Derek Lowe on an interesting new breakthrough.
I’ve been saying this for years as well:
corporations don’t pay taxes — they collect them. Any taxes are actually paid by customers (higher prices), employees (lower wages), shareholders (smaller returns), etc. The ideal corporate tax rate is therefore zero, but politically that would never fly. Instead we have a tangled mess of corporate tax law, which benefits large corporations with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists. Small corporations which can’t afford all that are put at a competitive disadvantage, not to mention sole proprietorships which pay through the nose on everything.
But since we can’t get an ideal corporate tax rate, a flat and transparent corporate tax would be the next best thing. Our current system is the worst of all possible worlds: It diverts resources and manpower away from investment and innovation, and stifles entrepreneurs to the benefit of established interests.
On the other hand, our system creates endless possibilities for corruption and graft. So it has that going for it. Which is nice for Washington.
One other point: People are saying that most of the benefits of the tax bill go to the upper percentage. Ignoring the fact that you can’t cut taxes without cutting them on the people who pay the most taxes, cutting corporate taxes in fact effectively reduces indirect tax costs for all the people above, who are in all income brackets (particularly the employees and customers). As I wrote years ago, we can’t cut taxes, we can only cut (or increase) tax rates.
In other words, what we’ve come to expect from government climate reports.
Oops, Naomi Oreske caught with biased numbers on “Exxon knew.”
Gee, it’s almost as thought they have a political agenda.
What life might be like on it.
Not sure this was the 21st century I was looking forward to.
This isn’t a new piece, but nothing has changed, and it seems appropriate to relink in light of the current discussion in DC.
Chad Orzel asks, what is the greatest one?
A useful primer on the cryptoeconomy, which will have tax collecters and regulators quaking in their jackboots.
Are they overstating global warming?
Funny thing, they never seem to understate it.
Is it legitimate?
…may be happening more slowly than the models predicted.
You don’t say. But those of us who were appropriately skeptical about the models at the time were called “deniers” and worse.
[via Iain Murray]
[Update a few minutes later]
Tim Ball: Climate models can’t even approximate reality. The hubris of these people who think they can model climate with any confidence whatsoever is astounding.