Why is it bad if large corporations get tax cuts?

Democrats keep complaining that large corporations will get tax cuts, and I am left wondering: why is that bad?

The corporations will spend it, save it, or invest it.  They can spend it on new buildings, equipment, supplies, salaries, benefits, charitable contributions, and many other things, so why is that bad?

We see lots of complaints that they may spend it on stock buybacks or higher dividends, and I can't understand why that is bad, either.  Stock buybacks and higher dividends should raise stock prices and rate of return, so that would help individual investors and mutual funds and would especially help woefully underfunded public pension plans, so why would Democrats oppose something that may reduce tax dollars that must go for pensions?  Do Democrats understand the simple concept that lower expenses are just as good as if not better than taking higher taxes, which slows the economy?

Maybe Democrats know and don't care.  In 2008, Obama said he didn't care if the government collected more taxes with lower capital gains rates because it is just not fair.  That is as idiotic as Hillary saying no one should believe that businesses create jobs and other Democrats saying the private sector didn't build that.

Likewise, why is there such disdain for the rich, who pay the significant proportion of taxes, especially in relationship to their income?  The highest-income Americans (those earning over $250,000) earned 28% of income and paid 55% of taxes, but that is never enough for Democrats.  The "rich" will save, invest, or spend the extra money that they earned that the government will allow them to keep, and all are better for the overall economy than confiscating a greater share for the greedy government, running it through the massive bureaucracy, and trickling out the remainder.

Schumer, Pelosi, and other Democrats say Republicans will lose big if they pass this tax reform.  I believe that that is pure wishful thinking not grounded in reality.  I look forward to Democrats campaigning throughout the U.S., telling individuals and business-owners that the government is a better steward of their money than they are.  They should also lecture everyone that the government is smarter on health care and that the people and businesses should not have freedom of choice. 

Democrats should also explain why during Obama's eight years, the U.S had the slowest economic recovery in seventy years despite high taxes, high spending, massive new regulatory burdens, and artificially low interest rates. 

They should also tell us why it was necessary and good to actually run up $10 trillion in debt during those eight years, but a projection of $1.5 trillion would be a disaster if the public were allowed to keep more of its own money.  They should further explain why they project government revenues going down when previous tax cuts yielded more money. 

Several of the wealthiest counties in the U.S are around D.C., where they produce nothing but regulations and bureaucracy.  They did very well the last eight years while much of the country was stagnant, so Democrats should campaign on those great results. 

Journalists and other Democrats should list which of the Democrat policies are meant to lift up the entire economy and especially the poor, the lower middle class, and minorities.  I can't think of any.  Every policy I have seen makes the government more powerful and makes more people dependent on government. 

I do look forward to Republicans campaigning on the simple message that they trust the people and businesses with their own money and to choose what kind of health insurance policy to buy.

It should be noted that less than 10% of the Obama administration had private-sector experience, and it certainly showed with how they governed.  More government was always the solution.

On a side note: The AP is out with a new poll showing less than 25% of people are optimistic or positive about Trump and economic prospects.  That seems especially odd, since consumer confidence polls, small business polls, and large business polls have shot up since Trump was elected.  The AP wouldn't have skewed the demographics in the poll to get the results that match its agenda, would it – and then report the results as news?

Democrats keep complaining that large corporations will get tax cuts, and I am left wondering: why is that bad?

The corporations will spend it, save it, or invest it.  They can spend it on new buildings, equipment, supplies, salaries, benefits, charitable contributions, and many other things, so why is that bad?

We see lots of complaints that they may spend it on stock buybacks or higher dividends, and I can't understand why that is bad, either.  Stock buybacks and higher dividends should raise stock prices and rate of return, so that would help individual investors and mutual funds and would especially help woefully underfunded public pension plans, so why would Democrats oppose something that may reduce tax dollars that must go for pensions?  Do Democrats understand the simple concept that lower expenses are just as good as if not better than taking higher taxes, which slows the economy?

Maybe Democrats know and don't care.  In 2008, Obama said he didn't care if the government collected more taxes with lower capital gains rates because it is just not fair.  That is as idiotic as Hillary saying no one should believe that businesses create jobs and other Democrats saying the private sector didn't build that.

Likewise, why is there such disdain for the rich, who pay the significant proportion of taxes, especially in relationship to their income?  The highest-income Americans (those earning over $250,000) earned 28% of income and paid 55% of taxes, but that is never enough for Democrats.  The "rich" will save, invest, or spend the extra money that they earned that the government will allow them to keep, and all are better for the overall economy than confiscating a greater share for the greedy government, running it through the massive bureaucracy, and trickling out the remainder.

Schumer, Pelosi, and other Democrats say Republicans will lose big if they pass this tax reform.  I believe that that is pure wishful thinking not grounded in reality.  I look forward to Democrats campaigning throughout the U.S., telling individuals and business-owners that the government is a better steward of their money than they are.  They should also lecture everyone that the government is smarter on health care and that the people and businesses should not have freedom of choice. 

Democrats should also explain why during Obama's eight years, the U.S had the slowest economic recovery in seventy years despite high taxes, high spending, massive new regulatory burdens, and artificially low interest rates. 

They should also tell us why it was necessary and good to actually run up $10 trillion in debt during those eight years, but a projection of $1.5 trillion would be a disaster if the public were allowed to keep more of its own money.  They should further explain why they project government revenues going down when previous tax cuts yielded more money. 

Several of the wealthiest counties in the U.S are around D.C., where they produce nothing but regulations and bureaucracy.  They did very well the last eight years while much of the country was stagnant, so Democrats should campaign on those great results. 

Journalists and other Democrats should list which of the Democrat policies are meant to lift up the entire economy and especially the poor, the lower middle class, and minorities.  I can't think of any.  Every policy I have seen makes the government more powerful and makes more people dependent on government. 

I do look forward to Republicans campaigning on the simple message that they trust the people and businesses with their own money and to choose what kind of health insurance policy to buy.

It should be noted that less than 10% of the Obama administration had private-sector experience, and it certainly showed with how they governed.  More government was always the solution.

On a side note: The AP is out with a new poll showing less than 25% of people are optimistic or positive about Trump and economic prospects.  That seems especially odd, since consumer confidence polls, small business polls, and large business polls have shot up since Trump was elected.  The AP wouldn't have skewed the demographics in the poll to get the results that match its agenda, would it – and then report the results as news?