The two are unrelated. We gave them 6 trillion dollar 3 years ago. So they spent that already, let them eat cake and lets feed the poor. We can service the debt, feed the poor and the rich can keep a reasonable amount of their profits, but they want it all,. so I don't care if they are inconvenienced a little and can't afford another private island because they have to pay their fair share of taxes.

@glennlab What is their "fair share"?

@BD66 I believe the Rate that Kennedy reduced it to of 70% from Ike's 91% that continued the largest economic growth in the history of mankind would be fair and equitable. That should be progressive and phased as well as a change to how the long term capital gains tax is calculated.

@glennlab It's a very different world in 2023 than it was in 1961. Back in 1961, the majority of the industrial infrastructure, technology, and investment capital was in the USA. Today, we still have 60% of the world's investment capital tied up in US companies, but the rest of the world now has plenty of industrial infrastructure and access to technology. People who start companies (entrepreneurs) and people who fund startup companies (angel investors and venture capitalists) continue to do so in the USA because they get pretty good tax treatment. If that favorable tax treatment were to go away, many of the future Teslas/Googles/Microsofts/Amazons would go overseas. Plus the existing large profitable companies would have strong incentives to move their headquarters overseas. The best thing that can be done to get some of the wealth of the ultra wealthy would be to close the loopholes in the inheritance tax. Right now, they can pass on control of almost 100% of their wealth to their heirs with little to no taxation.

@BD66 When other countries reduced their corp taxes to zero only a few companies left, there are enough tax disincentives to discourage it. that argument has been tried and failed. The people that start companies will continue to receive favorable tax treatment and probably better treatment. assuming the same tax brackets as the final year of the tax rate the top tax rate would not kick in until you had over $1.5 million in net income. I agree on eliminating the multigenerational trusts.

@BD66 [hbr.org]

Corporations in the US are well fed by the American taxpayers.

@BD66 Some of the companies you referred to are discussed here

[apnews.com]

@MizJ Tax cuts going to buy back stock is not a bad thing, it's more or less a neutral thing. Ideally a company would use their after-tax profits to grow their business, but huge companies like Apple and Microsoft have a hard time growing any more, so the either leave $100,000,000,000 in the bank, or use that money to buy back their stock. The really bad thing are the artificially low interest rates. Rates that low encourage companies to borrow money to buy back stock. That does create leverage and puts the companies at risk in the event of a future economic downturn.

@BD66 Did you read the articles? Nevermind, I know the answer.

I like the way you think!!

They may look tasty but anyone who is obsessed with amassing more money than they can ever need or spend is hollow on the inside, not going to be much of a meal to be had there. Now if they paid their fair share then we might not be heading of a financial cliff come June, then the hungry mouths in the world will grow exponentially.

Apparently they missed their classes at their Ivy League schools on the days they taught about the French and Russian revolutions.