First, you have to decide what you are taxing (revenues, value-added, profits) and realize there are strong incentives to avoid taxes through the miracles of accounting.
More importantly, a corporate tax is not often born by the company. The tax incidence can be passed "backward" onto employees as lower wages, benefits, and lay-offs. The tax incidence can also be past "forward" onto the consumer as lower quality or higher prices. I would argue that in most industries/products the regressive effects on workers and consumers are greater than the progressive aspects.
I do realize that perceptions of consumers and workers are that corporate taxes are more progressive but misleading them is not part of my political outlook.
Income taxes are less misleading to people (although they may begrudge paying them) and I agree that a progressive income tax is very important politically.
Now only if a broad wealth tax was feasible.
Peace,
Jim
At 02:49 PM 4/25/01, Nathan wrote:
>It was only when massively progressive tax systems were adopted in the US
>back in the 1930s that social spending started to grow. And as the
>progressivity was dismantled starting in the 1950s and accellerating in the
>1970s, including the decrease in corporate taxes as a percentage of the
>budget, social spending came under increasing pressure.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them."
Edward Albert Filene (1869-1937), founder of Chamber of Commerce of the United States