The “companies” that I think can afford revenue increases in these terrible economic times are the richest 1500 incorporated in De. (minimal stock-asset value of $660 million). An additional $5,000 per year increase in the franchise tax cap would produce nearly double the revenue in FY10 that the alcohol tax would with no job losses.
-JK last nights thread
That was rejected out of hand? I thought that upon my return from vacation I would have seen common sense and fairness prevail in your thinking, but I guess not.
I’m speaking as someone who has worked for Markell’s election and will no doubt work for it again in the future – but I don’t get this. There is no way to make the case that Disney would leave Delaware if forced to pay an additional $5,000. That BS does not pass the smirk test.
So what’s the deal? What’s the real reason Fortune 500 companies are not being asked to “share the burden” during this period of economic trial?