Wouldn’t Obama’s plan to raise corporate taxes result in higher prices and more unemployment? ?
At http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2686, Economist Walter Williams discusses the subject called the "incidence of taxation," and indicates corporations either push higher taxes onto consumers in the form of higher prices or cut back on prouduction costs (laying off employees and possibly even going out of business).
At http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGYxYWM4NjkxMjUwMzBhZDAwNTg2NjZmYmU5MWU2ZmQ=,Larry Kudlow, Economics Editor for the National Review wrote:
"The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.
Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he’s also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.
Doesn’t Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn’t he understand that without capital, businesses can’t expand their operations and hire more workers?
Dan Henninger, writing in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama’s is a profoundly pessimistic message. “Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar,” writes Henninger. “It’s a downer.”
Obama wants you to believe that America is in trouble, and that it can only be cured with a big lurch to the left. Take from the rich and give to the non-rich. Redistribute income and wealth. It’s an age-old recipe for economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses, and investors. You can’t have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors. This will only harm, and not advance, opportunities for middle-class workers.
Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade, and regulation, Obama’s program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years."
Related posts:
- Can I be PRO-roads AND ANTI-Obama policies? I asked if some on the Left thought wealth was...
- Who Believes Obama is the Anti-Crist? There are many posts on here from persons I’m convinced...
- I am anti-everything, what is wrong with me? I recently noticed I hate nearly everything. What the hell...
- Don’t Go For The Prices The first thing that I need to share with...
- Is religiosity in correlation with intelligence (analytical, emotional, etc.)? According to the following articles, the more a person is...
YES. Kudlow is right. The ultimate source of taxes is the consumer – us!
No the opposite.
McCain’s plan would result in higher prices and unemployment. How do I know? Because he has the same plan Bush did. And just look at the last 8 years.
Two mistakes above. First, Obama is no longer proposing an increase in capital gains tax rates from 15% to 28%. Instead, he is proposing an increase to 20%.
Second, Obama is not proposing to increase corporate tax rates. He’s only proposing an increasing in the LTCG rate by 5% and a slight increase in the individual rates for taxpayers making more than $250,000/year. Corporations are taxed separately from their shareholders.
Unlike Larry Kudlow, The non-profit Tax Policy Center is non-partisan. And here’s what they concluded about the two candidates’ plans:
If enacted, the Obama and McCain tax plans would have radically different effects on the distribution of tax burdens in the United States. The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners. The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive, even compared with a system in which the 2001–06 tax cuts are made permanent. It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution.