creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Walter Williams
Walter E. Williams
23 May 2012
Should Black People Tolerate This?

Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person.… Read More.

16 May 2012
Should We Obey All Laws?

Let's think about whether all acts of Congress deserve our respect and obedience. Suppose Congress enacted a … Read More.

9 May 2012
Leftist Race-baiters

MSNBC's Chris Matthews, in a recent debate with former Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, called … Read More.

Ignorance Exploited

Share Comment

Many Wall Street occupiers are echoing the Communist Party USA's call to "Save the nation! Tax corporations! Tax the rich!" There are other Americans, on both the left and the right — for example, President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner — who call for reductions in corporate taxes. But the University of California, Berkeley's pretend economist Robert Reich disagrees, saying, "The economy needs two whopping corporate tax cuts right now as much as someone with a serious heart condition needs Botox." Let's look at corporate taxes and ask, "Who pays them?"

Virginia has a car tax. Does the car pay the tax? In most political jurisdictions, there's a property tax. Does property pay the tax? You say: "Williams, that's lunacy. Neither a car nor property pays taxes. Only flesh-and-blood people pay taxes!" What about a corporation? As it turns out, a corporation is an artificial creation of the legal system and, as such, a legal fiction. A corporation is not a person and therefore cannot pay taxes. When tax is levied on a corporation, who pays it?

There's an entire subject area in economics, known as tax incidence, that investigates who bears the burden of a tax. It turns out that the burden of a tax is not necessarily borne by the party or entity upon whom it is levied. For example, if a sales tax is levied on a cigarette retailer, the retailer does not bear the full burden of the tax. Part of it will be shifted forward to customers in the form of higher product prices. The exact amount of the shifting depends upon market supply and demand conditions.

What about raising taxes on corporations as a means to get them to pay their "rightful share of government"? If a tax is levied on a corporation and if it is to survive, it will have one of several responses or some combination thereof. One response is to raise the price of its product, so customers share part of the burden.

Another response is to lower dividends, so shareholders share a part of the burden. And a considerable portion of reduced dividend burden falls on ordinary non-rich people. According to the Tax Foundation, 19 percent of federal tax returns report dividend income but 42 percent of taxpayers older than 65 report dividend income. Therefore, it is people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, who bear the burden of the tax. Because corporations have these responses to the imposition of a tax, they are merely government tax collectors.

The largest burden of corporate taxes is borne by workers. We discover that by asking a simple question, such as: Which workers on a road construction project earn the higher pay, those employed moving dirt with shovels and wheelbarrows or those doing the same atop giant earthmovers? You'd guess the guys operating the earthmovers, but why? It's not because they're unionized or because construction contractors have a fondness for earthmover operators. It's because those workers have more capital (tools) to work with and are thereby more productive. Higher productivity translates into higher wages.

Tax policies that raise the cost of capital formation — such as capital gains taxes, low depreciation allowances and corporate taxes — reduce capital formation. As a result, workers have less capital, lower productivity and lower wage growth. In 1980, Joseph Stiglitz, now a Nobel laureate, said that workers share the highest corporate tax burden in the form of lower wages. A number of economic studies, including that of the Congressional Budget Office, show that workers bear anywhere from 45 to 75 percent of the corporate tax burden. Adding to the burden is the fact that capital has the kind of mobility that labor doesn't. Corporate capital can flee to other countries easily, but workers cannot.

Politicians and leftist elite get away with corporate tax demagoguery because economists haven't done well in making our subject understandable to ordinary people, not to mention that we have derelict news media people with little understanding.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

5 Comments | Post Comment
Mr. Williams,
Your Ad Hominem attack on Robert Reich is a reliable indicator that his arguments have substance.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Tue Nov 8, 2011 9:53 PM
Re: Mark

If I called you a name, would that prove your argument has substance? Try calling me a name and let's see if it gives this argument substance.

Aristotle identified the logical error of the ad hominem as irrelevant to the truth of the argument. Dr. Williams simply chose to express his low opinion of Robert Reich which I share, though with different wording and perhaps different grounds. The falsehood of virtually anything Robert Reich says derives from the false foundations of the entire enterprise of macro-economics, a pretend economic theory.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Phillip Schearer
Wed Nov 9, 2011 7:42 AM
Re: Mark
Ad hominem is "You are a pretend economist, therefore your arguments are wrong", and not "Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are a pretend economist." The latter statement may be fallacious, but it's not an ad hominem fallacy. Since Walter Williams is basing his insult that Robert Reich is a pretend economist on Reich's arguments, it is not an ad hominem attack. You are guilty of the ad hominem fallacy fallacy.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Scott
Wed Nov 9, 2011 7:52 AM
I contend no one should be taxed, because the government is not worth the money. The Federal Reserve Act and the income tax, both passed in 1913, were the means whereby JP Morgan and his British investor friends could get the US financially involved in World War I, to help bail out the Allies.

The debt-backed currency created at that time obligates unborn taxpayers to fulfill obligations made by others in their names. There is no way this can be construed as representative government, and there's no way the federal government can obligate me to condone or fund its wildly irrational expenditures.

The Federal Reserve system and the income tax have contributed significantly to the relentless wars the US has waged ever since, at home and abroad. Taxpayers who are willing to fund these travesties deserve the sado-masochistic system we've created in the name of freedom.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Katharine C. Otto, MD
Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:16 PM
Walter, property don't pay the tax but the landlord does and if it goes up that landlord raises the rent. The car don't pay the tax but if the person that owns the car wants to get to work the tax will be paid by the owner of the automobile or the owner will sell the car and take the bus.
Everyone in this union should pay a tax....if you have more to lose...you should pay more...that's common sense.
If Robert had his way We the People would all have a printing press printing George Washington's out of our @ sending them to the turnips in Washington to spend them on more and more crap We the People don't need in the first place.
The Constitution wasn't written for a government, church nor corporation....it was written for We the People. The POWER is in their hands when they VOTE and in their pocket book and purse when they SHOP.
[The 4 principal reasons why a federal government was formed: "(1) The common defense (national security); (2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; (3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states; (4) the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23, 1787
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788]
What is it about " few and defined" don't you people understand.
Comment: #5
Posted by: madmilker
Sun Dec 4, 2011 7:38 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Walter E. Williams
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 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 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

29 Sep 2010 Liberals Confuse Me

29 Jun 2011 Ignorance, Stupidity or Manipulation

29 Dec 2010 Free or Fair?