They say the cost will only be passed on to the consumer, but this concept is misleading.
Whenever a BC liberal has brought up the matter of corporate taxes, the BC conservatives almost always point out that corporate taxes do no good at all because the corporations will only pass the cost on to the consumer. Now if taken at face value, that is surely a sensible statement. After all, don't all goods and services have costs that comprise part of the retail price to the consumer? Of course they do! It is for this reason that I didn't argue more strongly for corporate taxes.…
Article comments
126 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Yes...and no. Support those industries that NEED support that are crucial for America's future - like alternative energy. Did you happen to notice that during the State of the Union address, when Obama proposed cutting subsidies to Big Oil and giving them instead to alternative energy companies (like solar panel manufacturers), neither Boehner nor any of the Republicans clapped?
And when it comes to bailing out GM - which is what I suspect you're referring to - they're making a profit now for the first time since 2004, thanks to the LOAN (not subsidy, but LOAN) that our government made to them...which literally saved at least two million jobs.
But I'm sure you disagree since you're of the opinion that government can't do anything right. I guess it's only the governments of OTHER nations that can do things right....
127 - Clavos
Yes...and no. Support those industries that NEED support that are crucial for America's future - like alternative energy.
No. And no. Subsidized alternative energy sources will never be competitive and will only be viable at the taxpayers' expense.
The Wright brothers didn't need subsidies, neither did the early car guys, Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, Alex Bell, -- the list goes on forever.
Emphatically no -- you make exceptions and pretty soon you have a system resembling the tax code.
And I was thinking of the banks.
As you point out, the GM thing was a loan that's not the same as a subsidy, but you also say, they're making a profit now for the first time since 2004, which is true, but they still make crappy cars (can you say Volt?) so it won't last -- then what?
128 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Subsidized alternative energy sources will never be competitive and will only be viable at the taxpayers' expense.
Earlier this year I read something on sciencedaily.com - or maybe it was discovery.com - about how they've finally developed a solar cell that produces electricity more economically than does nuclear power.
And China disagrees with you, too - they're subsidizing solar panel factories big time.
And GM is making crappy cars? Are they? Ford is now making better cars than Toyota...and is GM really that far behind Ford? And do we really want GM to go Tango Uniform when they sell more cars in China than in America? And some of that profit DOES come back to America, you know.
Just some more food for thought.
129 - Clavos
Ford is now making better cars than Toyota...
Ford, of course, is not GM. Their cars are the best American brand, I own one, but as good as Toyota? No. I've had several of those, and Ford gets close, but not "as good as."
And yes, GM is really that far behind Ford, which is why GM needed to be bailed out and Ford didn't.
BTW, the Ford I now own (2010 model) is the first American car I've bought in 30 years. It's also the last, precisely because I've now confirmed for myself once again that the Asian and German cars are better engineered and put together -- even the ones made in the USA.
I don't want GM to go TU unless it deserves to do so and the only way to save it is with taxpayers' money.
Saving commercial enterprises should not be the function of government in any but socialist countries.
130 - Boeke
The US government has been openly subsidizing businesses since the republic was founded, starting with the deep water tall sailing ships that soon came to dominate world trade, cross country railroads, interstate highways, etc., and even including various computer companies whose massive government subsidies and contracts supplied the capital for their massive buildups. Even now the coal industry receives $4billion/yr in US subsidies for "Clean coal", a myth, which money is easily diverted to ordinary uses, while PV gets about $200million.
The US government has ALWAYS been in the business of financing industry, regardless of the boastful claims of "self made men".
What we should do is finance NEW industries, just as those Clipper Ships were in their day, and NOT sunset industries.
131 - Clavos
What we should do is finance NEW industries, just as those Clipper Ships were in their day, and NOT sunset industries.
If the government is to continue its subsidies, then I agree with you, but I would still rather see the government get the hell out of business other than in a regulatory capacity.
132 - Realist
I make more than 74% of Americans according to Census Bureau statistics. I paid the federal government 4.9% of my GROSS income, and I paid the State of California 2.02% of my GROSS income.
BUT I STILL PAID MORE THAN GE DID!
Turn off the crocodile. It's an endangered species, for cripes sake!
133 - D White
I think, generally, you can never get rid of corruption or under the table benefits and companies will control the world, and politicians are just their lackeys. Just like how 5 a day was brought in by Dole which the labour party took up recently afterwards, funny that.
134 - Boeke
131-Clavos: that'll never happen because the capitalists won't let it happen. Capitalists see the government as a proper instrument of capital, useful for raising taxes from the peasantry, and for enforcing property laws against the mob.
"...I would still rather see the government get the hell out of business other than in a regulatory capacity."
135 - Allen Scott
if it were true that America would become stronger if we got rid of all welfare and other entitlements, then there's a lot of third-world countries that SHOULD be first-world countries because they have NO such entitlements or federal aid..
THEY HAVE NO ECONOMIES EITHER.. The best way to end poverty is by creating jobs, the best way to create jobs is to have an ever-expanding economy, the best way to have an ever-expanding economy is to be business friendly and not by slapping onerous regulations (which is a tax) and taxation upon companies making it increasingly harder for these companies to stay in business.
As an example take CALIFORNIA which at one time had a vibrant economy, now they are bankrupt. WHY? Ever increasing taxation and regulation making the business climate unfavorable, businesses moved across state lines into more business friendly states like Texas. The ever expanding public sector also added to the burdens placed on the economy.
Detroit another example of a once vibrant economy turned to crap by socialist progressivism. The list is endless of the damages caused by over taxation and regulation. Of course there are many who refuse to see the obvious and simply think they have not charged enough yet and continue to push for more taxation.
The solution Who is John Galt?
136 - Leroy
135-Allen is wrong. It is NOT business that creates jobs, it is markets. Without market demand not one businessman would hire one employee. Business just gets a free ride by providing a bridge between markets and people.
Our economy in a Demand Drought because consumers don't have enough money and credit. NOT because business is short of money. In fact, USA business is sitting on $2trillion of CASH which they are unwilling to capitalize BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE MARKETS. It is utterly stupid to direct more money at business when it is already unable to implement cash reserves. Utterly stupid. It would just freeze more assets.
That's just cash in business savings. The banks are sitting on another $2trillion.
Sending money to banks or businesses is just like burning up the money.
The way to stimulate the economy is to direct money at the Consumers. Even if that means business and finance taxes.
Even if banks and businesses didn't have all that dormant slack set aside, 80 years of economic measurements indicates that the Economic Multiplier of consumers is several times higher than that of businesses and banks. That is, a dollar to poor consumers results in about $2.5 increase in actual cash flow, whereas a dollar to business is about $0.60 increase in net cash flow.