TCJA: Apple repatriating cash and pumping it into US economy

[Angrboda]

Call me back when any of it offsets the deficit bomb.  Fiscally irresponsible "conservatives".....

Meanwhile, we're set to replicate the tax-reduction booms of Kennedy and Reagan.

"Multiple studies have found a correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth." ~ Wikipedia

More proof that conservatives live in an alternate reality.

[Amarok]

Meanwhile, we're set to replicate the tax-reduction booms of Kennedy and Reagan

Bruce Bartlett Reagan's domestic policy adviser would disagree .As would Kennedys. Plus this not the same economy as the US of back then.And a ton of other shit contributed to both those booms it's impossible to point to one event as the main driver.So give your frothing Trump fanboyism a rest .

[henryp]

It's not about giving breaks to the rich hoping it trickles down.  It's trying to convince the rich to set up shop in the US instead of India.  To have the rich keep their money in the US instead of some tax haven elsewhere.  To keep the rich as American citizens, rather than leaving us for some foreign country.

It's the Bachelor now.  The people/corporations with all the money are the hunky guy, and the countries are chicks giving him a handy in the hot tub hoping he'll pick us at the end of the show.  

I know it gets framed as trickle down economics, but with the new global economy, I don't think that idea still applies.  Reagan wasn't trying to keep companies from building plants in Vietnam instead of Cleveland, he was hoping if he gave rich people a bunch of money, they'd expand their plant in Cleveland.  At least that's my impression.  The tossing tax breaks at the rich is the same, but the circumstances seem different. It's a competition now.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not about giving breaks to the rich hoping it trickles down.

It's not?  Did you send that memo to the administration?  It seems like something that they should be made aware of.

[Amarok]

It's not about giving breaks to the rich hoping it trickles down.

Considering Trump all but admitted to his rich bundies it was .

[John V]

It's the Bachelor now.  The people/corporations with all the money are the hunky guy, and the countries are chicks giving him a handy in the hot tub hoping he'll pick us at the end of the show.  

Remember, you're talking to people who don't understand that state tax incentives for new projects result from competition among the states and don't actually cost the state anything. They can't - or refuse to - understand the concept.

[RoadRunner79]

It's not about giving breaks to the rich hoping it trickles down.  It's trying to convince the rich to set up shop in the US instead of India.  To have the rich keep their money in the US instead of some tax haven elsewhere.  To keep the rich as American citizens, rather than leaving us for some foreign country.

It's the Bachelor now.  The people/corporations with all the money are the hunky guy, and the countries are chicks giving him a handy in the hot tub hoping he'll pick us at the end of the show.  

I know it gets framed as trickle down economics, but with the new global economy, I don't think that idea still applies.  Reagan wasn't trying to keep companies from building plants in Vietnam instead of Cleveland, he was hoping if he gave rich people a bunch of money, they'd expand their plant in Cleveland.  At least that's my impression.  The tossing tax breaks at the rich is the same, but the circumstances seem different.  It's a competition now.

I would agree, that trickle down economics is sometimes oversold.  I also think that about the trickle up version as well.  I think that it is true, that those who own/invest in companies, need to be making money, in order to keep doing so.  It also takes money to expand and make more money.  It's also true  that the system is better when the workers are feeding money back in.  However I think that the key is balance, and I would say that it needs to be shifted slightly towards the owners/investors.   After all, they are the ones taking the risk, when the company isn't doing well.  

However I don't think that the problem is how to tax.  I don't think that shifting things around  (no matter who is doing it) is very useful and is often more shortsighted then a long term vision.  I think that the problem is that we have a government that doesn't have a budget and an accountability for what it is spending.  That they can't tell anyone "no", because they will throw a tantrum if their pet project is no longer being subsidized.  That we can't differentiate between what is necessary, and what is luxury in the government.  That some things are nice, when we have the extra money, but can't afford every week.    So what do they do.... they raise taxes, they shift them around, which makes people happy for a short time.  They get people to fight over who is paying their fair share (those with money, are always paying more by the way),  but it's all largely a distraction.  I think that the key is finding balance, and that shifting to extremes all the time is not healthy for the system.