Corporate income tax is borne primarily by labor and workers, research shows.

No no no it'll go straight to the greedy corporate fatcats!

Never understood how people can grasp that tariffs add costs, then go on to believe income and corp taxes don't.

Our country is filled to the teeth w economic illiterates.

I think you are overstating what that article argues to the point of contradicting yourself.

quote:

---

Corporations do not pay taxes. They collect them.

---

How could the above be correct if:

quote:

---

labor, through reduced wages, pay 45-75%

---

instead of 100%?

From the article, where it refers to the current state of the body of literature:

quote:

---

Correcting for the overstatement, and assuming such returns determine incidence, implies a business tax incidence that is roughly split 50-50 between capital and labor, more in line with the empirical literature.

---

It sounds like this guy is saying that corporations in fact pay a significant chunk, rather than it all being passed down, as the first quote above (by you) implies.

My company will absolutely pass a large portion of tax savings on to employees in the form of higher bonuses and pay raises. It's why I am not too concerned about the impact on my personal tax liability from the personal income tax changes.

I happen to think my employer is well above average when it comes to employee compensation and the treatment of its employees in general, but I know for a fact it isn't the only employer who acts like that. Many individuals will benefit from their employer's tax savings. It pisses me off that folks are trying to kill this simply due to partisan leanings.

quote:

---

Corporate income tax is borne primarily by labor and workers, research shows.
Important to remember when debating tax reform.

---

US corporate tax is a ~39% internal tariff.

Think about that.

A 39% tariff!

The linked article linked in the OP is a disingenuous straw man argument.

The question is NOT whether labor or capital pays corporate taxes that are already levied and in place. The author spends his whole article explaining how complicated it is to allocate the payment of taxes between labor and capital. He's doing that to distract you from the fact that he is answering the wrong question.

The QUESTION IS - if a portion of the taxes already levied and in place are removed, what then would the corporation do with the monies that were previously allocated to paying those taxes.

Remember when the TARP funds where distributed to corporations? The purpose of the "bail outs" were to provide the companies operating capital to carry them through the effects of the great recession.

Remember what the wall streeters did with the TARP money?
They gave themselves their regular year end bonuses!!!

What makes anyone think that corporations are going to give anything close to a majority of the funds they had allocated for taxes to labor?

There already is talk about "investing" the tax-cut money into stock buybacks and dividend payments.

Some portion may go to labor as pay raises, but anyone thinking that pay raises to labor will represent a significant portion of the whole is buying the bill of goods being sold by the charlatan who wrote the article - and those who paid him to write it, hoping you would buy it.

That isnt what it means at all. Corporations do not pass their savings onto rank and file workers. The right's favorite myth since the 80s.

It’s nice they keep all of their deductions but the middle class gets cut.

But I guess tour disablility is stable so no worries on your end