Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
The claim that a tide of corporate tax cuts will lift all boats through more growth has been a core element of ‘supply-side’ economics, from Ronald Reagan’s 1980s United States presidency to the opportunistic power politics of his latter-day successor, Donald Dump. And in current economic-policy debates on how to recover from the pandemic, that notion has found political advocates in a number of European countries—including the conservative and liberal parties in Germany, facing into the autumn Bundestag elections.
Our results suggest that the prominent role given to corporate tax cuts in policy debates is exaggerated. Tax cuts have certainly stimulated international tax competition in recent decades, but they do not seem to have enhanced growth.
Eccielover, My layman’s opinion is that this article is bizarre. The writers undertook a metastudy of studies on the effect of reductions of corporate tax cuts on GDP growth. They concluded that the median or average estimate was that GDP growth would increase 0.02% for every 1% reduction in the corporate rate.
This sounds small but it’s really potentially huge. You get rid of the 35% federal corporate tax we had in 2017 and you boost GDP growth by 0.7% a year. That’s the difference between, perhaps, 2% and 2.7% GDP growth per year. Compound that over 50 years and our GDP would be 40% larger than it would be otherwise!
The writers also say 4 or 5 times more of the studies showed increases in GDP growth from a cut in the corporate tax rate as showed no or insignificant growth.
So now what they do apparently is kick out the 80% or 85% of the studies that disagree with their foreordained conclusion, because of “publication bias”, and say it’s possible or likely corporate cuts don’t boost growth significantly.
What’s bizarre is that economists who work in Academia, who would be publishing most of these studies, are on average left of center. If anything the bias should work against their argument.
Aside: I fail to distinguish between the average effective corporate tax rate and the headline rate above. Take that into account and the long term effect on GDP shouldn’t be as great
They're not....and when you add sales taxes into our equation were are not as progressive as you think.
So yes we have the most progressive tax but that is only a portion of our tax system....don't give up yet, you're about to fall into the sweet spot!
Look again at what I wrote in the post you were replying to. The VAT in Germany is over 2X our sales tax. Better yet look at LL’s repost of Captain Midnight’s post comparing the overall tax burden in the USA and European social democracies.
That image was hijacked from the New York Times, not Breitbart. By Captain Midnight, not Lusty Lad or me. So you have to trust it.
Look again at what I wrote in the post you were replying to. The VAT in Germany is over 2X our sales tax. Better yet look at LL’s repost of Captain Midnight’s post comparing the overall tax burden in the USA and European social democracies.
That image was hijacked from the New York Times, not Breitbart. By Captain Midnight, not Lusty Lad or me. So you have to trust it.
Well if we just want to show one picture instead of the whole video , I'll counter with this nugget...
Thus, a lower Gini coefficient reflects a more equal distribution of income. In 2019, the Gini coefficient for the EU was 30.2 %
Aside: I fail to distinguish between the average effective corporate tax rate and the headline rate above. Take that into account and the long term effect on GDP shouldn’t be as great
Please expand on this point fear sir. I do not want to assume your meaning.
Could you start by informing me of the effective corporate tax rate BEFORE tax tax rate reduction?
Tax cuts are expansionary. They act as a stimulus. As such, they make the economy grow faster than it would otherwise. Faster growth yields higher tax revenues. Do you deny all this? The US Treasury is currently enjoying a revenue surge fueled, in part, by the Trump tax cuts. .
Are you saying that stimulus checks do not act as a stimulus? That 6 trillion dumped by Trump and Biden had little to no effect but that this 2017 corporate tax cut is the reason for the current tax revenue surge? Because despite your fucking question mark....that is wtf the title of the thread and your first post sure seemed to be trying to do.
Please expand on this point fear sir. I do not want to assume your meaning.
Could you start by informing me of the effective corporate tax rate BEFORE tax tax rate reduction?
Anywhere from below zero to greater than 100% depending on the corporation and the year. If by "tax rate" you mean the rate for all the taxes they pay (sales tax, property tax, severance tax, federal income tax, state income tax, employment tax, etc.) I imagine it was greater than 50% of pre-tax income for most of the larger corporations in America.
Anywhere from below zero to greater than 100% depending on the corporation and the year. If by "tax rate" you mean the rate for all the taxes they pay (sales tax, property tax, severance tax, federal income tax, state income tax, employment tax, etc.) I imagine it was greater than 50% of pre-tax income for most of the larger corporations in America.
I've brought up income inequality....I think it matters in our overall tax policy.
I've asked you to give me to compare say the EU Gini numbers vs the United States.
I've brought up income inequality....I think it matters in our overall tax policy.
I've asked you to give me to compare say the EU Gini numbers vs the United States.
Oops WTF, it looks like I made a mistake. It looks like the median disposable income per person in the USA is higher than ALL European countries. This is after adjustment for purchasing power. And it's according to the OECD. Please note the OECD's definition of "median disposable income per person" includes all forms of income as well as taxes and transfers in kind from governments for benefits such as healthcare and education.
I guess I screwed up. I was looking at another web site that indicated Luxembourg (small country), Norway (Petrostate), and Switzerland (low tax country like ours) were ahead of us. But the OECD is the definitive source for comparable economic statistics for member countries.
Thank goodness our taxes and government spending are lower than Europe's. A larger private sector is what drives our relative prosperity.
Please note that median is by definition the mid point of the middle class. Fifty percent of people make more than the median and 50% make less.
As to the Gini coefficient, who cares. Most Americans are better off than your average European. That's what counts.
Politicians should look to reduce inequality by improving the lot of the less fortunate, not by taxing the hell out of the better off.
Anywhere from below zero to greater than 100% depending on the corporation and the year. If by "tax rate" you mean the rate for all the taxes they pay (sales tax, property tax, severance tax, federal income tax, state income tax, employment tax, etc.) I imagine it was greater than 50% of pre-tax income for most of the larger corporations in America.
That table with the OECD data surprised me Dilbert. I knew that Luxembourg and Norway were ahead of us in per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power, but I chalked that up to Luxembourg being a tiny state and Norway getting lots of income from oil and gas. It was a real surprise that after transfers and taxes and the like, the middle class in the U.S. is #1. I think a lot of it is because of the high taxes on the middle class in Luxembourg and Norway.
