Fuck its silent in here.......

[R-V]

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ.

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

Working papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

First - I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. I don't know if it would ever be possible to trace the exact incidence of the corporate rate. I was simply pointing out that the WSJ's offhand assumption - that the corporate income tax is 'mostly' borne by capital - is not settled fact. And that assumption is used as the basis for the entire piece quoted.

Second - yes, lower the corporate rate, as I think I have said here before. Or even abolish it altogether. And increase individual rates. Corporations are (usually) rational and would respond to a lower rate by doing more business in the US. Except for you, TJ, and Ayn Rand, individuals are not rational and will not respond to a 5% increase in their highest marginal rate by picking up their shit and moving to a country with a lower tax rate.

[R-V]

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ.

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

So... lower the corporate rate then?

[ rewinds clusterfuck ]

I'm in favor of a much lower corporate tax rate...if the tradeoff is we increase individual tax rates as an offset so total revenue remains the same. Corporations don't pay tax anyway; people pay tax. Might as well cut out the middleman. And morph is right that a lower corporate tax rate would discourage offshoring and encourage repatriation of capital (and jobs). Permanently lowering the corporate rate is a much better idea than these every-so-often repatriation holidays which totally screw up incentives.

Thrill gets a Kudos bar for backing up my gut feeling with HARD EVIDENCE.

[Brownie]

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ.

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

Working papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

First - I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. I don't know if it would ever be possible to trace the exact incidence of the corporate rate. I was simply pointing out that the WSJ's offhand assumption - that the corporate income tax is 'mostly' borne by capital - is not settled fact. And that assumption is used as the basis for the entire piece quoted.

Second - yes, lower the corporate rate, as I think I have said here before. Or even abolish it altogether. And increase individual rates. Corporations are (usually) rational and would respond to a lower rate by doing more business in the US. Except for you, TJ, and Ayn Rand, individuals are not rational and will not respond to a 5% increase in their highest marginal rate by picking up their shit and moving to a country with a lower tax rate.

We're really not as far apart as you think. I would support a reformed income tax system that eliminates most deductions and while lowers the marginal rates ultimately increases effective individual rates.

I think individuals are more rational than you think, R-V. People relocate, if possible, to places where their opportunities are greatest. For example, I don't think the immigration we're seeing now of Mexican immigrants to places that never before had a lot of Mexican immigration is not because people in Guadalajara had this romantic notion of living in Wichita. It just happens that they can't make any money in Mexico and the meager jobs available in Wichita offer more than what's in Mexico. It also explains why residents of Hong Kong fled en masse to other Commonwealth locales like Vancouver prior to the handover to the Chinese.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

backing up my gut feeling with HARD EVIDENCE.

Pause.

[R-V]

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ.

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

Working papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

First - I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. I don't know if it would ever be possible to trace the exact incidence of the corporate rate. I was simply pointing out that the WSJ's offhand assumption - that the corporate income tax is 'mostly' borne by capital - is not settled fact. And that assumption is used as the basis for the entire piece quoted.

Second - yes, lower the corporate rate, as I think I have said here before. Or even abolish it altogether. And increase individual rates. Corporations are (usually) rational and would respond to a lower rate by doing more business in the US. Except for you, TJ, and Ayn Rand, individuals are not rational and will not respond to a 5% increase in their highest marginal rate by picking up their shit and moving to a country with a lower tax rate.

We're really not as far apart as you think. I would support a reformed income tax system that eliminates most deductions and while lowers the marginal rates ultimately increases effective individual rates.

I think individuals are more rational than you think, R-V. People relocate, if possible, to places where their opportunities are greatest. For example, I don't think the immigration we're seeing now of Mexican immigrants to places that never before had a lot of Mexican immigration is not because people in Guadalajara had this romantic notion of living in Wichita. It just happens that they can't make any money in Mexico and the meager jobs available in Wichita offer more than what's in Mexico. It also explains why residents of Hong Kong fled en masse to other Commonwealth locales like Vancouver prior to the handover to the Chinese.

I'm talking about deciding where to live based on tax rates. Of course people will gravitate towards where the financial opportunities are - but marginal tax rates, unless they're completely confiscatory, don't drive decisions made by individuals when choosing which country to live in. They're on the list somewhere, but they're overshadowed by things like income opportunities, number of Chili's, if you can buy beer before 11 a.m. on a Sunday, and whether or not the dildo shops stay open past midnight.

[morpheus]

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ.

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

Working papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

First - I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. I don't know if it would ever be possible to trace the exact incidence of the corporate rate. I was simply pointing out that the WSJ's offhand assumption - that the corporate income tax is 'mostly' borne by capital - is not settled fact. And that assumption is used as the basis for the entire piece quoted.

Second - yes, lower the corporate rate, as I think I have said here before. Or even abolish it altogether. And increase individual rates. Corporations are (usually) rational and would respond to a lower rate by doing more business in the US. Except for you, TJ, and Ayn Rand, individuals are not rational and will not respond to a 5% increase in their highest marginal rate by picking up their shit and moving to a country with a lower tax rate.

We're really not as far apart as you think. I would support a reformed income tax system that eliminates most deductions and while lowers the marginal rates ultimately increases effective individual rates.

I think individuals are more rational than you think, R-V. People relocate, if possible, to places where their opportunities are greatest. For example, I don't think the immigration we're seeing now of Mexican immigrants to places that never before had a lot of Mexican immigration is not because people in Guadalajara had this romantic notion of living in Wichita. It just happens that they can't make any money in Mexico and the meager jobs available in Wichita offer more than what's in Mexico. It also explains why residents of Hong Kong fled en masse to other Commonwealth locales like Vancouver prior to the handover to the Chinese.

I'm talking about deciding where to live based on tax rates. Of course people will gravitate towards where the financial opportunities are - but marginal tax rates, unless they're completely confiscatory, don't drive decisions made by individuals when choosing which country to live in. They're on the list somewhere, but they're overshadowed by things like income opportunities, number of Chili's, if you can buy beer before 11 a.m. on a Sunday, and whether or not the dildo shops stay open past midnight.

In a remarkable coincidence, that's RV's list of "City vs. Suburbs" criteria.  The dildo shop density of the city is unmatched.

[morpheus]

DPD.  While the "true burden" of corporate taxes is shared, I think that we can all agree that calculation of the effective income tax rate on an individual, using IRS stats, without at least attempting to take into account the effect of corporate tax is misleading at best.  High income earners tend to earn a fair bit from capital gains and dividends, all of which have already been taxed at the corporate level, but are lower than ordinary income rates (that is, as long as the Bush tax regime remains in effect).  So, saying "the top 400 income earners paid an effective tax rate of 18.1%" while omitting the corporate income tax effect is not a very strong statement.  This number is not very comparable to someone else's, when that someone else earns 100% of their income as ordinary income.

I think this is the point of Brownie (and Moore)'s statements.

[Brownie]

Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.

This offhand assumption is the basis for the entire piece. But there's plenty of debate on whether this is actually the case.

The CBO disagrees with the WSJ.

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares
that are reasonable for the U.S. economy.  Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly
more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  The domestic owners of capital
bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden.

It's not the CBO, it's one guy who happened to work for the CBO.

Working papers in this series are preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. These papers are not subject to CBO's formal review and editing processes. The analysis and conclusions expressed in them are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. References in publications should be cleared with the authors. Papers in this series can be obtained at www.cbo.gov (select Publications and then Working Papers).

The larger conclusions of the paper seem to argue for the elimination of a corporate tax, or at least replacing it with a more efficient tax.  On another note, there are plenty of economists who don't buy the results.  Gravelle and Smetters find that most of the burden falls on capital, not labor. 

If you agree with Randolph's conclusions, are you then ready to call for a cut or even abolishing the unfair corporate tax which punishes labor at the expense of capital?

Addendum: Brownie and I came to the same final question.

First - I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions. I don't know if it would ever be possible to trace the exact incidence of the corporate rate. I was simply pointing out that the WSJ's offhand assumption - that the corporate income tax is 'mostly' borne by capital - is not settled fact. And that assumption is used as the basis for the entire piece quoted.

Second - yes, lower the corporate rate, as I think I have said here before. Or even abolish it altogether. And increase individual rates. Corporations are (usually) rational and would respond to a lower rate by doing more business in the US. Except for you, TJ, and Ayn Rand, individuals are not rational and will not respond to a 5% increase in their highest marginal rate by picking up their shit and moving to a country with a lower tax rate.

We're really not as far apart as you think. I would support a reformed income tax system that eliminates most deductions and while lowers the marginal rates ultimately increases effective individual rates.

I think individuals are more rational than you think, R-V. People relocate, if possible, to places where their opportunities are greatest. For example, I don't think the immigration we're seeing now of Mexican immigrants to places that never before had a lot of Mexican immigration is not because people in Guadalajara had this romantic notion of living in Wichita. It just happens that they can't make any money in Mexico and the meager jobs available in Wichita offer more than what's in Mexico. It also explains why residents of Hong Kong fled en masse to other Commonwealth locales like Vancouver prior to the handover to the Chinese.

I'm talking about deciding where to live based on tax rates. Of course people will gravitate towards where the financial opportunities are - but marginal tax rates, unless they're completely confiscatory, don't drive decisions made by individuals when choosing which country to live in. They're on the list somewhere, but they're overshadowed by things like income opportunities, number of Chili's, if you can buy beer before 11 a.m. on a Sunday, and whether or not the dildo shops stay open past midnight.

We're much closer in thinking than you (or I or Morph) might care to admit.

[Gilgamesh]

Truth to power?  Or just being a dick?  YOU DECIDE!!

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Truth to power?  Or just being a dick?  YOU DECIDE!!

Whatever your political affiliation, I think we call agree that attempting to get to the bottom of the question of whether or not Joe Biden may have once said something impertinent in a private meeting (or possible simply agreed with something impertinent that someone else said) clearly demonstrates a strong willingness on this gentleman's part to negotiate the deep political divide in this country without going after the other side.

And I know that if I had been at that town hall I would have personally thanked him for climbing up above the fray to ask the question that's keeping all of America up at night in these tough economic times.

Somewhat relatedly, any wagers on who Comar voted for in the straw poll?

[Slaky]

Truth to power?  Or just being a dick?  YOU DECIDE!!

Whatever your political affiliation, I think we call agree that attempting to get to the bottom of the question of whether or not Joe Biden may have once said something impertinent in a private meeting (or possible simply agreed with something impertinent that someone else said) clearly demonstrates a strong willingness on this gentleman's part to negotiate the deep political divide in this country without going after the other side.

And I know that if I had been at that town hall I would have personally thanked him for climbing up above the fray to ask the question that's keeping all of America up at night in these tough economic times.

Somewhat relatedly, any wagers on who Comar voted for in the straw poll?

He's been rotting in his garage for months.

[Gilgamesh]

Mitt Romney is getting confused out there.

"I'm not for tax cuts for the rich. The rich can take care of themselves. I want to get America working again. And so I want to make sure that whatever we do in the tax code, we're not giving a windfall to the very wealthy."

-- Mitt Romney, quoted yesterday by the Concord Monitor.

"I do want to keep the Bush tax cuts in place."

-- Romney, quoted yesterday by the Boston Globe.

[Eli]

Probably better suited for the On-Hoops thread, but no one reads that, so I'm putting it here.

Barack Obama Ruined Rajon Rondo's Jump Shot

In early March some of the guys went to the museum of Fine Arts for a fund-raiser and got to hang with President Barack Obama. Everyone was a little bit in awe. The President turns to Ray [Allen], points at Rondo, and says, "Hey, Ray, why don't you teach this kid how to shoot?" Everyone starts laughing.

KG told me he saw the look on Rondo's face and the kid was devastated, embarrassed. Dissed by the President, even though I'm sure Obama didn't mean any harm. Rondo smiled and went along with all of it, but KG told me he could see it in his eyes. It bothered Rondo. It killed him.

The next day Rondo shot the ball horribly. He stopped taking shots after that. He's so sensitive. I think it was a real jolt to hear the outside perception of a basketball fan who happens to be the President of the United States. It messed with his mind. I'm sure of it.

Fantastic.

[R-V]

And the healthcare law continues to chip away at our freedoms.

Consumers shopping for health insurance will soon get a peek at a new standard form—akin to the nutrition label on food products—that will lay out the details of each policy, from deductibles to how much it might cost to have a baby.

The summary form has often been compared to the food-nutrition label, though it is substantially longer, and at six pages the draft offers considerable detail. For instance, it would not only tell consumers their overall deductibles, or the amount they must pay before coverage kicks in, but would also explain deductibles for specific categories, such as drug coverage. In addition to flagging the limit on a consumer's out-of-pocket expenses, the form would lay out which expenses don't count toward that limit.

If this kind of unconstitutional claptrap continues I'll be forced to go Galt to Peter Thiel's Floating Randian Utopia.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

If this kind of unconstitutional claptrap continues I'll be forced to go Galt to Peter Thiel's Floating Randian Utopia.

Look at those poor saps back on land with their laws and ethics! They'll never know the simple joys of a monkey knife fight.