Even if the tax give-away stimulated the economy, which it doesn't, the Federal Reserve does the economy stimulating without requiring social programs to be cut to pay for it. Quantitative easing was being used for that purpose.

The so-called income tax is a profit tax for businesses. Only profits are taxed, not expenses.

The companies that need a break gain nothing from tax reductions, because they don't pay taxes without making a profit. The companies who get tax breaks are making wads of money already and don't need to get taxes reduced.

Corporations have no use for profits beyond stock dividends or giving it to the government in taxes. Expenses are not taxed. Wages are not taxed. Waste, fraud and abuse are not taxed. Corporations used to give most of their profits to the government totaling 60% of federal revenues. Now they pay 15%. So why the present war against corporate taxes? Reaganism is the answer. It shifted social values to greed and conflict. What is greed if corporations do not benefit from their own profits? Greed is a determination to prevent someone else from benefiting, not a betterment of oneself.

If the economy needs to be stimulated by plowing money into it, the Federal Reserve does that, not the taxpayers. The Fed used "quantitative easing" over recent years to add $4 trillion to the US economy. Banks do the same thing through lending. Now conservatives are going to use taxpayers' money to do the same thing. It isn't something tax dollars are supposed to be used for. It's like pouring drinking water into the ocean for the fish.
 

An absurd ballooning of the stock market draws a lot of attention. The obvious explanation is that there is so much loose money available that there is no place else to put it. Why then does society need some more loose money? What else could a tax give-away for the rich do besides create more loose money that has no place to go but an absurd stock market bubble?

A tax give-away is taking money out of production (fewer government workers or ripped up social programs) and putting it into the stock market. Fewer jobs will result.

The government does not invest in the stock market. But taking money out of the government is putting government employees out of work so the rich can balloon the stock market some more.

Moving money from point A to point B does not stimulate the economy. Only an increase in money supply pertaining to production stimulates the economy. Borrowing money for production stimulates the economy. During the fifties and sixties, the government used to spend money on military equipment to stimulate the economy. Manufacturing would increase with cyclic effects.

There are three ways to increase the money supply: Bank loans, quantitative easing and government borrowing (which is similar to bank loans). But the money supply is already too expanded due to quantitative easing; so the Fed is reversing quantitative easing by selling the government bonds which it bought earlier.

If businesses need money for production, they borrow it, which increases the money supply. Using tax dollars for increased production would have the government do the borrowing. No increase in production could be expected, because businesses either have all the money they need for production or they would borrow it from the banks instead of having the government do the borrowing for them.

If a tax give-away is revenue neutral, then the same amount of money is being taken out of production one place to supposedly put it into production another place, which would do nothing for the economy, except that it won't go into production; it will go into the stock market.

Explanations for tax give-aways go into various elements of business financing. Guess what. The American system of taxation is based on profits for business. The tax is only paid after everything else a business does has been completed. Share holders for the stock might get some of it, but don't they already have more money than they know what to do with? They certainly aren't going to improve the economy with more of it.

The claimed purpose for tax give-aways which take from the needy and give to the rich is to stimulate the economy. There is no theoretical possibility of that happening. Nothing but the opposite can occur.

Increased spending has always been the formula for stimulating the economy. Only the non-rich can increase spending. The rich could not increase spending if they wanted to, because they already have more than they know what to do with.

The needy spend less money in the stores after they are ripped off. The economy cannot increase production when there is no increase in consumption.

Where is the increase going to occur? There is such an excess in capital that it pushes the stock market out of the realms of reality. Economists have been ridiculing the crazy excess in stock values for more than an decade, when Greenspan called it "irrational exuberance."

Banks are in big trouble, because there are fewer borrowers taking out loans. There will be more of that problem after the government pours tax give-aways down the drain.

In other words, tax give-aways are nothing but a fraudulent excuse for conservatives fighting their endless war against the lower classes.

Before 1981, when conservatives took over the world, corporations were paying 60% of total federal revenue. Now they pay 15%. America was great when corporations paid taxes. More of the conservative tax give-aways is not going to get back there again.

As always, there is an ulterior motive for the fraud. The purpose of never ending tax fights by conservatives is to use taxes and deficits as an excuse for ending social programs for the needy. Conservatives are fighting a war against the needy and they use taxes as the pretext.

The claimed purpose of a tax give-away is to stimulate the economy, so "all of the boats will rise." The needy will supposedly be better off if the rich get a tax give-away.

When are all of the boats at the same level? There is no such economic concept. Supposedly, a tax give-away will stimulate the economy and benefit everyone. That isn't how economies are stimulated. Economies are stimulated through spending, and they can get "over-stimulated" awful easy, requiring a "cool-down." Taxes are never a part of the process, because their influence is nil.

Trump's fixers decided that Trump will "jump start" the economy through tax give-away. Since the insurgence of conservatism conservativism in the eighties, conservatives have been promoting the claim that tax give-aways stimulate the economy. The results keep showing it doesn't happen. The logic is extremely flawed.

Taxes were not supposed to have been collected in the first place, if they weren't necessary. If they are necessary enough to collect, they are supposed to be used for the necessary purpose.

So conservatives disagree on the necessity. The necessity is a specific question about programs, not an question of economics. Conservatives don't want the government to produce social programs, so they waste the money and try to give some back as a means of defunding social programs.

The economic fraud of tax give-aways is that the persons who pay taxes always spend as much money as they are ever going to spend on necessities. Any tax refund just goes into investments or savings, which do nothing for the economy. Making investors more irrationally exuberant doesn't fix the economy. If the money were given to the needy, they would spend it on necessities, which would have a slight economic significance. But benefitting the needy is what conservatives try to avoid.

The concept of jump starting the economy is a sixties concept. There has to be an economy before it can be jump started. Now days, spending money on products will only jump start China's economy, not the US economy.

The fraud of it all is that after the squandering through waste, fraud and abuse including tax give-aways, conservatives pretend that they must scrape up pennies by cutting social programs for the needy. No one benefits from the tax give-away, and the only result is a war against the needy.

There is such a thing as too much debt, though wall street likes quite a bit of debt, because it collects interest on it. Conservatives only notice that there is too much debt when they are taking from the needy. Otherwise, there is no such thing as too much waste, fraud and abuse.

The problem of too much capital

The only allusion to a purpose in giving tax payer's money to the rich is to make more capital available, so they can alleviate the shortage of toasters and paper towels, which corporations cannot afford to produce at this time.

There is such an excessive amount of capital available that there are negative consequences. The most obvious consequence is the "irrational exuberance" driving up the stock market, so no one really gains anything from stock investments. But there are also numerous less visible consequences. One is bankruptcy of the banks. The banks need to loan money. No one needs to borrow money with such excessive capital available, except the most indigent borrowers who have low probability of paying it back.

Another negative consequence of the excessive capital availability is investment in fantasies. If people want to entertain themselves pretending that junk technology, such as "renewable energy" and carbon-free, self-driving electric vehicles are going to solve their problems, the usual assumption is to let them spend their money however they want. Tax payers are not investing much in those fantasies. But there is some real social decadence that comes out of that process.

The negative effects of investing in social fantasies are like a disease upon society. They corrupt the science and technology. They increase the cost of electricity creating a significant burden upon the lower classes. They block progress in developing real solutions to problems, such as cheap and safe nuclear reactors. And more than anything, they railroad the purposes and resulting thought processes of society away from rationality and toward imposition of destructive behavior upon everyone. The shape of the earth is being revamped to promote the fantasies.

Another bit of fakery (Rationalizing a war against the lower classes is the only purpose.) is to pretend that tax reductions will draw corporations back into the country. There is already a shortage of workers, so why more corporate activity? Word salad for rationalizing is the only purpose.

Corporations are globalized now days and none can survive on a small, domestic scale. Shrinking corporations to a domestic scale is like trying to put a ten pound watermelon in a pickle jar.

War Against the Lower Classes

Conservatives actually believe that solving society's problems is only possible by removing the lower classes from the equation. They try to diminish the influence of the lower classes through every means of oppression they can devise.

There is not a logic to such forces of corruption. Corrupters respond to forces which they do not understand. The primary force which causes conservatives to hate the lower classes is that the persons who have problems are trying to solve problems and demand that society solve problems, which is only possible through truth and justice. Conservatives cannot tolerate the resulting forces.

Truth defeats corruption. Conservatives are so corrupt that truth is intolerable to them. But they don't understand those forces. They think someone is doing something wrong to them. And since the force comes from the lower classes, conservatives assume the lower classes are trying to destroy them. Truth does that to corrupt persons who don't have a clue as to what truth is or where it comes from.

What it means is that the endless effort of conservatives to take from the needy and give to the rich is not an economic analysis; it's a desperate attempt to correct the social order by defeating enemies who they assume are the cause of all problems in society.

The Three Sixes Purpose

The recently stated reason for tax give-aways is so people can keep more of their hard-earned paychecks. It's no different from preventing people from buying food, so they can keep more of their hard-earned paychecks.

It's the same as requiring three sixes on everyone's right hand or forehead to buy or sell anything, as described for the apocalypse. If people can't use government for the purposes they created government for, it's no different than preventing them from buying food.

Humans spent 5,000 years deciding what the purposes of government should be and wrote laws for the purpose. To say they are no longer going to use government for those purposes is to prevent people from using government for solving their problems.

Curing Cancer

After the tax give-away legislation was passed, a senator said, "It's like curing our cancer and then being hit by a truck" because of the huge expenses that have to be paid for next month.

It's like someone spending four hours per day at a bar running up $5,000 per month bills which can't be paid and robbing the bar at night saying, we cured our cancer. Robbery is curing cancer instead of rational government curing cancer.

The $700 billion military expense included with the tax give-away will cost tax payers about twice that amount ($1.4 trillion) when including veterans expenses and government and military retirement pay (the biggest entitlement in existence which never gets mentioned) along with 50% of some other government expenses and interest on the debt proportioned to the military. While the only source of additional revenue mentioned is cutting food stamps.

The cancer isn't waste, fraud and abuse to conservatives; it's someone else having a different purpose in existence.

The recent tax give-away is being promoted as a new type of Laissez Faire, where government increases the income of corporations, so they can pay their workers more. Corporations could have given their workers the same pay increase before the tax give-away and not paid taxes on it, because the tax is an income tax, not an expense tax.

Increases in workers pay would have been deducted from taxes before the tax give-away, because expenses are not taxed.

So the tax give-away uses government money to increase the income of corporations. Governments can't afford to do that.