>>718323883
(cont)
Now, if you remember, the whole goal of the entire exercise was to have a more productive economy, which can then generate more tax revenue for things like bombs that we can throw at those dirty arabs and chinks.
So if corporations aren't being taxed, who is?
The individual American.
(again, don't stop thinking here, you're better than a goddamn commie)
Let's now talk about the individual income of the average american individual.
Throughout the 80s until now, there's been a disjoint between corporate (and by extension, investment, which is tied to housing) growth and income level.
The exact reason has been because of the disjoint between corporate income and individual output.
Corporate revenue growth, beginning in the 80s, under trickle down economics, has been (increasingly) fueled by government "investments" (money printer goes BRRRRRR).
In any sensible economy, you'd immediately notice that the government can't pay increasingly large sums to companies as investments, only collect individual income as taxes, and then not have those income go up.
In America, you can - because the federal reserve is the world's reserve currency and the government can choose to ignore its outstanding debt (because they can print more money to cover the debt).
So you have corporations whose record profits are essentially funded by a money printer, they can't pay employees more because it's not really the individual employee that's generating this revenue (it's the money printer), and the economy is no longer tied to the actual productivity of its businesses.
To close, I'll provide a thought exercise. Most commies would point to the US productivity graph going up while wages stay stagnant.
Ask yourself - how in the flying FUCK did our productivity go up WHILE WE WERE SHIPPING FACTORIES IN CHINA?
