Tax cuts in Kansas have cost the state money â and job creationâs been terrible Make sure you click the link in the article to the CBPP, read it and understand it before commenting -- that means you people with the republican mind.
These EU countries use a different tax structure altogether, often relying on value added taxes or taxing at the point of sale. The U.S. could cut this country shopping nonsense out altogether by simple adopting a similar tax structure. U.S. corporations are doing what they should do to take advantage of the differences. Here is Switzerland's tax structure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland And here for comparison is Austria's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Austria Income tax, were it exists, in Europe tends to be steeply progressive, whereas the U.S. income tax was revised from steeply progressive to somewhat regressive during the 1980s. Generally speaking, tax structure reflects the relative political power of those taxed, but it is influenced as well by cultural differences.
<iframe src='http://player.theplatform.com/p/2E2eJC/EmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_rundown_brownback_140709' height='500' width='635' scrolling='no' border='no' ></iframe> That website in the video: Traditional Republicans for Common Sense This is Koch country. If their minions can survive the fall elections, then their "let's starve the beast and privatize the public sector" plan may actually work. Or do people actually believe they're lowering taxes to attract businesses from other states?
Why would you want to become more like the EU economically? Makes no sense to me to try to emulate the Eurozone when they've had structural unemployment over there for decades now and a lower median household income.
I'm not proposing anything. Just pointing out why it may be advantageous for a U.S. company to operate from abroad to take advantage of tax structure. If the U.S. wants to compete in terms of corporate taxation, the U.S. might have to revise its tax structure. It is not a matter of the level of total taxation, it i s a matter of the tax structure. The overall direct plus indirect tax rate in the U.S. is similar to the overall tax rate in Europe, once the indirect inflation tax is accounted for, but the sources of tax revenue are quite different, as are the distribution of government expenditure. The Europeans, for example, heavily subsidize ground mass transit, whereas the U.S. more heavily subsidizes highways and air transport. The U.S. subsidizes its defense industry directly via government contracts, paid to a significant extent via indirect taxation through inflation and via foreign aid. Much of U.S. foreign aid comes back to the U.S. in the form of defense contracts. In Europe, on the other hand, total defense expenditures are a tiny fraction of U.S. expenditures, and they instead put their money to work in other sectors of their economies. Industry and agriculture are heavily subsidized both directly and indirectly in both Europe and the U.S. In Europe education is more heavily subsidized by government than in the U.S. This is what I mean by tax structure: similar total taxation but different sources and distribution. I am not saying one is better than the other, not here anyway, because that depends entirely on ones point of view. I have said repeatedly in these forums that there is plenty of money, but it is a matter of what you do with it. I stand by that. It is also easy to see why the tax structure in Europe may be more favorable, or less, from a corporate point of view.
A good idea might be a public discussion board hooked up with the Kansas legislators. Talk this out with the legislators themselves.
The Kansas tax cut provides a nice comparison between State and Federal tax cut consequences. At the State level the process for borrowing is far more cumbersome than at the Federal level, where there is effectively no limit on debt. And states can not control the inflation rate to increase debt amortization via inflation. Kansas could in principle make up their tax-cut-caused revenue short falls via issuing bonds, but this would require voter approval. Furthermore, while they can take advantage of inflation to help amortize debt, they are bystanders in the process. The Federal government can, however, quite effectively and surreptitiously amortize debt via inflation, because they pull the inflation strings. Kansans will either suffer serious cuts in education and State services or have to reverse the cuts. At the Federal level the immediate effect of a tax cut is, of course, exactly the same as at the State level, i.e., a corresponding drop in revenue, but the consequences can be far different. The drop in revenue caused by the cuts can be completely hidden by borrowing in excess of the amount cut followed by spending of the borrowed money, which will result in a overall revenue increase.<sup>*</sup> The new debt can than be amortized by indirect taxation via inflation hiding realty from an innocent and naive public. ____________________________________ <sup>*</sup>The normal pattern for revenue, absent recession and with no change in tax rates, is an increase over time due to economic and population growth, and inflation.
I should also add that the federal government has still another advantage over Kansas when it comes to hiding revenue short falls behind debt and inflation. The government not only pulls the inflation strings, it controls the interest rate.