If corporate executives no longer want to pay an “effective” 35% corporate tax from their corporate treasury (before paying themselves stock-options taxed at 15% for capital gains), they can always un-incorporate.

http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com/2012/01/dont-like-corporate-taxes-then-un.html

BTW: The Republicans as well as maybe some Democrats associate themselves with Six Sigma, but the issue of the government not being a business must be at the foundation of the process, which would mean that the debate we are having about the dynamics of economics and politics is key. i.e. who would you rather have setting the ends and means for a more perfect union. Those with the foundation (speaking of Lincoln speaking of labor prior to capital) or those with the trickle down? GE, I did not mean to… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeSmNaKCjaw

Therefore, I find recent discussion of tax rate moot, as they are built upon assumptions held constant…when they really should be up for debate. For example, healthcare may not be so burdensome if everyone just ate their damn fruits and vegetables. They are not a panacea but, like vaccines, if enough people partake of the institution then the funding for the truly ill will make itself apparent.

By the same token, we must see the government bill of receipt. Unfortunately, public policy 101 is that one man’s inefficiency is another man’s income.

This is a Gordian Knot that should have been cut years ago. Handle the issue of progressivity when issuing benefits not when collecting taxes. This is a winner for progressives because it demands everyone contribute the same amount. Repubo economic theory is always attacking the phantom lazy (Cadillac welfare queens, etc.) This cuts that argument down, and this one argument is the keystone to all Repubo thought. It tells the voters there are no people gaming the system, we all pay 35%, there are no millionaires who are “masters of debt financing,” etc. It also provides progressives a new deal for America — equal burden, equal opportunity. Furthermore, it changes the discussions from cutting taxes (which 98% of people instinctively want) to which benefits do we cut (which leads to more nuanced conversation, and requires having real conversations about policy. Something that hasn’t happened in over a decade.

My response was this: If the government targets wages more than wealth for tax revenue, there is no way for anyone who relies on their wages to gain wealth. I then told him there has to be a middle ground somewhere that allows a working guy like me to gain wealth or the whole premise of working hard and getting ahead was a lie. He didn’t have any answer to that and the conversation quickly turned to another topic.

The more I think about it, the more I think I could have had that conversation with every Republican candidate and none of them would have had a good answer for me.

For more on the subject see Dean Baker’s new book “The End of Loser Liberalism.” It removes much of the obfuscation our corporate welfare queens use to conceal how they profit by getting others to take risks while they take any gains generated by it (less a few dollars paid in taxes of course – quite a bargain by any standard, chump change really). Does anyone really think that if they could buy this kind of insurance cheaper in the open market that they wouldn’t already be doing it? Maybe we should find out how much we’re leaving on the table and at least start charging the “market” rate.

1. If the WSJ (or anyone else) wants to credit Romney (or anyone else) with the taxes paid by corporations, it should also credit him with the income of corporations. If not, who pays taxes on that income? But of course, people who makes this sort of claim also claim that “corporations are citizens,” which means that they should be taxes separately. Money transferred from one citizen to another is taxed whether the citizen from which it came paid taxes on it or not.

2. A point no one is making is that Romney has behaved incredibly selfishly by investing in the Cayman Islands. Perhaps he can (legally) make more money for himself by doing so, but investing in the Cayman Islands does not create jobs in America. If Romney is really interested in being a job creator, he would invest here at home where his investments might do some good.