>>This is America, not Ireland. We have tried to trickle-down plan for 40 years, it has failed for 40 years.

"America is not Ireland" is a trite sound bite avoiding analysis. Why did it work in Ireland but according to you could never work in the US? Do you think Ireland doesn't have a 1%? Why didn't they get to scoop it all? Aren't you even curious past "Americais is not Ireland?"

>>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.

I don't know why you keep raising this state incentives straw man that I never mentioned. But since you insist: Pew says that only 10 states excel at collecting info about the effects of their incentives and by 2016 only 13 states had passed laws requiring regular evaluations. For me this is no different from any business where you can't expect what you don't inspect. So if incentives are failing- to my mind that's a management failure: either they fail to inspect, or they fail to react to good information. And the ones that do succeed, obviously are the ones that were properly inspected with competent state government response to findings along the way. Is that the point you're trying to connect to trickle down?

>>The theory that if you give the rich a tax break that this will somehow benefit the poor has been proven NOT to work.

Yes, but that's another of your straw men. Think back to when Bush's tax cuts were due to expire and Obama's eloquent reasoning for extending the cut for those earning under $250K. That's an example of targeting: I'm saying that it ought to be possible to target the perverse incentives caused by high corporate taxes without handing more to the 1%. Seems I'm on the same page as Obama in idea if not execution. It's not a simple "either or" binary and if nothing works, you need to think outside the box.

>> If you increase the taxes on the poor and take away their healthcare...

And out comes the next straw man. So I'm going to provide another example for you to ignore: according to the 2017 OECD Economic Survey, tax on wages paid by or for single NZ employees minus benefits was 17.9% in 2016 which is second lowest in the OECD and for single earner families with kids it was 6.2% which is the lowest in the OECD. And the progressive nature of NZ taxation means that 40% of households receive more in monetary benefits than they pay in tax, while those earning more than $150K pay 24% of the total tax take. Clearly it's simply not true in NZ that lower corporate taxes require higher taxes on workers and families and lower taxes for the 1%... and still NZ manages to fund healthcare and everything else that long-suffering US citizens have to pay on top. So what's going on here?! Let me guess- doesn't matter because "America is not NZ."

>>not only are you doing something that is proven not to work, but you are also an a__hole.

I won't do you the discourtesy of pointing that back at you, but unless it's possible to have an adult conversation about corporate tax rates (maybe even engaging with my NZ examples) without taunts and attempts to belittle, then I'm bored and I'll leave you to it.