. That's how you get better paying jobs. It can happen as a result of long-term economic prosperity, but 'trickle down' is simply the nature of all capitalism.

Trickle down is not the nature of all capitalism, the nature of all capitalism is having a free market economy in which people, through the private sector, can facilitate trade, industry, and means of production. Nothing about this sets any precedent to enabling wealthy people to become as wealthy as possible. Nothing about it sets any precedent to lower regulation so rivers in West Virginia become contaminated or there's BT Toxins in corn from Monsanto.

A good amount money circulation is needed in pretty much ANY economy, capitalist or not. "More money being spent more money being earned" is true irregardless of capitalism, socialism, or any other system with a fiat currency. You're cooking up a loosely tied together economic phrases that sell to the uneducated but don't stand up to real life data, like the stagnant wages we've experience since Reagan and the hollowing out of the middle class since the Bush years.

The minimum wage is never directly lowered, but through inflation and not raising it, it's artificially lowered.

I'm sorry, you have things backwards. You are explaining what enables a free market capitalist system, then trying to say that is what a free market capitalist system causes. It's convoluted, whether you intended it to be or not. I have no idea what you're talking about "setting a precedent" ...can't even rationalize what you are attempting to say. Rivers in WV have not a thing to do with how free market capitalist economic systems work, and it seem to be about right here that you begin sounding like some blithering liberal idiot. If you don't know what you're talking about, just shut up and listen to people who do.

 

[Boss]

Trying to squeeze the ultra rich into giving up their capital is easier said than done. They have the means to move to whatever locale won't hit them with steep taxes. If liberals WERE able to pass stiff new taxes on the wealthy, I guarantee you that before the new taxes went into effect massive amounts of capital would be moved out of this country and new investments here would nosedive. I know it drives the far left crazy...but in order to create jobs...you have to let people with capital to invest make a big enough profit to make it worth their while. If you don't, they will go elsewhere.

There are currently record corporate profits. The 1% have been allowed to make a big enough profit to make it worth their while. Cutting taxes to the money class just allows them to keep more of their money. There haven't been any signs that lowering corporate tax rates spurs economic development. It only increases corporate savings. The wealth does not trickle down.

Record corporate profits + high unemployment = trickle down economics does not work.

And what has attacking capitalism, attacking the "wealthy class" and raising taxes done for economic development? You've been spewing this Maoist bullshit for more than 10 years, your politicians have held majorities in every branch, we've implemented every policy you said we should implement. Aside from doing as Mao did and killing off all the capitalists, there isn't much more that we can do... it's fucking just not working, dude.

Guess what, Mr. Brilliance... it's not ever going to work. The more you attack capitalism and the free market capitalist system, the less "trickle down" you get, the more you LOSE jobs and economic prosperity. It all goes bye-bye! Rich people are still going to be rich, and are still going to make money, unless you do as Mao did... kill them and confiscate their wealth.

 

[Boss]

The minimum wage is never directly lowered, but through inflation and not raising it, it's artificially lowered.

We have a problem with your ignorance of economics here. The more you raise the min. wage, the more inflation you'll create. So now you are trying to put out the fire with more gasoline and you are saying the fire can't be put out without dumping even more gasoline on it. You are an economic idiot.

 

[Oldstyle]

Trying to squeeze the ultra rich into giving up their capital is easier said than done. They have the means to move to whatever locale won't hit them with steep taxes. If liberals WERE able to pass stiff new taxes on the wealthy, I guarantee you that before the new taxes went into effect massive amounts of capital would be moved out of this country and new investments here would nosedive. I know it drives the far left crazy...but in order to create jobs...you have to let people with capital to invest make a big enough profit to make it worth their while. If you don't, they will go elsewhere.

There are currently record corporate profits. The 1% have been allowed to make a big enough profit to make it worth their while. Cutting taxes to the money class just allows them to keep more of their money. There haven't been any signs that lowering corporate tax rates spurs economic development. It only increases corporate savings. The wealth does not trickle down.

Record corporate profits + high unemployment = trickle down economics does not work.

Your formula is skewed, KNB...

Higher taxes + increased regulations = investment going elsewhere = a jobless recovery.

First of all...in actuality "Trickle down economics" doesn't exist. It's a pejorative term coined by liberals instead of "Supply Side economics" which Reagan used to kick start the longest period of sustained economic growth in modern US history. The basic premise of Supply Side economics is simple...the removal of barriers (high taxes and burdensome regulations to name a few) that prevent the production of goods will lead to increased investment, cheaper goods and increased employment.

 

[KNB]

High taxes? Those high taxes currently amount to RECORD CORPORATE PROFITS. How do corporations keep making RECORD PROFITS if they pay too much in taxes?

Do you know what the "regulations" are that prevent job creators from creating jobs in America? It's that pesky "minimum wage" that everyone keeps talking about. It's just too damn high! If we lower the minimum wage to Chinese levels, then corporations can move those production jobs back to America and use more of their RECORD PROFITS to hire more American workers. This makes sense to you, doesn't it?

 

[Oldstyle]

The minimum wage is never directly lowered, but through inflation and not raising it, it's artificially lowered.

We have a problem with your ignorance of economics here. The more you raise the min. wage, the more inflation you'll create. So now you are trying to put out the fire with more gasoline and you are saying the fire can't be put out without dumping even more gasoline on it. You are an economic idiot.

If one raises the minimum wage substantially then there HAS to be a corresponding hike in other wages. It's simple common sense that you can't raise the bottom of a pay scale without doing so. Someone who had obtained a higher level of pay than those at an entry level position is not going to sit idly by while you raise that entry level pay up to their current pay. They will obviously demand a raise so that they are once again making X amount of dollars more an hour than entry level workers. So if you raise wages across the board...what happens to the price of goods? They obviously have to go up as well since labor costs have increased and you now have more people with more money competing for goods. That is a perfect scenario for inflation. So at the end of the day...what have you accomplished? You now have minimum wage earners making $10 an hour instead of $7 but the cost of everything they buy has gone up by 30% because of the increased labor costs. Take that scenario to it's extremes and you need a wheelbarrow full of money to go buy groceries. It's IDIOTIC!

 

[Oldstyle]

High taxes? Those high taxes currently amount to RECORD CORPORATE PROFITS. How do corporations keep making RECORD PROFITS if they pay too much in taxes?

Do you know what the "regulations" are that prevent job creators from creating jobs in America? It's that pesky "minimum wage" that everyone keeps talking about. It's just too damn high! If we lower the minimum wage to Chinese levels, then corporations can move those production jobs back to America and use more of their RECORD PROFITS to hire more American workers. This makes sense to you, doesn't it?

Leave the "populist talking points" out of this and simply look at it with a little common sense, KNB!

I am the CEO of Acme Widget and I'm thinking about building a brand new factory that will employ 5,000 new employees. I have a choice. I can build my new factory in country A...which has high taxes on profits, numerous regulations that will increase my cost of doing business substantially and a minimum wage of $10 an hour...or I can build it in country B...which has lower taxes on profits, fewer regulations that increase my costs and a minimum wage of $7 an hour. Now where do YOU think that factory is going to get built?

 

[Clementine]

How do they get the job to be able to do that?

.

I've heard Sean Hannity say it often....
Try getting a job from a poor person!

Hannity is a dolt, try offering a service without a working person.

A lot of people started that way. Some simply ran ads offering things like house cleaning, carpentry, lawn service or other labor jobs and did all the work by themselves with no extra help. Once they started getting too many calls to handle, they started looking for help. By then, they had already done the hard part by spending a ton of money on all the equipment needed to do the job and created a client base. Since they put all their money into starting the business, it was only fair they made more than the guy they hired. As the business grew, it meant more investment and hiring more people.

A lot of companies started that way. People have started companies in their garages or kitchens.

It's easy to say it's all the workers who make it happen and they are important and should be paid fairly for whatever they bring to the table, yet not everyone comes up with an idea, then follows through by investing everything they own in it and building it for years. It's about coming up with a great product or service and a willingness to take big risks to make it happen. If you can't do that, just hope you can get hired by someone who did.

If you think it's so easy, then don't go to work for someone else and start your own business.

Of course, these days, loans for small businesses are limited, so good luck. And if you do get a loan, Obamacare will make things rougher than ever.

 

[KNB]

High taxes? Those high taxes currently amount to RECORD CORPORATE PROFITS. How do corporations keep making RECORD PROFITS if they pay too much in taxes?

Do you know what the "regulations" are that prevent job creators from creating jobs in America? It's that pesky "minimum wage" that everyone keeps talking about. It's just too damn high! If we lower the minimum wage to Chinese levels, then corporations can move those production jobs back to America and use more of their RECORD PROFITS to hire more American workers. This makes sense to you, doesn't it?

Leave the "populist talking points" out of this and simply look at it with a little common sense, KNB!

I am the CEO of Acme Widget and I'm thinking about building a brand new factory that will employ 5,000 new employees. I have a choice. I can build my new factory in country A...which has high taxes on profits, numerous regulations that will increase my cost of doing business substantially and a minimum wage of $10 an hour...or I can build it in country B...which has lower taxes on profits, fewer regulations that increase my costs and a minimum wage of $7 an hour. Now where do YOU think that factory is going to get built?

You are the ace widget of CEO industries. Got it. You have 5,000 employees that require a Federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr, but in China, you can pay your employees only $12/day and save even more millions of dollars because of the almost complete lack of environmental regulations, so you move those 5,000 jobs to Guangzhou and tell your whining liberal union (former) employees to stop mooching food stamps off of the glorious 1% job creators like yourself.

 

[Oldstyle]

One of the main reasons that the US "used to be" a choice of people from all over the world to invest their money in was that we were a nation of laws that protected investors. When you have administrations that simply ignore property laws away like the Obama White House did with their restructuring of GM debt then it shouldn't come as any great shock that investors might not feel as secure investing in the US as they once did.

 

[KNB]

Do you know what 'Wall Street' is? Not the movie, the actual place? What they do? There are trillions of dollars from foreign investors floating through Wall Street. There is plenty of money. It just needs to be shared.

 

[AntiParty]

Trying to squeeze the ultra rich into giving up their capital is easier said than done. They have the means to move to whatever locale won't hit them with steep taxes. If liberals WERE able to pass stiff new taxes on the wealthy, I guarantee you that before the new taxes went into effect massive amounts of capital would be moved out of this country and new investments here would nosedive. I know it drives the far left crazy...but in order to create jobs...you have to let people with capital to invest make a big enough profit to make it worth their while. If you don't, they will go elsewhere.

A few things..........*cracks knuckles*

The movement is poor workers trying to get paid a decent wage, not squeeze the ultra rich out out of becoming "moderate" rich. It's just people that work for organizations that profit because of their work to pay them a decent salary. Without the workers, the Corporation will fail. Commonly, the people in a Corporation making the most money don't even show up on the job site, the workers are making it happen.

The top is squeezing the bottom, your perspective is wrong and doesn't hold any facts. Corporations are receiving all time high profits while workers wages are at an all time low (when you account for inflation).

The average CEO makes 380 times the amount of the average worker. They generally don't even know anything about the product. Today's CEO's are SALESMEN. They sell the workers that there is no room for a raise in the budget.

And let's talk about the feat that Capital will leave the USA, a Fox News fear monger strategy. We got big when we were the leading Industrial Nation. Big industry knows the wrath that comes with moving to other Countries that don't have a Constitution that has a Commerce Clause. China has school "smog days" like we have snow days.

If you are scared to death to make a decent decision for America and the world you truly aren't a thinker.

 

[Oldstyle]

High taxes? Those high taxes currently amount to RECORD CORPORATE PROFITS. How do corporations keep making RECORD PROFITS if they pay too much in taxes?

Do you know what the "regulations" are that prevent job creators from creating jobs in America? It's that pesky "minimum wage" that everyone keeps talking about. It's just too damn high! If we lower the minimum wage to Chinese levels, then corporations can move those production jobs back to America and use more of their RECORD PROFITS to hire more American workers. This makes sense to you, doesn't it?

Leave the "populist talking points" out of this and simply look at it with a little common sense, KNB!

I am the CEO of Acme Widget and I'm thinking about building a brand new factory that will employ 5,000 new employees. I have a choice. I can build my new factory in country A...which has high taxes on profits, numerous regulations that will increase my cost of doing business substantially and a minimum wage of $10 an hour...or I can build it in country B...which has lower taxes on profits, fewer regulations that increase my costs and a minimum wage of $7 an hour. Now where do YOU think that factory is going to get built?

You are the ace widget of CEO industries. Got it. You have 5,000 employees that require a Federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr, but in China, you can pay your employees only $12/day and save even more millions of dollars because of the almost complete lack of environmental regulations, so you move those 5,000 jobs to Guangzhou and tell your whining liberal union (former) employees to stop mooching food stamps off of the glorious 1% job creators like yourself.

Former employees? Dude, that factory never got built in country A so there were never employees of any kind..."liberal union" or otherwise. What part of that concept don't you GET?

 

[Oldstyle]

Trying to squeeze the ultra rich into giving up their capital is easier said than done. They have the means to move to whatever locale won't hit them with steep taxes. If liberals WERE able to pass stiff new taxes on the wealthy, I guarantee you that before the new taxes went into effect massive amounts of capital would be moved out of this country and new investments here would nosedive. I know it drives the far left crazy...but in order to create jobs...you have to let people with capital to invest make a big enough profit to make it worth their while. If you don't, they will go elsewhere.

A few things..........*cracks knuckles*

The movement is poor workers trying to get paid a decent wage, not squeeze the ultra rich out out of becoming "moderate" rich. It's just people that work for organizations that profit because of their work to pay them a decent salary. Without the workers, the Corporation will fail. Commonly, the people in a Corporation making the most money don't even show up on the job site, the workers are making it happen.

The top is squeezing the bottom, your perspective is wrong and doesn't hold any facts. Corporations are receiving all time high profits while workers wages are at an all time low (when you account for inflation).

The average CEO makes 380 times the amount of the average worker. They generally don't even know anything about the product. Today's CEO's are SALESMEN. They sell the workers that there is no room for a raise in the budget.

And let's talk about the feat that Capital will leave the USA, a Fox News fear monger strategy. We got big when we were the leading Industrial Nation. Big industry knows the wrath that comes with moving to other Countries that don't have a Constitution that has a Commerce Clause. China has school "smog days" like we have snow days.

If you are scared to death to make a decent decision for America and the world you truly aren't a thinker.

It's not a "fear" that capital will leave the US...it's a guarantee! I'm sorry but we live in a global economy these days. Either accept that fact or deny it exists and suffer the consequences.

 

[Oldstyle]

Do you know what 'Wall Street' is? Not the movie, the actual place? What they do? There are trillions of dollars from foreign investors floating through Wall Street. There is plenty of money. It just needs to be shared.

That right there is the most asinine statement I've heard in years! The REASON that people with capital invest it in places like Wall Street is to realize a profit...not because they want to "share" it!

I pray to God that idiots like yourself are never in position to make policy for this country because you will absolutely destroy the greatest wealth creating machine in the history of mankind with your utter ignorance of economics.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- total bs- trickle down worked for 20 minutes in 1982, and since is a catastrphe- except for the greedy idiot rich, and their silly hater dupes...

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 6, 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = Blog

 

[AntiParty]

Trying to squeeze the ultra rich into giving up their capital is easier said than done. They have the means to move to whatever locale won't hit them with steep taxes. If liberals WERE able to pass stiff new taxes on the wealthy, I guarantee you that before the new taxes went into effect massive amounts of capital would be moved out of this country and new investments here would nosedive. I know it drives the far left crazy...but in order to create jobs...you have to let people with capital to invest make a big enough profit to make it worth their while. If you don't, they will go elsewhere.

A few things..........*cracks knuckles*

The movement is poor workers trying to get paid a decent wage, not squeeze the ultra rich out out of becoming "moderate" rich. It's just people that work for organizations that profit because of their work to pay them a decent salary. Without the workers, the Corporation will fail. Commonly, the people in a Corporation making the most money don't even show up on the job site, the workers are making it happen.

The top is squeezing the bottom, your perspective is wrong and doesn't hold any facts. Corporations are receiving all time high profits while workers wages are at an all time low (when you account for inflation).

The average CEO makes 380 times the amount of the average worker. They generally don't even know anything about the product. Today's CEO's are SALESMEN. They sell the workers that there is no room for a raise in the budget.

And let's talk about the feat that Capital will leave the USA, a Fox News fear monger strategy. We got big when we were the leading Industrial Nation. Big industry knows the wrath that comes with moving to other Countries that don't have a Constitution that has a Commerce Clause. China has school "smog days" like we have snow days.

If you are scared to death to make a decent decision for America and the world you truly aren't a thinker.

It's not a "fear" that capital will leave the US...it's a guarantee! I'm sorry but we live in a global economy these days. Either accept that fact or deny it exists and suffer the consequences.

If you knew anything about the biggest industry today you would realize that it would do our Country a favor by leaving. Find a new Country to Dictate.

 

[Boss]

High taxes? Those high taxes currently amount to RECORD CORPORATE PROFITS. How do corporations keep making RECORD PROFITS if they pay too much in taxes?

Do you know what the "regulations" are that prevent job creators from creating jobs in America? It's that pesky "minimum wage" that everyone keeps talking about. It's just too damn high! If we lower the minimum wage to Chinese levels, then corporations can move those production jobs back to America and use more of their RECORD PROFITS to hire more American workers. This makes sense to you, doesn't it?

And yet, not one single conservative anywhere at any time has proposed we LOWER the minimum wage.

Not ALL corporations are making "record profits" ...by any stretch. In fact, most corporations are struggling to break even in this economy. They've had to downsize, streamline, lay off workers, pull every rabbit out of their ass to remain solvent. Some have had to sell off assets or borrow money to remain afloat, and many of them have gone tits up. Yes, some corporations are making "record profits" but that means they are doing what they are supposed to do. If you ever reach a point in time where no companies are making "record profits" then capitalism is in BIG BIG trouble.

 

[AntiParty]

OP- total bs- trickle down worked for 20 minutes in 1982, and since is a catastrphe- except for the greedy idiot rich, and their silly hater d1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 6, 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = Blog

That's a lot of information. Sadly information contains lot's of reading. It's why on topics like this I stick with the "Corporations have all time high profits and workers have all time low wages"

Of course the OP didn't respond to that like he/she won't to yours. Fox News drones are brainwashed and that is a fact.

 

[AntiParty]

High taxes? Those high taxes currently amount to RECORD CORPORATE PROFITS. How do corporations keep making RECORD PROFITS if they pay too much in taxes?

Do you know what the "regulations" are that prevent job creators from creating jobs in America? It's that pesky "minimum wage" that everyone keeps talking about. It's just too damn high! If we lower the minimum wage to Chinese levels, then corporations can move those production jobs back to America and use more of their RECORD PROFITS to hire more American workers. This makes sense to you, doesn't it?

And yet, not one single conservative anywhere at any time has proposed we LOWER the minimum wage.

Not ALL corporations are making "record profits" ...by any stretch. In fact, most corporations are struggling to break even in this economy. They've had to downsize, streamline, lay off workers, pull every rabbit out of their ass to remain solvent. Some have had to sell off assets or borrow money to remain afloat, and many of them have gone tits up. Yes, some corporations are making "record profits" but that means they are doing what they are supposed to do. If you ever reach a point in time where no companies are making "record profits" then capitalism is in BIG BIG trouble.

You may be correct on what is considered a "corporation" but I doubt it. When you state that most corporations are struggling to make it and laying off people, it has more to do with owner and CEO profits than actual struggle to stay alive. Big Corporations don't even pay taxes, in fact, they get money back because they know the loopholes in taxation. Lot's of these large corporations are putting money in banks oversea's to keep away from American taxation and can't pull it out when the Corporation is in panic.

I ask you why it's ok large corporations pay 0 or less taxation when I have a family of 5 and have to pay standard taxation.

-18.9% Tax Rate would work pretty well for my FAMILY

10 Big Companies That Pay No Taxes (and Their Favorite Politicians) | Mother Jones

Don't excuse the link because it's bias. Research it and learn that it's just true.