[TulliusCicero]

I think many people here believe the correct thing for politicians to do would be focusing on making their own countries more competitive when it comes to having tech giants of their own, and they view regulations or taxes like this as being partially the result of 'sour grapes' that their own countries are less successful in this arena.

[flosim]

More competitive, OK. Who doesn't want their country to be more competitive anyway, whatever that means? Certainly no one in their right mind would argue to make it more diverse, more educated while we're at it?

How about you share how you think this could work? While I agree for more competitiveness for my country, history has shown me repeatedly that low taxes isn't actually working out that great.

Equating low taxes with increased competitiveness is to me dishonest as a generality. I'm certainly not opposed to admitting that it can work in some cases, but I can't agree to this as a general rule.

[TulliusCicero]

Why would it be lower taxes? All the major tech hubs in the US are in higher tax areas (by US standards). If lower taxes were the solution, you'd see Silicon Valley in Texas or Oklahoma or somewhere like that.

[flosim]

The fact that you commented against a proposal made by a parent made me believe that you were in agreement with it. Sorry!

[moorhosj]

The rub is what “more competitive” actually means. I get the feeling lots of people think it means lower taxes, but limited government also hurts a company’s ability to hire educated employees if lack of funding hurts education.

[TulliusCicero]

If being more competitive meant lower taxes, Silicon Valley wouldn't be in California, it'd be in Oklahoma or Kansas or Utah, or some other GOP state that pushes lower taxes.