Gee, it’s almost as if trickle down economics doesn’t work like they told us?
I remember having this argument with domestic-automobile-driving relatives who swore that buying a Chevy made in Korea was a (instead of a Toyota made in Woodstock, Ontatrio) was always the right choice because “the profits stay in the country”. He would not listen when I explained that it didn’t matter if the profits went to a rich douchebag in Osaka or a rich doucehbag in Traverse City, MI; what mattered is where the costs were spent, and if they were spent in Ontario, that mattered.
Want the profits to stay in the country? Tax. Them.
Want the profits to stay in the country? Get these workers higher portion of those profits. A perhaps even better way of corporate profit taxation. Not always applicable when the corpo doesn’t employ domestic workers of course.
Gee, it’s almost as if trickle down economics doesn’t work like they told us?
I remember having this argument with domestic-automobile-driving relatives who swore that buying a Chevy made in Korea was a (instead of a Toyota made in Woodstock, Ontatrio) was always the right choice because “the profits stay in the country”. He would not listen when I explained that it didn’t matter if the profits went to a rich douchebag in Osaka or a rich doucehbag in Traverse City, MI; what mattered is where the costs were spent, and if they were spent in Ontario, that mattered.
Want the profits to stay in the country? Tax. Them.
Want the profits to stay in the country? Get these workers higher portion of those profits. A perhaps even better way of corporate profit taxation. Not always applicable when the corpo doesn’t employ domestic workers of course.
Taxation is a valid way to do that.
It forces business owners to reinvest in their business lest they lose those profits to taxes. Part of that reinvestment is wages and headcount.
Of course it’s valid. I’m just thinking about it from the point of view of evasion and regulatory capture.