Corportate income is taxed twice. Corporate level and then at the investor level. Making a case that they should be taxed this way is NOTHING but class envy. And now you are even proposing that twice is not enough. Incredible.
Mike Gravel, a democrat, on corporate tax: <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CdeZAGBV0DE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CdeZAGBV0DE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
dddooo, the point of my premise is that for years democrats have consistently said that if you vote for them, they are going to "create high paying jobs." My question has always been: how are "evil" corporations going to hire more people at higher wages if you're increasing their tax burden. By the way, on a separate note, according to IRS figures, the "rich" already pay about 95% of all Federal income taxes. (I'm surprised you gave a reference to Laffer - being that you usually vote democrat).
The dems never said they were going to create high paying jobs by raising taxes on corporations. Taxation and job creation are two separate issues that you conflated in your original post. They indeed want to create high paying jobs and they are indeed going to tax the rich to balance the budget but these are two unrelated policies completely independent of each other. PS Raising taxes did not prevent the economy from creating 300,000-400,000 high paying jobs every month during the Clinton years, lowering taxes did not help the economy create more than 50,000-100,000 mediocre jobs during the last 5-7 years. The assumption that job creation is dependent on low taxes is based not on facts but on wishful thinking. And btw I agree with you on double taxation but it's irrelevant. Fair or not the money has to come from somewhere, the government still must collect the same revenue to pay the bills. If double taxation is eliminated then the government will have to raise income tax, sales tax or invent new taxes to fill its coffers. Maybe it will not sound as "unfair" as double taxation does but the net result will still be the same.
Specifically, how would democrats "create" any jobs - other than govt jobs? Can anyone define a specific, coherent, plan any democrat has proposed that will do that? I've never heard one. They just speak in a macro sense, so to speak, that they will create high paying jobs for everyone, without specifics - that's what I'm trying to find out. You can't separate the tax issue from job creation - they are intertwined. You can't say to GM: "ok, we're going to tell you what kind of cars to manufacture, we're going to tell you who you can hire, we're going to increase your taxes/regulations, and oh, by the way, we expect you to raise the wages on all your employees and hire additional staff. " Not trying to be facetious about it, just looking for an honest answer to understand their logic. (You can replace GM with any other business/corporation).
Another point that baffles many democrats, is that Gov't revenues have actually INCREASED every time there have been major tax cuts. It sounds illogical, but if you really think about it - it makes perfect sense.
To put things in proper perspective: Corporate Tax Payments Near Record Low This Year http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0302.htm While corporate profits are skyrocketing, corporate tax payments are near record low. Poor corporations, huh? Cry me a river.
Taxes are not the only thing that prevent companies from hiring people. Regulations also do the trick. The point being that there are many things that go into these business decisions and your analysis does not take but one into consideration. It is not valid to overlook everything else and then to say that taxes did no harm. Your analysis uses the same rationale as the min wage argument that says you can raise the wage and it will not effect how many employees will be hired. It doesn't even pass the smell test for honest liberal economists. When you raise costs, the laws of economics dictate that there are consequences. Wouldn't it be nice if it were otherwise, but we have to live with natural laws that exist.
Sure we can. GM does not hire people and does not raise wages when corporate taxes are low. They hire peeope when the business is booming and qualified people are hard to find. And when they need people badly and have trouble finding those people they will be willing to pony up more money regardless of their corporate tax bill. Did I mention that the business must be booming and it is only booming when the consumers (the same GM employees) are doing fine. When they are tapped out as they are today and can't afford a new pontiac, the GM will not hire anyone and will not raise wages even if corporate tax is zero.
And where's your chart showing how much the "rich" are paying? As already stated, they pay 90 to 95% of individual tax burden (while making far less than 90% of income) Something tells me you're not crying over that statistic. Point being, no tax burden will make you liberals cry.