Seriously, what's wrong with reducing the corporate tax rate to 15% (or less)?

[BoberFett]

It's the lack of wages, clearly. Even with more & more women working, median family income is decoupled from GDP-

http://lanekenworthy.net/2012/03/11/is-decoupling-real/

It is now. Was it in the 60s? What prompted women to go to work? Need or desire?

I thought that according to Democrats, mid-20th century was the peak of fairness in wages, and it wasn't until the 80s and the rise of the modern Republican party that the destruction of the middle class started. So if things were wonderful until the Republicans fucked things up, why did women start flocking to the workplace 20 years prior?

 

[nehalem256]

It's the lack of wages, clearly. Even with more & more women working, median family income is decoupled from GDP-

http://lanekenworthy.net/2012/03/11/is-decoupling-real/

Except your own graph shows the decoupling happening around 1980, whereas women started moving into the labor force in more like 1965. :hmm:

 

[werepossum]

Except your own graph shows the decoupling happening around 1980, whereas women started moving into the labor force in more like 1965. :hmm:

When we really began embracing free trade and dismantling our tariff system - which was originally a major source of federal government funding.

To paraphrase an old debate about whether to make or buy railroad rails: If we buy the rails, we'll have the rails and they'll have the money. If we do not buy the rails, we'll have the money but not the rails. But if we build the rails, we'll have the rails AND the money.

 

[nehalem256]

When we really began embracing free trade and dismantling our tariff system - which was originally a major source of federal government funding.

So we flooded the labor force with new workers, starting outsourcing, and expanded the use of automation. What is the logical outcome of this? :hmm:

 

[werepossum]

So we flooded the labor force with new workers, starting outsourcing, and expanded the use of automation. What is the logical outcome of this? :hmm:

Exactly what happened. I'm not a conspiracy theorist though; I think people who were in favor of free trade honestly thought it was best for the country.

 

[Jhhnn]

Except your own graph shows the decoupling happening around 1980, whereas women started moving into the labor force in more like 1965. :hmm:

No- the lines cross circa 1972, which is consistent with this-

 

[cybrsage]

It is now. Was it in the 60s? What prompted women to go to work? Need or desire?

It started during WW2 when such a huge number of men were out fighting a major war. Women were needed in the workforce.

 

[a777pilot]

Corporate taxes on profits/income ought be zero.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Exactly what happened. I'm not a conspiracy theorist though; I think people who were in favor of free trade honestly thought it was best for the country.

The people who voted for the people who were in favor of free trade, trusted that their representatives were doing what was best for the country.

I don't so much know about a 'conspiracy' because I think it was pretty open: Large companies knew free trade would allow them to find efficiencies and lower labour rates.

Whether they expected it to work out that way to the degree that it actually has is unknown.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Corporate taxes on profits/income ought be zero.

Sounds perfect. And we say good bye to the myth of 'corporate personhood' while we're at it? And no more company lunches, either

Do you know why the their are so many taxes, instead of one big one that says "40%"? After all, "there is only one taxpayer", so why nickel and dime him/her instead of taking it all upfront and being done with it?

The answer is very simple, and it explains why Corporate taxes on profits/income in the real world should not be zero.

 

[cybrsage]

Sounds perfect. And we say good bye to the myth of 'corporate personhood' while we're at it? And no more company lunches, either

You want US Personhood removed from all non-living entities?

 

[Anarchist420]

When we really began embracing free trade and dismantling our tariff system - which was originally a major source of federal government funding. To paraphrase an old debate about whether to make or buy railroad rails: If we buy the rails, we'll have the rails and they'll have the money. If we do not buy the rails, we'll have the money but not the rails. But if we build the rails, we'll have the rails AND the money.

There is the question of... would those rails be any good if their makers are protected by the government? In addition to that, protectionism can cause improper use of raw materials. Protectionism could cause them to be used up too hastily.

I will say that low tariffs aren't as bad as the current tax system, but I wouldn't want tariffs any higher than 6.25% (as the government determines the value in addition to the rate) and I definitely hate quotas.

I don't think import taxes on non-American goods would benefit the American worker or the average American consumer... look at Big Pharma and Big Sugar.

 

[nehalem256]

No- the lines cross circa 1972, which is consistent with this-

Your graph shows a clear upward trend in women's labor force participation from 1948 until ~1990.

Your decouplinglines also appear to cross in the early 1950s. I do no think you can say their was any meaningful decoupling until the late 1970s. The 78-79ish(you need a bigger graph to tell) would seem to be a fair time to state for the decoupling.

In fact your own link agrees with my analysis.

From the late 1940s through the mid-to-late 1970s, the two moved in lockstep.

http://lanekenworthy.net/2012/03/11/is-decoupling-real/

 

[Jhhnn]

Your graph shows a clear upward trend in women's labor force participation from 1948 until ~1990.

Your decouplinglines also appear to cross in the early 1950s. I do no think you can say their was any meaningful decoupling until the late 1970s. The 78-79ish(you need a bigger graph to tell) would seem to be a fair time to state for the decoupling.

In fact your own link agrees with my analysis.



http://lanekenworthy.net/2012/03/11/is-decoupling-real/

So, uhh, women entering the workforce was a big part of the reason that median family income kept up at all during the postwar period, right? And decoupling got stronger from the Reagan era forward, right? That wages have not kept up with GDP?

The slope of the GDP line is constant, while the slope of the income line flattens in the mid to late 70's, as Kenworthy offers.

Decoupling in the early 1950's is so small as to indicate that your mention of it is a red herring, btw. No trend resulted because of it, that's for sure.

 

[nehalem256]

So, uhh, women entering the workforce was a big part of the reason that median family income kept up at all during the postwar period, right? And decoupling got stronger from the Reagan era forward, right? That wages have not kept up with GDP?

The slope of the GDP line is constant, while the slope of the income line flattens in the mid to late 70's, as Kenworthy offers.

Decoupling in the early 1950's is so small as to indicate that your mention of it is a red herring, btw. No trend resulted because of it, that's for sure.

You have no evidence for the first statement. We have no knowledge as to why women were entering the workforce, perhaps delayed marriage, or working before marriage, or even what their jobs(wages) were. We do know that the labor force participation rate was unchanged.

Wages have not kept up with inflation due to the labor bubble. It is simple economics.

mid to late 70's is not 1972 as you offered. I suggested the peak in 78-79ish, which would be late 70's. It appears that the income line flattened very soon after the overall labor force participation rate increased. Which would be consistent with the labor force participation rate increase causing the decoupling.

 

[a777pilot]

Sounds perfect. And we say good bye to the myth of 'corporate personhood' while we're at it? And no more company lunches, either

Do you know why the their are so many taxes, instead of one big one that says "40%"? After all, "there is only one taxpayer", so why nickel and dime him/her instead of taking it all upfront and being done with it? Who is that one taxpayer?

The answer is very simple, and it explains why Corporate taxes on profits/income in the real world should not be zero.

All entities that spend money ought pay a sales/consumption/transfer tax at the time of the money/wealth changing hands.

If a corporation wishes to pay a CEO $10 million per year, so what? Just so long as that corporation pays the tax on that $10 million as it it paid.

If a person or a company wishes to buy another company for say $7 billion, so what? Just so long as the tax on that sale is paid.

If you want to buy $2 billion in XYZ Inc. common stock, who cares? Just so long as the tax on that purchase is paid.

If you want to buy a house or a SUV, again, who cares? Just so long as the tax is paid.

If a person wants to buy food, clothes or see the doctor, who cares? Just pay the tax.

ax sales/consumption/transfer of wealth.......NOT profits or income. Also, don't tax on an annual basis private real property.

 

[a777pilot]

You have no evidence for the first statement. We have no knowledge as to why women were entering the workforce, perhaps delayed marriage, or working before marriage, or even what their jobs(wages) were. We do know that the labor force participation rate was unchanged.

Wages have not kept up with inflation due to the labor bubble. It is simple economics.

mid to late 70's is not 1972 as you offered. I suggested the peak in 78-79ish, which would be late 70's. It appears that the income line flattened very soon after the overall labor force participation rate increased. Which would be consistent with the labor force participation rate increase causing the decoupling.

This peak labor force is interesting but what do you think might have contributed to the great increase in women entering the labor force?

I'll give you a hint......

I opine it is the very same thing that was the impetuous to the civil rights movement.

 

[Jhhnn]

You have no evidence for the first statement. We have no knowledge as to why women were entering the workforce, perhaps delayed marriage, or working before marriage, or even what their jobs(wages) were. We do know that the labor force participation rate was unchanged.

Wages have not kept up with inflation due to the labor bubble. It is simple economics.

mid to late 70's is not 1972 as you offered. I suggested the peak in 78-79ish, which would be late 70's. It appears that the income line flattened very soon after the overall labor force participation rate increased. Which would be consistent with the labor force participation rate increase causing the decoupling.

gobbledegook. First you offer that there was a clear trend in women entering the workforce from 1948 forward, then offer that the decoupling of the 70's forward was a result of that, when it didn't result in the same thing earlier. Can't have it both ways.

It doesn't matter why women entered the workforce to say that their doing so helped median family incomes keep up prior to decoupling.

 

[3chordcharlie]

All entities that spend money ought pay a sales/consumption/transfer tax at the time of the money/wealth changing hands.

If a corporation wishes to pay a CEO $10 million per year, so what? Just so long as that corporation pays the tax on that $10 million as it it paid.

If a person or a company wishes to buy another company for say $7 billion, so what? Just so long as the tax on that sale is paid.

If you want to buy $2 billion in XYZ Inc. common stock, who cares? Just so long as the tax on that purchase is paid.

If you want to buy a house or a SUV, again, who cares? Just so long as the tax is paid.

If a person wants to buy food, clothes or see the doctor, who cares? Just pay the tax.

ax sales/consumption/transfer of wealth.......NOT profits or income. Also, don't tax on an annual basis private real property.

If you only tax consumption, your economy will move underground.

There's already a 'grey market' which avoids only some taxes. Imagine if paying cash / no receipt meant you didn't pay any tax at all.

 

[nehalem256]

gobbledegook. First you offer that there was a clear trend in women entering the workforce from 1948 forward, then offer that the decoupling of the 70's forward was a result of that, when it didn't result in the same thing earlier. Can't have it both ways.

It doesn't matter why women entered the workforce to say that their doing so helped median family incomes keep up prior to decoupling.

I said the labor force participation rate increased starting in the late 60s. Then shortly thereafter wages started to decrease.

It didnt result in decoupling earlier because the labor force particpation rate didnt increase. Presumably men were dropping out.

 

[nehalem256]

If you only tax consumption, your economy will move underground.

There's already a 'grey market' which avoids only some taxes. Imagine if paying cash / no receipt meant you didn't pay any tax at all.

Tax consumption is the stupidest idea ever. It is just a way to screw the middle-class.

Rich people will save/invest a large amount of their money.

Poor will recieve rebates from the government.

Who gets screwed? :hmm:

 

[Budarow2]

Why do you want them to be taxed at a rate you would never want to pay?

The people with most of the money need to support the system that provided a means for their gains. The system now allows executives/board members to get filthy rich while their very companies go bankrupt (from the very choices the executives and boards make) along with their country. Pay more taxes now....or enjoy the demise of a civil society later.

 

[cybrsage]

If you only tax consumption, your economy will move underground.

There's already a 'grey market' which avoids only some taxes. Imagine if paying cash / no receipt meant you didn't pay any tax at all.

Good luck on that. Cars, food, electricity, gas, on and on. Almost all items you buy on a regular basis cannot move "underground".

 

[cybrsage]

Tax consumption is the stupidest idea ever. It is just a way to screw the middle-class.

Rich people will save/invest a large amount of their money.

Poor will recieve rebates from the government.

Who gets screwed? :hmm:

The rich will no longer buy their big houses, exotic cars, fine foods, and nice clothing? They will start living like the poor?

 

[Anarchist420]

Good luck on that. Cars, food, electricity, gas, on and on. Almost all items you buy on a regular basis cannot move "underground".

If there was a general 50% consumption tax, then I'm sure people would find a way to get out of some of it. The state can be outsmarted in many cases no matter what it does.