View Single Post
  #26  
Old 08-21-2012, 04:34 PM
d-ray657's Avatar
d-ray657 d-ray657 is offline
Loyal Opposition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
How is it a subsidy, rather than reducing the cost of capital and the cost of engaging in business activity? And if that reduction in cost results in an increase in GDP and in increase in employment (and a resulting increase in payroll tax revenue) doesn't that make the exercise pay for itself?

On the contrary, of what economic value - and what economic benefits are generated - value are all of the empty or half empty buildings, all of the idle production equipment, and all of the idle workers? The "For Lease" signs represent an economic cost all by themselves.
Would you be open to a stipulation that the decreased taxes are only available to those who can document new investment in productive activity? Our experience of the past few years have been that despite the protection of these "job creators" from any increased tax burden, they have been sitting on piles of money. I don't have any reason to believe that a further reduction in taxes would result in putting the additional capital to work instead of simply adding to the pile.

Regards,

D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
Reply With Quote