A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Growth Through Taxes « Back to Story
Showing 8 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
What guess which American Company pays the Highest
This rate is due to the "Global Tax rate".
And Pelosi wanted to add another 5% windfall on top of that.
How much is enough.
Completely missed by this articleis the fact the Fed is paying banks to hold huge reserves.
These reserves are getting taxpayer money for free and are the very reason the banks aren't lending to small businesses. Lend money to startups and small firms that often fail or take free taxpayer money?
Now QE2 will give them yet MORE money to hold and get free money for.
these guys are all the same. They are "talking point" zombies. What does this consist off?
1) make tax cuts permernat. 2) simplify tax codes 3) cut corporate taxes 4) get rid of health care and financial reform because it is creating uncertainty and hurting investment.
the real problem is "LACK OF DEMAND!!! which requires governemnt spending!!
Eakin is a bona fide economist bt is now afull time pimp for right wing money. hence he spouts this stuff.
What a disaster.
So you are suggesting that companies which are doing well despite the recession --- like Apple and Google --- are not investment in future productivity? That will surprise the CFOs at those companies.
Business invest because they think they can make money. If they do not see increased demand it would be folly to invest, no matter if they paid zero tax.
The problem as I see it, from my own experience, is that there is no demand by anyone, consumer or producer. So why invest? Few have confidence, anywhere, in any business; so fussing with tax rates will do nothing. There is plenty of capacity for making just about anything. What's stopping people is that demand has fallen. Period. QED. They'd be happy to pay current taxes because the marginal gain, even after such tax, is vastly higher than zero they get today.
Holtz-Eakin early on engages in a post-hoc fallacy: he testified to Congress, he tells us, that the governmental measures did have a beneficial effect on the economy, and he gave the typical "brought back from the brink" argument. At least in this article he fails to show that one thing (govt action a la Keynes) caused another (beneficial effect).
Makes sense except that no enterprise is going to expand when its consumer customers lack the means and the confidence to buy its products.
I agree with the author that the tax code discourages the reinvestment of corporate foreign earnings in domestic corporate growth. The problem is that Progressives enjoy "punishing" corporations for being profitable, even to the detriment of the domestic economy and domestic employment. Progressives are just not happy if taxes don't make corporations "feel their pain". Therefore, the tax code will never change, will never be sane and will always be in contradiction to the prosperity of this country.
Proponents of the worldwide approach argue that because it doesn’t let American firms enjoy lower taxes when they invest abroad, it gives them no incentive to send jobs overseas. Imagine two Ohio firms, they say: one invests $100 million in Ohio, the other $100 million in Brazil.
That's a fine analysis if you take the premise - that the two companies headquartered in Ohio - as given. But while current tax policy doesn't give companies to invest overseas, it does give companies incentive to relocate overseas. The "Ohio" firm with a factory in Brazil has incentive to relocate and operate under Brazilian law in order to avoid paying both Brazilian and U.S. taxes.