Corporate tax cuts don't spur growth, analysis reveals

[Bragi]

We in Canada are in a federal election right now, and the Conservative Party (GOP North) is, as usual, promising more corporate tax cuts.

On this, the Globe and Mail newspaper today published an analysis that shows that corporate tax cuts in recent years have not been invested to create jobs or growtyh, but have just showed up directly on the books as increased cash reserves for companies.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/corporate-tax-cuts-dont-spur-growth-analysis-reveals-as-election-pledges-fly/article1972599/

I flag this because, if I were a democrat in the US, I would seriously take up the cause of explaining what kind of tax cuts might actually produce benefits, and what kind of tax cuts do nothing for jobs or people.

Surely there are many such studies. What surprises me is that I never hear anyone talking about them loudly enough to be heard.

(And I should clarify that I just mentally said "about", not "aboot". Hah!).

[Motown_Johnny]

1. In related news, water is wet

Details at eleven

[Bragi]

4. Your lack of enthuisiasm is infectious

I wish Dems would start selling this message, rather than, say, sitting around proclaiming they've heard it all before and suggesting that anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid. Maybe others need to get the message.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. I doubt that anyone in this echo chamber has not heard this or needs convincing

The claim that tax cuts pay for themselves is challenged constantly. That simplistic approach has had little to no effect.

I think we need to attack the big lie directly and spell out that Supply Side Economics has failed and all aspects of it need to be reversed. This would include deregulation and not just tax policies.


You are right, I am not enthused over this half measure. I don't see why I should be.

[Bragi]

10. So focus on "Supply Side Economics" not on specifics?

Hmmm. I'm beginning to sense a communications problem here. How do you propose to "attack the big lie directly and spell out that Supply Side Economic has failed" without speaking of specific failed policies?

And don't you think that if you made the case on maybe one spectacularly failed policy -- like say, how useless corporate tax cuts are -- that maybe that would help people move along to the broader subject?

[Motown_Johnny]

14. People respond to bumper sticker answers

Trying to impress specific numbers on people simply doesn't work. They will just get confused and then decide that people are trying to raise their taxes and that they can't afford to have that happen.


IMO it would be more effective to compare the 30 years before Reagan took office to the 30 years after Reagan took office and show the difference in real terms.


We have been attacking tax rates for years and it does not produce results. We need to try something else.

[xchrom]

2. Recommend

[HughBeaumont]

3. Lincoln Shot! Titanic Sinks!

Here's what tax cuts fer the rich do, however:


"When a man tells you that 'he got rich through hard work', ask him 'Whose?'" - Don Marquis

[Bragi]

6. Ah, wrong graph

The article in the OP addresses the specific false claim that corporate tax cuts result in jobs and growth. They don't.

Your graphs illustrate the growth of economic inequality in the US, which is a somewhat different subject.

[HughBeaumont]

11. WHaaat?

Read the first graph again. The first graph addresses job growth, specifically showing the worst three economies being modern-era trickle down disasters (the WORST being the tax-cuttin' Bewsh II debacle). Can you not see the first one?

[Bragi]

13. The first graph speaks to household net worth, right

The article I posted speaks directly to the subject of corporate tax cuts, which is a somewhat different topic.

[HughBeaumont]

17. ?????

:wtf:

OK, are you not seeing the left part of the graph that CLEARLY says Job Growth, By Decade . . . which in turn illustrates the percentage change in job growth, BY DECADE, specifically addressing periods during certain presidencies that had high vs low TMTRs, which has everything to do with your topic?? You're completely focused on secondary information that's not really relevant to what I'm trying to say.

I agreed and also recommended your OP.

You're trying to start an argument when there isn't one to start.

[Bragi]

20. I get it. Sorry if I misunderstood your point /nt

[Thav]

5. Sure it does!

Growth in share value, bottom line, an CEO bonuses! That's the only growth that matters!

[Hubert Flottz]

7. It does if you run a bank in the Cayman islands.

Or a trump tower.

[CanonRay]

8. File under N-S-S

No shit, Sherlock

[Bragi]

12. Gosh, nevermind

This is interesting. I didn't realize everyone here was so smart that they no longer have need for good arguments.

Makes me wonder why the Conservatives keep winning all the debates.

I see Gallup has some new data on that phenomenon:

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/03/31/theyre-poor-scared-less-educated-and-left-behind-new-polling-data-from-gallup-on-conservatives-and-red-state-america/

But I guess everyone here probably already knows all that, so it's not worth reading.

[snot]

15. Pls don't be discouraged. There are a few here who actually put sources provided to good use.

[Bragi]

16. Fair enough

Thanks for that. I confess it is annoying when you post a resource intended to help people attack the GOP, and know-it-alls here pounce on it to tell you how stupid you are.

However, we shall overcome.

[AdHocSolver]

18. To Americans: Are you better off now since Reagan began "trickle down" economics in the 1980's?

Are you better off now since Reagan began the move to deregulate corporate businesses in the 1980's?

Are you better off now since the wealthy and the corporations have been "buying" politicians from both parties?

If NOT, then why do you keep voting for the same politicians who have been screwing you royally with the same "failed" policies for the past thirty years?

Doh!

[HughBeaumont]

21. Economics don't really matter to a lot of the willfully stupid bunch.

In fact, the almost third-grade level messaging of the GOPropaganda Arms have convinced the willfully stupid that it's their fault if they fell into economic hardship. That "there is no such thing as bad luck or 'outside forces', but merely lack of effort and that's IT". It's not only simple and effective, but more importantly it absolves the GOP-supporting wealthy and corporations of blame.

As long as

* There's hope that "Teh Gays" are eradicated someday,
* The "if I can do it with HARD WERK, then ANYONE can!" fairy tales of Horatio Alger remain engrained in their tiny brains,
* Abortion will someday become illegal (it never will; otherwise, how do you get 'em to come back every year?),
* There's either someone doing worse than they are or an effort to make everyone ELSE'S lives as bad as theirs is,
* There's an enemy, created or otherwise, to hate,
* There remains a grave misconception that Democrats are out "to destroy yer rights and take yer gunz",

then they'll keep coming back and shooting themselves in the feet. Over and over and over again, apparently.

[Life Long Liberal]

19. Good post!

[AdHocSolver]

22. Tax cuts do spur job growth...in China, India, and wherever corporations move their factories.

The corporations use the new found profits provided by the tax cuts to build factories in low wage countries to which the corporations then export production and jobs.

Economic analyses just fly over the heads of those who believe "trickle down economics".

I listened to some people discussing the "issues" outside a polling place on Tuesday, and the verbiage sounded a lot like a right wing talk show harangue -- incredibly stupid.

Those who held a more moderate or liberal position were talked down to or merely shouted down.

As I stated in another post, probably the best question to ask them is whether or not they are better off today after "trickle down" economics and corporate deregulation have been implemented over the past 30 years.