Federal grant for building the plant: $299 million.

Michigan state incentives for the plant: $168.5 million.

Michigan budget deficit for 2011: $500 million.

Jobs at the Holland, Michigan battery plant: 150

The lady made a lot of sense. Her book is A Governor’s Story: The Fight for Jobs and America’s Economic Future.

Look at the chapter titles. If I could afford it, I’d buy the Kindle edition. But I have to have the Kindle first. Dammit.

You’re right, I did not express myself clearly, in fact, I said something that was misleading, and it led to misunderstanding. I will try again.

I do NOT support tax exemptions, and dodges like charity, etc. These eventually are misused or perverted, with the aid of some crony capitalism and clever lobbying into getting out of paying taxes. I should think Conservatives would agree with me on this. Aren’t they always saying taxes should be solely to raise revenue, not for social engineering?

I DO support and encourage that businesses not be taxed on money that is a legitimate business expense, such as salaries, interest, expansion, expenses, overhead and investment in further productive capacity. Investment and product R&D is certainly a legit business expense. In other words, if you have an extra $400K lying around, give your workers a bonus, or break ground on a new building. Or replace that fleet of trucks.

Just don’t use it to buy swampland in Georgia and not grow tobacco on it.

This policy will encourage investment in the society and circulate money back into the economy instead of funneling it directly to the top few percent. And if it works well enough, maybe we can even cut capital gains taxes. And that’s the third time I’ve said that in this thread.

The very first comment was completely clear, in context of the original article’s thesis of how tax increases create growth. It stood on its own, and there I was going to leave it. And here I am again, running around in tight circles, bombarded as a bonus by handfuls of raw, wet, economic horseshit.

When will I learn?

Edit: I posted something about this inconsistency in a comment over at the original article site. It’s waiting for moderation.

Now we can continue with the current Obama/Democratic plan to cut tax deductions for investments, research, charitable deductions, and all the rest.

The rich used to be taxed enormous amounts of money, like 90%. The idea wasn’t to take away most of their income, but to get them to plow that back into productive use, like foundations, investment, businesses, research, and even charity.

Since most income is derived through commercial activity, they knew how to restructure their businesses for the new environment.
Only people like rock stars and athletes actually paid ninety cents on the dollar, they didn’t know how to be reborn as trusts or corporations.

But business wasn’t satisfied with this arrangement, it and well- meaning (and some not-so-well-meaning) but clueless government bureaucrats gradually replaced this system with a complex Babel of exemptions, loopholes, special exceptions and other tax dodges that eventually subverted the system and allowed anyone who owned a stable of lobbyists, lawyers and accountants to get away without paying his fair share.

It is the purpose of the modern Republican Party, and their prole allies in the Tea Party, to maintain this pyramid of privilege.

By George. I think he’s got it!

Force? Well not guillotines and bayonets, but tax policy like we’re talking about here. Tom, I am not a Red, I just know that capitalists don’t give a fig about free enterprise. They can’t be trusted to do the right thing. They have to be persuaded.

Point A: The writer declares that high taxes create investment because it forces the business to use investment tax breaks. The writer is an idiot, basically rehashing a sideways version of the “broken window fallacy,” but we’ll let that pass.

Point B: The Democratic Party is currently doing its damndest to destroy investment tax breaks, including raising the capital gains tax.

This was what my first comment was pointing out, and I assumed people who read the article would get it quite easily. My mistake.