So here is another example of wrongthink so actively promoted by the inappropriately self-titled ‘progressives’.
Advocates cite health benefits in pushing the proposals. “The goal of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages is to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, which science has proven to be directly correlated to detrimental health impacts such as diabetes, obesity and heart diseases,” San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Malia Cohen told FoxNews.com. — source
Clearly this statement is accurate. If we tax something, we increase its cost and across a broad spectrum of personal economic decisions, reduce the likelihood of its consumption. The tiny tax also primarily reduces its availability to the most impoverished section of the public rather than equally distributing the reductions in consumption but that is also a progressive talking point.
Let’s see this other concept though:
Indeed, Clinton’s proposals call for $2.2 trillion in new spending over a 10-year period, with plans that would allow in about a million more immigrants a year. She’s looking to boost spending on infrastructure and education, as well as providing paid family and medical leave, increasing the minimum wage, and investing in economic development and research.
To pay for her proposals, she’s calling for a near-equal amount of taxation, with the burden placed primarily on the shoulders of corporations and those making more than $300,000 a year. Clinton’s plans rely primarily on Keynesian demand-side solutions, while Trumps’ are more focused on supply-side tax cuts. — from the ever-left CNBC
And Moody’s, using economist Mark Zandi decided that somehow leveling a 2.2 trillion dollar new CORPORATE tax would create more JOBS! YES, if we take the company money, they will invest more money for more employees! See!! If stupid capitalist CEO monkey has less money for bannanas, he will buy more bannanas! But if citizen monkey has less money for soda, he will buy less soda……… It doesn’t make sense even on a 4th grade level. Increase business tax on the highest taxed country in the world means less business for that country… Easy! The only way I see this econoschill coming up with these conclusions is a lot like Michael Mann, Zandi has tweaked parameters with a high economic feedback rate that grows corporate prosperity by unrealistic and probably non-linear amounts —- like climate science this is for a purpose folks. Pay attention here.
Our business hasn’t even finished experiencing the full increases from Obama tax hikes -because they were delayed until after the election and now they want more!!!
Zandi had already contributed the maximum allowed amount to Hillaries primary campaign by one report. On another topic, Hillary has also received 40 million from the severely undertaxed hedge-fund managers who’s personal profit is massive, yet they are taxed at capital gains which is well under half the true rate of manufacturing in this country. One of the biggest left-wing talking points is hedge fund managers paying capital gains on their own income. This subject is an absolute easy call for either party which should have been fixed decades ago but they continue to rake in the dough because they contribute to buyable crooked politicians -like Hillary. Ever wonder why we have fund managers doing well and manufacturing going away?
Taxes folks, we have the highest business tax in the world. Why should I keep jobs here if the taxation rates are so high. Why not ship them to where we make more money?
Another example of inverted thought is that Hillary will punish corporations for ‘inversion’, or sending work overseas. She and the rest of her ilk know we are overtaxed and that we would succeed more in another country. It is EXTREMELY expensive to relocate a company to another country, especially in personnel, so the payback in taxes is obviously very large. Yet companies in the US are investing in that exact move! We in the US are so overtaxed, that businesses are intentionally leaving to other countries, shouldn’t we look more closely at the ‘tax rate’? Or should we just add another punishment tax for a US company trying to remain competitive in the world? Yet the public is so ignorant of economics, they can’t parse the obvious. For the US to be globally competitive, we need lower tax rates and less regulation, not more.
This is common sense folks, and it ain’t rocket science. Zandi is an insider shill and he is selling an ass-over-head economic model to get Hillary elected, IMO likely for some form of personal benefit of which I have no idea. The US manufacturing sector has continued to wilt under the massive limitation based policies of the last 20 years. Just as you were told it would.
Let’s keep it simple though. We all want opportunity for people. I see these personal business numbers on a daily basis, I know them, I understand them. I understand what yet another 2% or 5% tax increase does to available cash and investment and it is not pretty. I understand what a 10% percent reduction does as well, and I have to tell you that we would be working very hard to keep employees with a 10% reduction in total income tax percentage because everyone would be investing violently in growth — that would drive wages up very strongly.
If you want new jobs, a massive removal of money from the corporate bank accounts is not rational on any level. Don’t let others steal the bananas if you want some for yourself. BUT—-if you actually want less jobs, you should tax the people who create jobs more.
Simple —-see. Easy call.