US to have highest corporate tax rate in the world in 30 days

No I quoted in order to demonstrate that your copy and paste has failed. I don't copy and paste; that's your domain as you try and use any random source in support of the land rant

 

No, you're lying. You copied and pasted. There's no question about that. I don't know what copy and paste of mine you imagine has failed, or how you imagine your copy and paste demonstrated it. You're just spewing even more stupid and dishonest crap than usual, and that's saying something.

No, that's a lie. I already proved you copied and pasted, and it's certainly not the first time. I don't know what you imagine you gain by lying about it, or by pretending it's some sort of logical fallacy to copy and paste. What on earth are you even on about?

That's a cretinous lie. I use -- including occasionally copying and pasting from -- sources that state the facts that support my position. If you find that outlandish or intolerable, I can't help it. It strikes me that your objection to copying and pasting supporting evidence is borderline autistic.

 

No, you lie, evade, ignore, ridicule, lie, dismiss, sneer, lie, bloviate and lie.

Huh? I copied and pasted a url. So? What on earth are you on about?

No, you are just lying. As usual. You asked for a journal reference, I gave you one. As always, you then contrived some sort of pretext for dismissing it.

No, your problem is that I provided the reference to a peer-reviewed journal you demanded, and now you have to dance and lie and sneer and lie and ignore and lie and dismiss and lie and bloviate and lie to evade that fact.

No, you're lying again, Reiver. The article mentions, briefly, microeconomics textbooks but it is certainly not primarily concerned with them. It identifies a number of facts of economics that prove you flat, outright wrong about land value taxation. I invite all readers to read the article (it's not very long) and verify for themselves that Reiver is lying, as usual, in order to prevent readers of this forum from learning the relevant facts about taxation. Here's the url again:

http://econjwatch.org/articles/geo-r...lic-economists

 

Again I managed to use your reference against you. You've blindly copied and pasted, thinking you were on a winner with the title. You didn't realise it was a general sneer at microeconomic textbooks and made, in terms of your argument, irrelevant remarks over a perfectly competitive utopia. That you didn't realise that it was providing a rather shallow reference to the theory of the firm, with more aggressive attacks derived through institutionalism and pluralism in economics education, described the severity of your blind copy and paste approach.

You keep showing yourself up!

 

Thank you for agreeing that you lied again.

You've lied like a lying fool.

You asked for a reference, and I provided one. No amount of dancing and bloviating can delete that fact.

Of all the people in the world, there is exactly one who can NEVER accuse others of sneering without making himself the prize hypocrite of all time. That person is you.

Lie.

No one could ever accuse you of responsiveness.

I keep proving you are a waste of electricity.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/corporate-tax-revenues-ne_n_830361.html

This article is about a year old, but it talks about what the effective corporate tax rate is compared to the standard number you see in the news.

 

this fits me to a T. When I came to the Bay Area at the height of the dot com craziness, I found it very odd that land owners were parasitically profiting like crazy from the mere happenstance of owning the scarce leasehold residential housing in the area (rents were going up 30%+ a year).

But my socio-political education at the time only had a left/right, that land was capital and capitalism was good.

But in late 2002 I discovered the Georgist/Geolibertarian argument and the scales fell from my eyes. Later, Gaffney's Corruption of Economics gave me the historical account of what had actually happened to economics over the past 100+ years plus to make it so deceptive.

Steve Keen's book is also useful here, in demonstrating that the neoclassical school is just full of it on important questions.

 

Welcome to the exclusive company of those who see the cat. Keen is very good, but he hasn't seen it yet.

 

This actually is not true.

Business expenses, no matter if taxes or other stuff, can only be passed on to the consumer in higher pricing to the point that the competitive market prices will allow...and this is not very much!

US companies compete in a global marketplace. If both imported and domestic products are selling for $5 each, and the domestic product manufacturers need to 'pass' higher taxation to the consumer and charge $6 each, their sales will decline and imports will increase.

Companies CANNOT simply increase their prices...

 

All the political talk about taxation, like suck more money from the wealthy, or more from corporations, or less from certain other groups, etc. never debates the cause and effects of these actions.

Someone can provide more accurate data if they believe something different, but I'm guessing the average net profit margin of US companies is around 5%. So...what happens if corporate taxation is increased by 3%? Obviously the 5% net profit margin will fall. Less income means more problems sustaining the company. Now...the reason the average profit margins are not 10% is because these companies cannot arbitrarily increase their product/service pricing because of market competition. This leads me to believe that we must respect the 5% net profit margin number! So if we increase corporate taxation, what will be the effects of doing this? IMO, for a few very healthy companies it will be no big deal, but for 'most' companies, it applies pressure to compete, to reduce expenses, to reduce labor, etc.

It is really stupid to beg private industry to create more jobs, and more higher paying jobs, and less outsourcing, then in parallel increase corporate taxation or any additional expenses caused by government policy...