Skip to comments.We're Number One, Alas
Posted on 07/13/2007 7:44:18 AM PDT by RKV
Some good news on the tax cutting front: Last week lawmakers approved an 8.9 percentage point reduction in the corporate income tax rate. Too bad the tax cutters are Germans, not Americans.
There's a trend here. At least 25 developed nations have adopted Reaganite corporate income tax rate cuts since 2001. The U.S. is conspicuously not one of them. Vietnam has recently announced it is cutting its corporate rate to 25% from 28%. Singapore has approved a corporate tax cut to 18% from 20% to compete with low-tax Hong Kong's rate of 17.5%, and Northern Ireland is making a bid ...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Our high corporate taxes do more to send manufacturing abroad than our wages.
We’re Number One! We’re Number one! We’re Number One!
Repealing the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and opening the Land Office for recording entry and mining claims could move the USA marker significantly to the left, probably not as far as the UAE, but in that direction.
What they don’t tax, they regulate to death and all that cost and burden is passed on to consumers along with the millions they have to pay politicans to protect their own companies.
That’s a terrible graph.
The US treasury department had a graph in March ‘07 concerning ‘capital flight’. Does anyone have access to an update?
We HAVE to tax those evil wealthy corporations... it is the
American Liberal Democrat Un-American Way.
Then we can sit back and bitch and moan about companies going overseas and call ourselves victims of those same corporations...
The Paleos are more interested in punishing the evil corporations than they are in the revenue generated or the economic efficiency of the process. It’s kind of sadomasochistic in a way, but then that describes many Paleos.
How do you tax a corporation anyway? It’s part of their operating cost, therefore they pass it on to the consumer. It might make the ignant masses feel good (getting back at the rich guy), but the ignant masses are the ones paying the bill. The joke’s on them.
About the only part of that which makes sense is an economic efficiency argument - i.e. no freeriders. If you pay for the services you use, you will use them efficiently. If they are free then what the hey, use them up. I do understand and agree that there is a passthrough to customers. Corporations (for instance) benefit from public fire and law enforcement services, and their owners benefit from those public services as well. They ought to pay something, don’t you agree? Of course I believe we ought to bring back the poll tax. Heh.
Good point!I think that only corporations should be taxed,not individuals.I can choose to set up my business as a corporation,partnership,sole proprietorship,etc.If I choose to become a corporation,it is the state that gives me life with a corporate charter.It protects me personally from liabilities(at least before Sarbannes-Oxley).For this I should pay a price.Otherwise,I would only pay taxes when I do business with corporations,(paying their price which includes the taxes that the corporation must pay),which would amount to a consumption tax.
You make a point to consider, but everyone who works at the corporation pays taxes out the yingyang anyway (except for maybe the guys at the very top who can hide behind "charitable foundations" etc.). I don't like to give government any excuses to get more money since they don't spend it efficiently, and will take from us as much as we allow them to take. Some of them are full-blown Socialists and would take it all, if they could get away with it.
The true "fair tax".Divide the federal expenditures by the number of voters.There's your tax bill.I believe it's about $25,000 per voter(120 million voters into 3 trillion).Paying all that at one time seems like more than paying 2,000 per month via withholding.Those who "forget to save" don't vote.Those who don't have 25000 don't vote.As the number of eligible voters shrinks,the tax per goes up.But not for long,as those who remain to vote would have little enough interest in electing officials who tax and spend.
As government expenditures went down,more people would be able to vote.A balance would be reached.It will be argued that this would exclude the poor.Why are we so concerned that the poor vote.When they get their own personal lives together to the extent that they can help pay for the government,then they can have a say in how it's run and by whom.No representation without taxation.
It's been observed that the end of representative gov't comes about when the populace discovers it can vote itself money.This scheme for paying taxes would obviate that.It would also thin out the demogogues running for office who probably themselves wouldn't be able to afford to vote.I myself would happily give up my vote if I didn't have to pay taxes.