5 ms·
They don't have to be better or brighter to make everyone better off. If there are jobs and they fill them: they create wealth for the US economy. There's no fi
by wjnc 14y ago
They don't have to be better or brighter to make everyone better off. If there are jobs and they fill them: they create wealth for the US economy. There's no fixed sized pie in the economy. They fill a job: the pie increases. Economics 101 for HN
- rayiner 14y agoThe size of the pie isn't the only thing that matters. Consider two scenarios of GDP allocation: Scenario A Shareholder: $100,000, Native programmer: $100,000 Scenario B Shareholder: $150,000, Native programmer: $75,000, H1B programmer: $75,000 There are good reasons in a democracy to favor scenario A over scenario B. It just depends on the following premises: 1) the income of non-Americans is irrelevant to American policy; 2) we care more about the income of the median American than the aggregate GDP; 3) we don't not care about the standard deviation of income Econ 101 or not, these are not unreasonable premises.
- dman 14y agoHow about factoring in the tax revenue from American enterprises into the equation?
- rayiner 14y agoCorporate taxes are less than 10% of U.S. revenue and falling. Not a particularly compelling reason to push for policies that increase corporate profits.
- eshvk 14y agoSadly enough corporations have the biggest pockets and that means they will push for cheaper indentured servants to flood the markets.
- dman 14y agohttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc... appears to suggest that the downward trend in corporate taxes as percentage of gdp is in the process of reversing. Also on first glance the numbers going forward do not appear to be very different than the tax revenue paid by corporations for the last couple of decades.
- jvm 14y agoI think parent was talking about the increase in income and consumption taxes as a result of the new worker paying income tax, capital gains tax due to the higher returns to capital, and the increase in consumption all around (resulting in increased sales taxes). Corporate taxes are sort of irrelevant and are arguably double-taxation since corporate earnings will ultimately be subject to those other taxes.
- rayiner 14y agoCorporate taxes are not arguably double taxation. They just aren't double taxation, period. Here is an easy way to figure out if something is double taxation: income that counts once for GDP but is taxed more than once. If I make $100,000 in NY as an Illinois resident, and both NY and Illinois tax me on that income without giving me credit for taxes paid in the other jurisdiction, that's double taxation. My income is only counted once in GDP, but is taxed more than once. Corporate taxes are just the natural consequence of passing money through a distinct legal person (the corporation) in a system that taxes income to legal persons. Say there is a 10% income tax. I make $100,000. I'm taxed 10% on that, leaving $90,000. I give $50,000 to you. You're taxed 10% on that, leaving $45,000. Total income, for the purposes of GDP, is $150,000. Total taxes collected is $15,000, or 10% of GDP. No double taxation! So why does anyone create corporate entities? To get the benefit of the corporation being a distinct legal person: limited liability. It's symmetric: the corporation is treated as a separate person for liability purposes, and is treated as a separate person for tax purposes.