I find this speech baffling. Investors don't make companies successful, sales do! Do you want taxes to increase on the people investing in companies that may or may not succeed or do you want taxes to decrease on the people who buy your products. Cutting a companies taxes doesn't increase the amount of people a company can hire. However, cutting the taxes of the people who buy your products will likely increase sales. These increased sales mean more money to hire more people.
Let's be real. Companies will hire the minimal amount of people to get the job done. They aren't going to hire people willy nilly because they get a tax break. Companies will hire more people when their sales increase and they need more bodies. To increase sales you decrease the taxes on the consumer class.
I enjoyed a book by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, "How Capitalism Saved America," where he points out that we haven't really practiced Capitalism, but Mercantilism, instead.
Wouldn't it also depend on what type of company we are referring to? Or timing? Aren't companies that do not have a product yet beholden to investment?
It seems that it might take too much time to have individual buyers' purchases fund a company that requires a large investment in infrastructure to get going...
I wrote "I guess what it means to me is the less government meddling in the market, the better. The Government is already having a hard time fulfilling their regulatory role, no need to have them waste more time skewing markets with pricing controls/subsidies."
