Trickle down economics with starve the beast theory since Ronald Reagan.
Simply translates to trickle pizz’ola into the Americans faces!
Those policies fail[ed] miserably.
Tax breaks are generally a good thing. No one is entitled to someone else’s labours. Government should tax mournfully, apologetically, and gratefully. Downstream recipients likewise.
I’ve always wanted to ask conservatives: is there any such thing as too little taxation? How would you know if tax rates were too low? Maybe if our roads and schools were crumbling? If there simply wasn’t enough government to enforce the law? Or are those just steps on the road to a paradise like Somalia?
Boeing would LOVE to leave Washington for a union free state (hello Charleston, S.C.) It is not surprising that Washington is trying to keep Boeing around at all costs. Boeing gone would leave quite a big economic hole in the state. Oh, and by the way Boeing is conducting massive layoffs to the tune of 8000 employees.
Washington politicians nervous? You bet. Boeing lobbyists making bank? You bet.
Those sons of bitches
Damn. It sounds like Boeing already is a big economic hole in the state.
Generally these tax incentives are to encourage businesses in the state. Without them, there will be less economic growth.
That said, who failed to keep the balance here? What crummy political policies in place that left funds empty?
No there is no such thing as too little taxation. Conservatives literally want to kill the “beast” that is the IRS.
is there any such thing as too little taxation?
That is a good question. We’ll probably know it when we get there.
Maybe if our roads and schools were crumbling?
Maybe. Or maybe those would be a signal for the people that money is being so mismanaged already that they should invest in alternative funding / ownership structures for such infrastructure.
If there simply wasn’t enough government to enforce the law?
Maybe. Or maybe there is too much law and they’re getting bogged down with silly stuff.
Unless that one who is entitled is a corporation that has succesfully externalized a large swath of its costs 
And by “externalized” I really mean “convinced legislators at various levels of government to make private citizens pay for it with their taxes.”
Here is a quote attributed to Elizabeth Warren that, I think sums up pretty well why taxes, properly done, are the opposite of wrong.
Government should not tax “mournfully” or “apologetically.” Government should tax deliberately and wisely, with a long view to the common weal that profit driven businesses cannot or will not exercise.
Downstream recipients should be grateful, but the proper expression of their gratitude should not be a reluctance to receive the benefits of living in a prosperous culture, but rather their gratitude should be expressed by a firm resolve to pay it forward.
But once Bill’s charters (cough-backdoor privatization-cough) are “proven” to be better performing than the (funding-gutted) public schools, and a tiered system of private schools is finally put in place, the well-to-do children of the higher earning brackets of these corporations will finally get the schools they deserve, as will the plebs. I don’t see the problem…
Unless that one who is entitled is a corporation that has succesfully externalized a large swath of its costs
Then solve that problem with a laser-like focus.
“… you didn’t build that …”
That is beneath needing to respond.
Government should tax deliberately and wisely, with a long view to the common weal that profit driven businesses cannot or will not exercise.
Governments are not generally competent to work with that “long view to the common weal”. That is not surprising, after all they have little skin in the game.
I’m a bit confused here…
You were the first person in this thread who used the phrase “you didn’t build that”
Who exactly were you not responding to because it was beneath you?
What, you mean with laws?
But it’s trickle down!! Though I’m not sure what is trickling down.
Tax breaks are only a good thing if there is some tangible societal benefit from not paying one’s responsibility to the general public. A company having more wealth is not one of them.
That’s pretty much what the 1% wants. A place where the rich are separate from the poor and GUNS FOR EVERYONE!
probably the same policies the lobbyists bought.
Maybe the poor person he doesn’t like?
Who exactly were you not responding to because it was beneath you?
Warren - or Obama’s succinct paraphrase.
Exactly. In Boeing’s case it’s all about competing with Airbus. Boeing has complained about Airbus getting euro subsidies and in Boeing’s opinion, making the playing field unfair. Make no mistake Boeing lobbyists have worked hard for their money (pun intended) not for educations sake but to try anything to gain an advantage over Airbus.
