August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad

« Mises as Applied Economist | Main | UFM Presentation of Living Economics: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Very nice and timely video! It seems to me of a much better "cinematographic" quality than the other videos of the same kind, bravo.

But of course taxing corporations is "taxing people." Does not everybody know by now that a corporation IS a person?

Great video!

Clearly attempting to raise taxes on corporations as a means of reducing income inequality is bound to fail. Leveling the playing field through corporate (and individual) tax reform is a far better option.

http://bubblesandbusts.blogspot.com/2012/05/steve-horwitz-how-taxing-corporations.html

Steve,

A nice video.

I would take it one step further. Corporate income taxes fall on either stockholders, employees or other suppliers, and/or customers. Since we know those who bear the incidence of a tax are those least able to avoid it, it won't fall equally among all those within the different groups.

Not all employees bear the incidence equally; it's more likely to fall on those employees with fewer employment opportunities elsewhere, including self-employment. This means that lower skilled and less motivated workers will take on more of the burden of an increase in corporate taxes.

Also, since the ease of moving capital across borders has made doing so less costly, it's the less astute shareholders who will bear the greater burden of a corporate tax increase. The more astute will already have reallocated their portfolios to dodge such increases, which means that again, the greater burden is likely to fall on the lower skilled and less educated investor.

Lastly, we know that if it affects prices, lower income people are more adversely affected since they consume a greater portion of their incomes and have fewer alternatives to avoid the tax.

Short, clean, correct. Well done, Steve.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books