Am I the only one who's confused by this?
If you are the CEO of a huge corporation, does it really matter to you if your income comes from innovation, competition and reputation, or simply from tax cuts?
The Clinton administration was a boom time, mostly. It seems, on the face of it, that raising taxes (slightly) on the rich and big business would not be good for both. It works the other way. Yet you never see with your own eyes why that is- you don't really see public investment.
So Clinton created thousands of jobs and a ridiculous business optimism from these very things. The roaring '90s. My question is- why did these corporations who were doing well during that time throw it all away just for a tax cut? Didn't the smaller corporations and businesses do so much worse?
If you're the head of a smaller business, what did you get from that? What is more valuable? Working for your market and surviving, or just cutting your losses with the tax cuts?
In short, why do taxes work? And why would CEOS accept so much crap just to get a tax cut? And isn't the bottom line around the same- pay your taxes, get a growing economy, or not pay them, just get your money. Any thoughts?