How is cutting taxes on corporations going to help anyone?

[D2D]

Government hasn't served the people in decades!

Simply cut regulations and that will reduce costs!

[WWV10MHZ]

When taxes are cut business expands and jobs increase and total tax revenue goes up.  Govt ends up with more $$$ for services and programs.

DUH!!!

[WWV10MHZ]

Cutting taxes brings in more revenue to Govt.  It's called the Laffer Principle.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp?lgl=no-infinite

[DaBoz]

I highly doubt wvit learned a thing here about the bennies of lowering taxes.

[captain_kook]

Cutting taxes brings in more revenue to Govt.  It's called the Laffer Principle.

It's to laugh - that theory is part of the failed  trickle-down theory -


FAKENOMICS

[captain_kook]

Trickle-down Economics Revisited
by Faculty Researcher
Christopher Jencks,
Malcolm Wiener Professor of Social Policy,
Harvard Kennedy School

The researchers looked at income data derived from tax reports for
12 countries (including the United States, the United Kingdom,
France, and Germany) from 1905 to 2000, trying to find any
discernible link between top income shares and economic growth.


They found no signs of such a relationship prior to 1960, perhaps
because the upheavals caused by the Great Depression, two world
wars, and the postwar reconstruction periods were of sufficient
magnitude to conceal any pattern that might otherwise have been
apparent.


After 1960, however, Jencks and colleagues did detect a subtle
pattern: A 1 percent rise in the Top10Share, if sustained, led to a
0.12 percent rise in gross domestic product in the next year. 


The effect was quite small, because it would take 13 years for people
in the lower 90 percent to be fully compensated by the proceeds
from economic growth for the loss in income shares.


At that rate it
would take 40 years to see a 5 percent rise in their income.




Thirteen years is a long time to wait to reach the break-even
point, Jencks says. “And if that 13-year period ran through a major
depression or recession, all bets would be off.”


He’s doubtful that
many folks in the lower 90 percent bracket would consider that a
good deal. “If you told a 20-year-old that he could let the rich
get a lot richer and he’d have 5 percent more when he was 60, most
people would ask: ‘What else can you offer?’”


As a result, Jencks regards the “rising tide” approach as rather
dubious. “It’s like giving people aspirin when they have cancer,”
he says. “It might make them feel a little better, but it’s not
going to cure them.” Which brings us to that question once again:
“What else can you offer?”- by Steve Nadis
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/publications/impact-
newsletter/archives/autumn-2009/trickle-down-economics-revisited

[DaBoz]

Trickle down did not work as well for Reagan because the Democrats reneged on a promise to cut spending.

[D2D]

Right!

Kook says Reaganomics don't work!

[DaBoz]

Great chart.

[captain_kook]

GDP went UP under Reagan - American workers and companies did that.

But American workers weren't let in on the benefits - and they still haven't been included in the huge growth in the wealth of the top 5%.

 - Trump is appointing billionaires who complain that working people are paid too much
to run his government...

how do you think that will work out?


For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades
October 9, 2014
pewresearch.org

Following the better-than-expected September [2014] jobs report,
several economic analyses have pointed out the continuing lack of
meaningful wage growth, even as tens of thousands of people head
back to work.


Economic theory, after all, predicts that as labor
markets tighten, employers will offer higher wages to entice
workers their way.

But a look at five decades’ worth of government wage data suggests
that the better question might be, why should now be any different?


For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is
taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades,
regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting
jobs.

Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course —
health insurance, retirement-account contributions, education and
transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the
package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible
component of employee compensation.

According to the BLS, the average hourly wage for non-management
private-sector workers last month was $20.67, unchanged from August
and 2.3% above the average wage a year earlier. That’s not much,
especially when compared with the pre-Great Recession years of 2006
and 2007, when the average hourly wage often increased by around 4%
year-over-year. (During the high-inflation years of the 1970s and
early 1980s, average wages commonly jumped 8%, 9% or even more
year-over-year.)


But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has
just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a
long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent
growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked
more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January
1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.


A similar measure, “usual weekly earnings” of employed, full-time,
wage and salary workers, tells much the same story, albeit over a
shorter time period. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median
usual weekly earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter 0f 1979
(when the series began) to $782 in the second quarter of this year
(the most recent data available). But in real terms, the median has
barely budged over that period.


What gains have been made, have gone to the upper income brackets.
Since 2000, usual weekly wages have fallen 3.7% (in real terms)
among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution, and
3% among the lowest quarter. But among people near the top of the
distribution, real wages have risen 9.7%.


Wage stagnation has been a staple of economic analysis and
commentary for a while now, though perhaps predictably there’s
little agreement about what’s driving it. One theory is that rising
benefit costs — particularly employer-provided health insurance —
may be constraining employers’ ability or willingness to raise
wages. According to BLS-generated cost indexes for wages/salaries
and total benefits, benefit costs have risen about 60% since 2001
(when the data series began), versus about 37% for wage and salary
costs. (Those indexes do not take inflation into account.)


Other factors that have been suggested include continued labor-
market slack; lagging educational attainment relative to other
countries; and a broad decline in better-paying jobs and consequent
shift toward job growth in low-wage industries.


In a Pew Research Center survey from August, 56% of Americans said
their family’s income was falling behind the cost of living, up
from 44% in September 2007 — just before the recession hit. More
than a third (37%) of Americans in the latest poll said their
family’s income was staying about even with inflation; only 5% said
they were staying ahead of inflation.
----
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

[DaBoz]

But American workers weren't let in on the benefits

That is OPINION and not worth the time to post

[wvit1001]

When compared to Reagan - 

GDP's gone up under Obama,  inflation has been much lower, and the GDP growth rate is about the same.