Comments on: Corporate tax is regressive

By: Hick

Hick — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:51:04 +0000

To the person who left a comment as ‘Hick’ please provide a valid email address – Sinc.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:06:01 +0000

Leigh is a Laborite who has conveniently jumped on a wedge bandwagon.
.
Yep. You were right y’know CL when you aregued that the Tories should patent the Wedge.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:04:32 +0000

We should all wish Andrew well in the preselection – we need MPs who will fight against the tyranny of corporate tax and stand up for the oppressed.
.
Is anyone fighting against payroll tax? How can this absurd tax remain for so many decades? It’s Pythonesque.

By: JC

JC — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:07:05 +0000

sorry wrong link.

By: JC

JC — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:06:45 +0000

From Bolt’s blog:

Liberal senator Simon Birmingham attacked the SA Labor Party for preferencing the Independent Climate Sceptics…

The moral issue of our time seems to have been trumped by electoral preferences which now by default becomes the moral issue of our time.

By: Rococo Liberal

Rococo Liberal — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:55:06 +0000

Thanks Sinc

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:27:41 +0000

RL – the argument is that corporate tax is paid for either by the owners of capital (lower returns), consumers (higher prices) or labour (lower wages). In an open economy the owners of capital are less likely to pay the tax, in a competitive economy consumers are less likely to higher prices and so, the argument goes, workers will have to pay the tax through lost earnings. One mechanism whereby that could occur is where firms reduce investment and so reduce long-run economic growth and productivity. This leads to workers having lower salaries over time. The Leigh argument was that lower income workers are more likely to be affected than higer income workers. That all seems plausible, I suppose. Although Tanner was on ABC TV this morning claiming that consumers will ultimately pay the tax.

By: Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:20:56 +0000

claptrap Forrest. A lot of people here CLAIMED to have read the book but each time it is brought up they seemed to have missed a major point he made.

Perhaps we should give them a golden Forrest award.
indeed the only person who actually claimed this was Snoopy who claimed ritschl said one thing when he actualy said another, indeed Snoopy so misunderstood Ritschl he undermined his whole argument.

however this is typical of Catallaxy as for you you have been c=aught red-handed. It is simply you lie so often you do not know the difference.

By: JC

JC — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:07:54 +0000

Forrest you have NEVER EVER been able to show I have said anything misleading about Tooze.

Homer, you deadshit, I never claimed I read the the book, however others here have and they all corroborate the point that you not only got the book wrong but you emphatically lied.

Frankly Homer, put yourself in my position, that is dream a little and pretend you’re me. If you were me would you believe you under any circumstance, let alone when an entire busy thread full of people are saying that you’re a lying distorting oaf?

It’s not as though you lie infrequently, homes. You’re caught out lying red handed every day.

By: Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:42:51 +0000

Forrest you have NEVER EVER been able to show I have said anything misleading about Tooze.
Indeed I have doubts whether anyone here has actually read him, you certainly haven’t.
I merely leave your words to speak for themselves. perhaps you have lied so much you do not understand what the word means.

Cl L whose outstanding ability to confuse 1960 with 1890 is legendary. What wedge bandwagon is that?