« Where did the unemployed manufacturing workers go? | Main | The Bank of Canada and the Fed are facing different problems, and will make different choices »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

A further point.

Declan: "I guess some pundits or politicians might get confused and think that somehow taxes paid by a corporation are not paid by flesh and blood people at all, but that seems like such an elementary error it never really occurred to me that we might be taking it seriously as a risk in formulating public policy."

If pundits or politicians get confused by this, imagine the man in the street!

People who don't own a public economics textbook (that is, just about everybody), have probably never even heard the idea that "only people can pay taxes". I'm a trained economist and I did a double take when I first read that... I had to think long and hard about why that was so, philosophically speaking. (answer: ownership)

So, when people hear about "taxing wealthy corporations", they aren't quite sure who or what actually pays these taxes, but they're much more certain than they have any right to be that it's somebody or something that is "wealthy", and thus corporate income taxes are progressive.

If they hear about "taxing corporations", well, they know that not all corporations are doing so well, so maybe, just maybe, they will be more receptive to the true idea that corporate taxes are not just a costless way to stick it to the rich.

This is what I don't understand. If the idea is to stick it to the rich, why not do it directly with higher marginal rates rather than this round-about farce of taxing corporations (which is not even clear to be effective in taxing the rich owners and not the poor owners, workers, and customers).

Apart from the semantics argument, what's the case that the existing system of Corporate Income Tax is not working?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad