Democrats in Chicago IL want to lower taxes to bring in more revenue.

[sloride]

The new Mayor Lightfoot is going to Springfield IL to push for lower taxes for a proposed casino there. All casinos said no go to a casino with a 70%+ tax rate. She will argue, lower that rate and more income will come in.
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20190916/state-gaming-board-urges-changes-in-law-authorizing-chicago-casino

[Air&Road]

Yeah, lower the moralities of Chicago with Casino’s. Yeah that will help. I guess someone thinks they need more poverty there.

[vwnate1]

Cutting taxes to corporations never helps anyone but the 1% .

Casinos are fun to visit I guess but definitely a 'NIMBY' deal for me .

[Air&Road]

Cutting taxes to corporation stimulates investment and expansion, thus producing more jobs. Now with that said, it’s effectiveness will depend on the structure of that tax cut.

[oldsinner111]

we need a reagan, price freeze on everything,housing too. Raise min. wage to $30. a hour. Taxes on wages,plus local sales tax, will balance budgets. CEO's wages are up 5000% workers barely double since 1972

[vwnate1]

The fact that this has never shown to be true has no effect on the boot lickers, enjoy your lives of misery and poverty .

"Cutting taxes to corporation stimulates investment and expansion, thus producing more jobs."

[Air&Road]

Originally Posted by vwnate1

The fact that this has never shown to be true has no effect on the boot lickers, enjoy your lives of misery and poverty .

"Cutting taxes to corporation stimulates investment and expansion, thus producing more jobs."

It has been shown to be true several times beginning with John Kennedy’s tax cut. Numbers don’t lie.

[vwnate1]

No they don't but you do .

Just because you lie and say a thing doesn't make it true .

I actually know quite a few millionaires and independently wealthy types, noe ever put the saves tax dollars back in, they just sit on it .

[vwnate1]

Are not particularly my idea of good people FWIW .

They allowed America to get where it is now make no mistake .

I didn't want hillary either .

[davidmash]

Originally Posted by Air&Road

It has been shown to be true several times beginning with John Kennedy’s tax cut. Numbers don’t lie.

The Congressional Research Service says you are wrong. Take up your argument with them. Be sure to bring proof. I am sure they are awaiting your call.

[t walgamuth]

Originally Posted by Air&Road

It has been shown to be true several times beginning with John Kennedy’s tax cut. Numbers don’t lie.

Depends on where you are starting from. In the fifties the highest tax rates got up to 90%. I will agree that lowering them if they are that height is a good idea. Now though the highest tax rate is much lower. If we lower it any more we will be paying the rich money taken from the poor and middle class.....even more than we already are.

[sloride]

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Depends on where you are starting from. In the fifties the highest tax rates got up to 90%. I will agree that lowering them if they are that height is a good idea. Now though the highest tax rate is much lower. If we lower it any more we will be paying the rich money taken from the poor and middle class.....even more than we already are.

Just like all tax increases, it depends on where they start from. I doubt those 90% tax rates did not go from 28% to 90% in one fell swoop. They were probably sold as it is only a 3% increase twenty five times. The old adage death by a million small cuts.

[davidmash]

The corporate tax refunds were used to pay off share holders, not for reinvestment or bonuses to workers.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190522_R45736_8a1214e903ee2b719e00731791d60f26d75d35f4.pdf#page=11&zoom=page-fit,0,-247

[sloride]

Originally Posted by davidmash

The corporate tax refunds were used to pay off share holders, not for reinvestment or bonuses to workers.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190522_R45736_8a1214e903ee2b719e00731791d60f26d75d35f4.pdf#page=11&zoom=page-fit,0,-247

I say that is a good thing, paying off shareholders. That goes into the economy, not used to buy votes for politicians. The less going to the swamp and into the citizens hands the better.

[davidmash]

Originally Posted by sloride

I say that is a good thing, paying off shareholders. That goes into the economy, not used to buy votes for politicians. The less going to the swamp and into the citizens hands the better.

Not true. Various studies have shown that the share holders, for the most part, just sit on the money and do not reinvest it. Had the money gone to the workers, that would have been spent and put in the economy.