This isn’t why it’s a problem. It’s a problem because $723 million is a big deal for normal people. In other words, we’re giving a gift of $723 million to a corporation for whom it is meaningless, when we could be giving $723 million to individuals for whom it would actually make a difference in their lives. In other words, your reasoning is exactly the reason that it’s a bad policy.
You’re looking at ONE CORPORATION and making a judgment on a broad tax policy that affects every Subway franchisee and mom and pop auto repair shop in America. Doesn’t work like that.
When you’re working with something as broad as corporate tax policy, you first figure out what your goal is. In this case, the goal was to stop incenting major corporations to offshore labor and jobs by territorial ism and high tax rates at home, while at the same time noting that those high tax rates were being AVOIDED by the multinationals, whilst your domestic small and medium sized businesses were being hamstrung with them.
What you’re suggesting is that we *not* do something that benefits the working population of the United States because Amazon got a tax break they don’t need. Sorry, it doesn’t make sense to me to hold on to a 1930’s tax scheme created prior to globalization and the information age that penalizes our workers just because some big corporations might make out.
The reason CHIP is having trouble [passing] is because we don’t have money anymore. We just add more and more spending and more and more spending, and you can look at the rest of the bill for the more and more spending.
The context of Hatch’s comments were that there were competing priorities for CHIPs money. Hatch is an author and supporter of CHIPs.
Just three days later, Speaker Ryan said that Republicans would be targeting benefit programs since that is “how you tackle the debt and the deficit.” This after their tax bill is estimated to cost over $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
Ryan was speaking specifically about the entitlement programs funded by the PAYROLL tax, not the income tax. Most people, apparently yourself included, seem to think that the entitlements are funded from the income tax, and since we’re (apparently) about to increase deficits due to income tax cuts, the entitlements go into the budget crosshairs.
That’s simply not true. The entitlements have their own problems which must be addressed, but since they take no money from the income taxes (and can’t, by law) the tax bill does not affect them.
“Starve the Beast” has been a conservative strategy for decades, so I’m puzzled as to why you decided they’ve abandoned it when they themselves say that they haven’t.
I’m not sure I said what you think I said. :-)