>>>The GOP taking money from her to give tax breaks to the rich and big corporations (aka trickle down economics) ...
>
>When is this supposed to have occurred? Surely you're not relying on a time machine so that currently planned corporate tax reduction is responsible?
>
>>>... and the cost of her health insurance.
>
>Who are you blaming for that now?

Not exactly a simple question to answer - but the short answer is congress and the health insurance industry.

https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2017/03/high-medical-costs-blame-insurance-industry.html
https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21727902-politician-heal-thyself-blame-congress-high-health-care-costs

No industry spends more on lobbying Congress than health-care providers.

>>>uhhh no. There is a 100% chance of this happening [1% scooping tax cuts for themselves] - this has been proven over the past 40 years...so first you need to understand that.
>
>Yes, but do me the credit of noticing that I raised this same risk in my previous post- three times. ;-) My point is that if it can work so well elsewhere- Ireland for example- surely your legislators can craft something to protect from the known depredations of the US 1% while leaving the good parts? You don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, and certainly I agree that one of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Currently that's true of both the current high taxation regime and lowered corporate tax in the US, so I agree it's insanity not to widen the consideration to include motivations and world experience.

This is America, not Ireland. We have tried to trickle-down plan for 40 years, it has failed for 40 years. In states where that has stopped to some degree (such as California) you see fantastic results. What is insane is not following what works and continuing with what is proven NOT to work.

>Something for you to think about: NZ has a far lower per capita income than the US, but there's no capital gains tax and total corporate tax is 28% which is imputed when dividends are paid- meaning that if my personal tax is 33%, the 28% already paid by the company is deducted from what I now owe on dividend, leaving me with a 5% rate. From this NZ is able to fund its national health scheme, pensions, and most recently one year of university fees covered 100%, rising to 3 years in coming years.
>
>My point is that high corporate taxes are NOT necessary to cover public schemes for the greater good. In the most recent comparison I can find in 2014, the US had the world's 3rd highest general top marginal corporate tax at approx 39.1%, currently exceeded only by Chad. With no imputation and dividend rates of up to 20%- still the US can't fund everything it needs? So you need to look back at that definition of insanity and ask why you'd want to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. It's not working, Victor. And it's no use blaming Trump: these things were set in play long before he took the reins 9 months ago.

...but Trump is president now, and the GOP is in power now -- and what they want to do is continue down the same failed path...right? So who do you want to blame for doing the same duumbass things TODAY? So you see they are not making matters better, they are making matters worse. We need(ed) someone like Bernie Sanders.

>>>That is another problem all together. Look if a company is making billions of dollars they don't need a tax break or incentives. This mickey-mouse with the state incentives is realllly stupid. Do some research on that and see how it's not only being abused, but that it doesn't pay-off for the states who provide the incentives either.
>
>Apart from the straw man about state incentives: your words are similar to saying there ought to be world peace. Aspirations don't solve problems or pay the bills. The fact is that executives incentivized to satisfy shareholders will do whatever necessary to retain value in the firm, including foreign hoarding. Silicon Valley has trillions stashed this way with shareholders benefitting because the stash is listed as an asset, increasing the value of their shares. If you can remove the perverse incentive so it's worth bringing the stash home and paying US tax, where's the victim?

I'd say it's safe to say you do know know anything about the state incentives in this country or how it works. I could gladly share a video with you about it -- let me know if you'd be willing to watch it and I will - otherwise I won't waste our time with it.

>>>Those manufacturing jobs you say were lost to overseas were not lost because of taxes, they were lot due to automation - another thing the GOP will not admit (because they do not believe in numbers or statistics).
>
>Actually it was people like Romney who enriched themselves by the offshoring, so it would be in their interests to claim it was due to automation. Which for the most part it was not: there was a wholesale transfer of manufacturing from the US to China that now reaps the benefits from growing automation while prices for US consumers creep back to where they were except the manufacturing now is controlled abroad.

Unemployment is low again because people have found work despite the manufacturing jobs disappearing. The jobs former manufacturing workers have moved into health care, construction, retail, service industries.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/10/19/the-us-lost-7-million-manufacturing-jobs-and-added-33-million-higher-paying-service-jobs/#277034b34a20
https://www.recode.net/2017/5/26/15656120/manufacturing-jobs-automation-ai-us-increase-robot-sales-reshoring-offshoring


>>>Here-s-video-of-a-room-full-of-CEOs-admitting-they-won-t-invest-their-Republican-tax-cuts
>
>Victor, you often berate others that they need to understand better- so can I just quote an excerpt here for you?
>
>The reason few hands are raised [to say they'll invest tax breaks back in the business and workforce] is there’s little reason to believe that the kind of broad corporate income tax cut Republicans are pushing for will induce much new investment. A tax plan that was specifically designed to reduce taxation of new investments might do that. But most corporate profits are, of course, the result of activities undertaken in the past. So a broad cut in corporate tax rates is a windfall for what in tax policy jargon is called “old capital,” as well as for monopoly and quasi-monopoly rents and various other things that have nothing to do with incentivizing new investment.
>
>The issue is not reducing tax, it's the mechanism of it. The way the DNC can win is not by squalling and opposing, but by embracing tax cuts on corporates *with intelligent consideration of successful projects elsewhere and previous local failures* rather than the insanity of maintaining high tax and expectng a different result. The current insistence that reducing the high corporate tax is always bad, is visibly WRONG to anybody with the slightest knowledge of anything except parochial US events. Which includes a surprising number of your countryfolk these days, fwiw. Most of those I deal with are reviewing world experience trying to figure out why things have gone so wrong at home and what might be done about it.

The theory that if you give the rich a tax break that this will somehow benefit the poor has been proven NOT to work. If you increase the taxes on the poor and take away their healthcare to give a tax break to the rich, not only are you doing something that is proven not to work, but you are also an a__hole.