Should We Lower Corporate Income Tax Rates To Help The Economy?

[tate8]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/30/no-joke-obama-corporate-tax-rates-are-worst-in-world/

[Elroy65]

Thanks for posting.

[Segar]

No organization provides a cent of duty, fundamentally never has, never will. Each and every dollar delivered to the Government in the corporate bank account fundamentally is one particular much less dollar in the pocket of some person counterparty to the organization, whether it really is an employee, an employee of the merchant, an official, a person, a retiree maintaining that corp's stocks in her pension sources, and so on. And the way to which the corp tax load is allocated among these events is just a function of the relative elasticities involved.(As a-side note, bear in mind that the flexibility of the price/provide curve for labor---and specially new labor---is pretty minimal. What does that inform ya about minor corp tax rates and rank-and-file salary prices? Recall also that wonderful ol' offer-n-demand causes bypass regulation as it pertains to releasing the particular tax burden(due to the fact they should). For instance, in the event that you encounter somebody who believes the FICA tax burden is clearly 50/50 between boss and worker, merely grin.)Even these days, I have but to see anybody filter the massive amount of sound in addition to Romer and Romer, 2007, http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdfwhen it involves attempting to recognize the difficult connection amongst efficient tax rates and GDP outcome. Positive, they genuinely are not fixating exclusively on corporate rates, even so once again, observe above.Nonetheless, it is a complex business and I do not commit enough time for the reason that area. If somebodyis keeping proof that R & R missed the mark anywhere, I would be genuinely considering about seeing it(just be sure you can report and cogently argue the distinct defect(s) inside their data, method, and/or findings.)   ArcSine 21 weeks ahead of http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf

[Rodwell]

no, we should raise the rates; and then increase deductions for domestic spending proportionately. to encourage then to spend in OUR economy instead of someone else's.   TheLightWorks 21 months ago

[Roth]

tsk tsk tsk....You shouln't have use that FOX link DM. :)   LouLou 21 months ago

[hagalean100]

"Webster's Bible TranslationBut he that knew not, and committed things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For to whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom men have committed much, from him they will ask the more."http://bible.cc/luke/12-48.htm   Gary4books 21 months ago http://bible.cc/luke/12-48.htm

[Theros]

A_H, decide which way you're going. You open with an absolute dismissal of R & R's study, but then spend the remainder of your post carefully explaining and championing the methodology of their study.I'm sure the Romers would be most honored that in your infinite wisdom you agree with them that GDP gets pushed around by a boatload of non-tax macro forces, and hence it ain't the magnitude of GDP, but rather the isolated ceteris paribus influence of tax legislation on GDP, which is meaningful for this purpose.Goldie, I really appreciate your linking up that recent C Romer NYT op-ed piece. Although you and I occupy rather different points on the political spectrum, a respectable political difference is to a discussion as premium vermouth is to a martini. I haven't romped in this particular playground in quite a while, and your post & link got my interest re-stirred a bit....so I do indeed appreciate that.It is interesting that C Romer seems to be doing something of an about-face with her op-ed, vis-a-vis her and hubby's '07 study, although that difference might be more illusory that it seems on its face. I get an early impression from a skim that the two studies have non-identical foci, which might account for some of it, but(unlike, ahem, some others) I can't comment on that until I've actually read it.Predictably, I'm seeing a decent amount of(hopefully) educated responses on the 'net to Romer's article, both critical and supportive. Ought to be interesting reading---although now that I'm thinking martinis, the reading's gonna hafta wait.   ArcSine 21 months ago http:

[Gedaliah]

"...How will lowering the tax burden for companies that are already flushed with record levels of cash really going to make the average American better off?Compared with other advanced economies, companies doing business in the U.S. already pay low taxes. It's true that at 35% the corporate tax rate is technically higher than most major economies. But because of loopholes and other deductions, most companies pay significantly less ? so the effective rate(or the percentage of corporate profits that is paid in federal corporate taxes) is about 13% to 15%, which is relatively low even by international standards."In what way does a lower corporate income tax rate help the economy?   @Goldie 21 months ago http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/08/lower-corporate-taxes-wont-create-more-jobs/

[Chappel]

"In what way does a lower corporate income tax rate help the economy? "they've promised that if we reduce their taxes, they will start hiring people.   TheLightWorks 21 months ago

[Colemann]

You're getting your info from Fox News? Didn't you hear, in a study, it was found that people that watched Fox News were LESS informed than people that did not watch any news at all.http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggestsI know how the Reps came up with that tax chart... by quoting just the OFFICIAL tax rate, not the ACTUAL one.Several OTHER charts made up by IMPARTIAL folks show a far different picture:http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/feb/21/corporation-tax-rates-worldhttp://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10443-corporate-tax-by-country.html#axzz1qcx9rCeNIn that second chart, where the data is sorted by MARGINAL tax rate(which is important when you're considering ADDING jobs), the USA is NOT #1, it's waaaaaay down the list, with a very low marginal tax rate fopr corps, at #75!The difference is explained in a NYT article:"The paradox of the United States tax code ? high rates with a bounty of subsidies, shelters and special breaks ? has made American multinationals ?world leaders in tax avoidance,? according to Edward D. Kleinbard, a professor at the University of Southern California who was head of the Congressional joint committee on taxes. This has profound implications for businesses, the economy and the federal budget."So fella, consider getting your info from less biased source. This blind following of the Fox News claptrap just makes you look like a bugbee.   Ancient_Hacker 21 months ago http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests