I heard he was on Trump's "Apprentice," hoping to resuscitate his career. I'm sure you like what he said here, but even you don't believe he was actually funny about it. I didn't hear any laughter. It was dull and repetitive, and reminiscent of Rand. I guess people were just shrugging.
So Brass, are you saying that Hollywood is not making films in other states because of the tax credits offered outside of CA? I didn't hear you comment on that. After all, people don't make decisions based on taxes right? Right?
Did I say that? Why don't you read what I wrote and respond to what I wrote rather than try to read something other than what I wrote into what I actually wrote? As for the tax issue, It's still done largely in the US, where US federal taxes are paid. So it's somewhat of a moot point on a national level. As to shooting outside the US, why don't they shoot principally and in the aggregate where taxes are negligible? Let's see if that ever happens. Oh, and will these US film makers stll pay US federal taxes? As for your "comedian," Mr. Carolla, I think his piss and vinegar largely stems from the fact that he's a fringe B- or C-list player and feels relatively marginalized in comparison to the A-list, which he will never join. Because he's just not that funny. And in this particular clip, not at all. And I say that not because I don't share his politics, but because there was no comedy in his piece. Again, you may have like what he said, but you didn't laugh because it wasn't actually or even remotely funny. That was my only point in my prior post.
You want to make a straw man argument fine. I could care less if Adam is funny or not. I care about the issue. And what he said is true. People and companies every day make decisions based on taxes. People leave CA for TX. Hollywood makes films in Toronto instead of NY. Or Austin instead of Hollywood. CME was threatening to leave Chicago for somewhere in the south if Rahm didn't give them a tax break. We see this everyday. But people like you continue to believe that lowering taxes does not affect decision making by individuals or corporations.
Sorry, you're the one who threw straw into the wind after I only commented on how unfunny your comedian was. As for the rest of your post, you need to look at both sides of the equation. Here's a case study. You like case studies? ...In the 1990s, Ireland's parliament enacted legislation that took certain corporate income tax rates down to 12.5 percent, one of the lowest rates on earth. Receipts climbed. The country, in its "Celtic Tiger" boom period, rapidly became richer. Corporate tax revenues jumped from less than 2 percent of GDP to more than 3 percent of GDP... ...The country became a kind of tax haven... ...The Irish case also offers little support for the idea that tax cuts always pay for themselves by goosing growth. The cut in the corporate tax rate did not aid Irish companies' bottom lines so much as it attracted extraordinary amounts of foreign capital. International firms like Pfizer relocated their European headquarters to the country to take advantage of the low tax rates. All those new companies contributed to an expanded corporate tax base. (Now, Ireland, suffering from crippling debts, is scared to raise the tax rate, which might encourage the companies to leave.)" http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...x_cuts_ever_increase_government_revenues.html Taking your argument to a micro level, I bet if you had a company, your customers would really love it if you sold them your product for next to nothing or gave it away for free. But how long would you be in business, let alone continue to make a good product?
Oh man dude. You are the Michelle Bachman of the left. You answer questions I didn't even ask. That's another thread dude. I'm not talking about lowering taxes to create growth. I asked you "specifically" does tax policy affect decision making. I cited several examples where apparently it did. You didn't like that direction so you re-hashed something from another thread pertaining to tax rates and overall economic growth. Good job Michelle.
And I responded by illustrating the other side of the equation in an effort to cure you of relying on merely first order thinking. If you can't connect those dots, you may want o go throw some more straw into the wind. In the case of Ireland, which I presented as as a mere example, the decision to cut taxes was a costly one. It may have brought in capital (i.e., "tax policy affecting decision making"), but the net result was not necessarily a favorable one for Ireland's treasury. And if your objective is to see the country you reportedly love flourish, then you should factor that consideration into the mix. Try to step beyond the shallow end of the pool. Was that too complicated, Michelle?
So let me get this straight Michelle. You are citing the lower tax rates for the economic problems of Ireland not the biggest property bubble in the history of their nation? Am I reading that correctly? Talk about suffering from first order thinking. Sheesh.