On the contrary - we have yet to see a situation where prosperity comes from taxation.
The crux of this guy's argument is that we need government spending to keep money flowing in the economy. IOW, this guy thinks government serves as the proverbial middle man for economic activity. This idea is unsound, and runs contrary to arguments for efficiency that dominate economic thinking.
Cutting basic government services is bad - but what does he consider "basic" and what does he consider excessive or unnecessary?
This guy advocates placing taxes on internet sales claiming it is not fair that local businesses must pay the sales tax, whereas people purchasing over the internet (out of state) do not have to pay. Wouldn't it be more fair to the local businesses then to cut taxes so they can better compete with out-of-state internet driven sales? Also, someone in AZ buying a product over the internet from a business in CA, tells us two important things about taxation - the first is that such people view local taxes as already being too high, and secondly, the level of taxation that people will bear for given products is equivalent to the shipping costs of acquiring the goods out-of-state. Also, aren't there people in CA purchasing goods from merchants in AZ so they too can avoid paying their excessive sales taxes? If these so-called business friendly politicians want to help local businesses, they should work to get taxation more in line with shipping costs so people will not develop an interest in acquiring goods from out-of-state.
Now, however, we have seen that it is just another way of doing business and does not deserve the tax breaks that penalize all the businesses that invest in bricks and mortar and employees.
This is a specious argument because like I said above, people from all over benefit from e-commerce, and merchants from all over benefit from e-commerce as well. Furthermore, aren't many e-commerce sites themselves established brick-and-mortar businesses, owned by both national corporate interests as well as being owned by "mom and pop" types of a local nature?
This guy purports s to be business friendly in the guise of fairness, but his view of the world is not fair to consumers or to local entreprenurial interests either.
Pragmatic Republican????
More like pragmatic socialist.
Exactly. He apparently does not see any level beyond which government should NOT expand.
He also exhibits a complete lack of understanding of basic macroeconomics.... i.e. the formula for GNP...
GNP = Consumer spending + Investment + Govt. spending - Transfer payments (taxes).
If govt. spending is in balance with taxation, then the last 2 components of the formula are mere offsets. If there is less govt. spending and a corresponding reduction in taxes, then GNP remains the same.
But then, as a "journalist", he need not be burdened by facts.