The Problem With the Corporate Tax

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) wisely proposed reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. High corporate tax rates lead to low returns on capital, lower wages, or higher prices -- or all three, says , says N. Gregory Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard University.

For example:

• In a 2006 study, the economist William C. Randolph of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden from the tax.
  
  
• A recent Oxford University study examined data on more than 50,000 companies in nine European countries and concluded that a substantial part of the corporation income tax is passed on to the labor form in the form of lower wages; in the long-run, a $1 increase in the tax bill tends to reduce real wages at the median by 92 cents.
  
  
• A CBO report in 2005 concluded that the distortions that the corporate income tax induces are large compared with the revenues that the tax generates.

In 2007, corporate taxes brought in $370 billion, representing 14 percent of federal revenue. Cutting the tax rate to 25 percent would cost the Treasury about $100 billion a year. A decrease in the corporate tax would lead to increased economic growth, which tends to raise tax revenue from all other tax sources, says Mankiw:

• To the extent that shareholders would benefit, they would pay higher taxes on dividends, capital gains and withdrawals from their retirement accounts.
  
  
• To the extent that workers would benefit, they would pay higher payroll and income taxes.

A recent study by the American Enterprise Institute examined data from countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and found that these effects are strong enough to make a corporate rate cut self-financing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html

__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Coyote Blog


New Law Trashes Genetic Science

This from the same people who brought us the tax cuts, promising a much better economy than during the years of Clinton's CRUSHING TAXES and record high employment rate. and growing real incomes.

….AND Clinton knew that they were right. That is why he didn’t raise tax rates to what they were before the Reagan years.

__________________
"If capitalism had never existed, any honest humanitarian should have been struggling to invent it. But when you see men struggling to evade its existence, to misrepresent its nature, and to destroy its last remnants - you may be sure that whatever their motives, love for man is not one of them." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Coyote Blog


New Law Trashes Genetic Science

1. Maybe instead of raising taxes, we should reduce the size of the Federal Government?

2. Dem Presidents always create more jobs, because they have the government create them. Doesn't mean these are great paying jobs, or that it is good for the economy long term.

3. Obama will have to create more government jobs, because if he is elected, and enacts the stuff he is talking about, we in small business will be forced to start laying off, and cutting back on subs.

I don't think Democrats have enough imagination to increase, in an eight year Obama presidency, the number of government employees and outsourcing government workers, and government spending, and long term entitlements as Bush did, with the help of a conservative Republican Congress, in just six years.

BULL SHIT. A national health care program will do more than that, in two years. Especially any proposed by the "liberal" democrats.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

Do you think that the government isn't paying the healthcare costs of those without health insurance one way or the other?

And are you pleased that the cost of health insurance to individuals and small businesses has gone up 90% since Bush took office?

Or that the number of people with higher deductables AND HIGHER PREMIUMS has increased since Bush too office?

Why do you think that more flailing around on healthcare instead of adopting one of a dozen systems in the world that deliver better care at lower costs per person when only 60% of the people have reasonably decent insurance, and a third or more of them are insured by the Federal government, will work in the future when we have a quarter century of failure after failure?

Over two hundred nations exist, yet no one can point to a single one that meets your criteria for the "right" healthcare. By pure chance, one of the two hundred would have stumbled on it, unless it can't possibly work as you imagine.

Three dozen nations have systems that work better and cost less. You are like a creationist who claims there is no evolution even as you complain about getting a new flu each year, calling for a single vaccine to prevent flu.