I agree.
Earlier this week on Fox Business Network’s “Cavuto: Coast to Coast,” Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus said to his fellow Republicans if you’re not behind Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, you’re electing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Marcus said, “If you’re going to stay neutral, you might as well vote for her because your lack of vote for Donald means she’s going to get elected anyway.”
He added, “When I listen to Hillary Clinton and I listen to the economists who never in their life ever hired a human being or trained a human being, I say, I don’t know the world that they belong in. I know that when you have high taxes that you kill off jobs. Killing off jobs means hurting America. It means hurting the economic wealth of America – and that’s not good for anybody.”
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/09/11/home-depot-co-founder-if-youre-not-behind-trump-youre-electing-clinton/
Corporate tax reform is a topic of discussion among policy analysts and policymakers. The proposed options range from broadening the tax base/lowering the rates to moving to a territorial system with low tax rates to outright elimination of the corporate income tax. Given that the corporate income tax serves several important functions, outright elimination of the tax is ill advised. The justification for lowering the corporate tax rate is that it will increase economic growth.
In 2012, corporate profits (before- and after-tax) as a share of national income were at a postwar high. Corporate profits were relatively high throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, and fell throughout the 1960s and 1970s to reach a low in 1982. Since then, corporate profits reversed course and have generally been rising to their current postwar high.
The top statutory corporate tax rate has been falling since the early 1950s. The top corporate tax rate was 52 percent throughout the Eisenhower administration—17 percentage points higher than the current top rate of 35 percent. U.S. GDP grew by almost 4 percent annually in the 1950s compared with a 1.8 percent growth rate in the 2000s. On the surface, it would appear that more robust economic growth is associated with higher corporate tax rates. Further analysis, however, finds no evidence that either the statutory top corporate tax rate or the effective marginal tax rate on capital income is correlated with real GDP growth.http://www.epi.org/publication/ib364-corporate-tax-rates-and-economic-growth/Today's government spending levels are indeed too high, at least relative to the average level of tax revenue the government has generated over the past 60 years. Unless Americans are willing to radically increase the amount of taxes they pay relative to GDP, government spending must eventually be cut.
Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.
Super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.Super-low tax rates on rich people also appear to be correlated with unsustainable sugar highs in the economy--brief, enjoyable booms followed by protracted busts. They also appear to be correlated with very high inequality. (For example, see the 1920s and now).
Periods of very low tax rates have been followed by periods with very high tax rates, and vice versa. So history suggests that tax rates will soon start going up.
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5
