Comments on: On the incidence of corporation tax http://timworstall.com/2010/03/16/on-the-incidence-of-corporation-tax/ It is all obvious or trivial except... Fri, 25 May 2012 23:23:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Nick http://timworstall.com/2010/03/16/on-the-incidence-of-corporation-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-42352 Nick Sat, 20 Mar 2010 08:25:00 +0000 http://timworstall.com/?p=13861#comment-42352 err, you said it yourself. "While further research is necessary to draw definitive conclusions, these studies suggest that " - this is precisely the sort of thing that is overturned easily. You have even asserted that bankers don't mind being taxed, to support your incidence argument about incidence (though you sensibly declined to engage with Evelyn's argument that they don't like being taxed, out of concern for ordinary folk.) And when challenged on your shaky argument, Mr. Worstall, you then turn to these hypothetical studies, as if appealing to a higher authority. Your incidence argument is also premised on the notion that tax revenues go up in smoke. They don't. As I've asserted before, tax cuts have "incidence" too - just because they're more diffuse and harder to notice, it doesn't mean this doesn't exist. And you've done nothing at all to rebut this point. Tim adds: These are not hypothetical studies. They are empirical ones. They are attempting to see what actually happens out there in the real world. Now, if you want to argue that they're wrong then go ahead. And please do show me some similar empirical studies which show the opposite. I'd be delighted to read them. But until you do you're merely hand waving. err, you said it yourself. “While further research is necessary to draw definitive conclusions, these studies suggest that ” – this is precisely the sort of thing that is overturned easily. You have even asserted that bankers don’t mind being taxed, to support your incidence argument about incidence (though you sensibly declined to engage with Evelyn’s argument that they don’t like being taxed, out of concern for ordinary folk.) And when challenged on your shaky argument, Mr. Worstall, you then turn to these hypothetical studies, as if appealing to a higher authority. Your incidence argument is also premised on the notion that tax revenues go up in smoke. They don’t. As I’ve asserted before, tax cuts have “incidence” too – just because they’re more diffuse and harder to notice, it doesn’t mean this doesn’t exist. And you’ve done nothing at all to rebut this point.

Tim adds: These are not hypothetical studies. They are empirical ones. They are attempting to see what actually happens out there in the real world. Now, if you want to argue that they’re wrong then go ahead. And please do show me some similar empirical studies which show the opposite. I’d be delighted to read them.

But until you do you’re merely hand waving.

]]> By: Prove City trading is of benefit or shut up | called2account http://timworstall.com/2010/03/16/on-the-incidence-of-corporation-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-42310 Prove City trading is of benefit or shut up | called2account Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:40:21 +0000 http://timworstall.com/?p=13861#comment-42310 [...] I’ve offered evidence based thinking. He’s ignored it – as if by pretending the counter argument does not exist he’ll win. But having used this ruse and abuse to further his cause as to the social worth of socially useless activity in the City (Lord Turner’s words – not mine) he goes on to say: Incidentally it would also help if some of the people in the debate recognised that Corporations are not People.  The tax on Corporates then fall on employees, shareholders, and so on.  Read Tim’s post on this. [...] [...] I’ve offered evidence based thinking. He’s ignored it – as if by pretending the counter argument does not exist he’ll win. But having used this ruse and abuse to further his cause as to the social worth of socially useless activity in the City (Lord Turner’s words – not mine) he goes on to say: Incidentally it would also help if some of the people in the debate recognised that Corporations are not People.  The tax on Corporates then fall on employees, shareholders, and so on.  Read Tim’s post on this. [...]

]]> By: The right sort of liquidity …. « Freethinking Economist http://timworstall.com/2010/03/16/on-the-incidence-of-corporation-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-42255 The right sort of liquidity …. « Freethinking Economist Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:47:46 +0000 http://timworstall.com/?p=13861#comment-42255 [...] Incidentally it would also help if some of the people in the debate recognised that Corporations are not People.  The tax on Corporates then fall on employees, shareholders, and so on.  Read Tim’s post on this. [...] [...] Incidentally it would also help if some of the people in the debate recognised that Corporations are not People.  The tax on Corporates then fall on employees, shareholders, and so on.  Read Tim’s post on this. [...]

]]> By: The Pedant-General http://timworstall.com/2010/03/16/on-the-incidence-of-corporation-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-42126 The Pedant-General Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:02:52 +0000 http://timworstall.com/?p=13861#comment-42126 "with the flick of his wrist" Wanker... “with the flick of his wrist”

Wanker…

]]> By: Luis Enrique http://timworstall.com/2010/03/16/on-the-incidence-of-corporation-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-42125 Luis Enrique Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:51:34 +0000 http://timworstall.com/?p=13861#comment-42125 oh come on, Richie can dismiss "blackboard economics" with the flick of his wrist oh come on, Richie can dismiss “blackboard economics” with the flick of his wrist

]]>