Yes, actually, I did read it. It just happens to be conservative propaganda, as USA Today has always been. There is no situation in which corporations paid more money by decreasing their taxation. It’s a simple case of A being less than B.
Now, if you’re trying to use Limbaigh economics, what you’re saying is that EMPLOYEES paid more taxes to cover the corporate tax burden. The Limbaugh case: if you give a millionaire a tax break, he will buy a private jet. People need to fuel, maintain and clean that jet. The taxes on their labor offsets the tax cut for the millionaire.
This isn’t “economics 101”; it’s neofuedalism. Oddly enough, it should be something that conservatives would strongly oppose, but they equate wealth with intelligence and leadership, and they have nothing at all to do with each other.
IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Jesus how many hours of radical fascist radio do you listen to all day??
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Zero but the article covered this but you didn’t read it.
IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Yes, actually, I did read it. It just happens to be conservative propaganda, as USA Today has always been. There is no situation in which corporations paid more money by decreasing their taxation. It’s a simple case of A being less than B.
Now, if you’re trying to use Limbaigh economics, what you’re saying is that EMPLOYEES paid more taxes to cover the corporate tax burden. The Limbaugh case: if you give a millionaire a tax break, he will buy a private jet. People need to fuel, maintain and clean that jet. The taxes on their labor offsets the tax cut for the millionaire.
This isn’t “economics 101”; it’s neofuedalism. Oddly enough, it should be something that conservatives would strongly oppose, but they equate wealth with intelligence and leadership, and they have nothing at all to do with each other.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Yeah you didn’t read the article. The take rate was comparable for companies in either time period. It wasn’t 90%.