Kamala Harris' Plan To Hike Corporate Income Taxes Would Fall on All Americans
As with Trump and his tariffs, Harris appears unwilling to acknowledge the obvious consequences of hiking taxes on businesses.

In her acceptance speech at last week's Democratic National Convention, Vice President Kamala Harris promised to deliver "a middle-class tax cut that will benefit more than 100 million Americans."
Her campaign has yet to flesh out the details of that idea, but what little is known about Harris' tax proposals suggests that middle-class families will face a tax hike in a Harris administration—albeit an indirect one.
Nearly all Americans would face a higher federal tax burden if Harris followed through on President Joe Biden's proposal to raise the corporate income tax to 28 percent from 21 percent. The New York Times reported this weekend that Harris' campaign has signaled that she supports Biden's plan for $5 trillion in tax hikes—including an $1.3 trillion increase of the corporate income tax.
Confusingly, the Times also specifies that "no one making less than $400,000 a year would see their taxes go up"—a talking point that Biden has used for years and that Harris is apparently preparing to adapt (and the Times is happy to parrot).
But that is simply not true. The Joint Committee on Taxation, a bipartisan congressional number-crunching entity, ran the numbers on that corporate income tax hike when Biden proposed it earlier this year. According to the committee's analysis, even Americans in the lowest income category (those earning less than $10,000) would see a tax hike if the corporate income tax was increased.
That's because higher corporate taxes are passed along to consumers, employees, and investors in the form of high prices, lower wages, and lower investment returns. If you buy things, have a job, or save for retirement, higher corporate income taxes will fall on you—no matter how many times Biden, Harris, and the Times pretend otherwise.
Harris should be asked about the effects of higher corporate taxes on the middle class, when and if she ever holds a press conference.
Of course, Harris isn't the only candidate in this year's election promising an indirect tax hike on virtually all Americans. Former President Donald Trump's proposal for new tariffs of 10 percent (or even 20 percent, as he's said more recently) on all imports would cost Americans an estimated $300 billion annually.
And Trump's campaign is also refusing to acknowledge reality. In an interview with NBC's Kristen Welker this weekend, Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) was asked about the fact that consumers ultimately the cost of tariffs. "What it really does is penalize importers," Trump's running mate responded.
Saying that tariffs penalize only importers is almost exactly like saying that a corporate income tax affects only corporations. Both are deliberately myopic attempts to ignore the consequences of these policies. And in both cases, the candidates are assuring voters that someone else will pay the cost of these tax hikes—wealthy corporations or China—despite a well-established track record showing that both forms of taxes are passed along to consumers and workers in various ways.
You can try to tax corporations and you can try to tax imports, but all taxes are paid by people in the end—including lots of people who make less than $400,000 annually.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So with Trump you get tariffs. With Kamala you get tariffs and a 5 trillion tax increase. That's a real tossup there.
You’re right. Between the 2 possible next presidents, Trump is much better than Kamala, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep up the pressure to get Trump to drop the dumbest of his inflation boosting ideas.
Just because he’s better doesn’t justify the “he’s just an excitable boy” complacency with his bad policies.
"...Just because he’s better doesn’t justify the “he’s just an excitable boy” complacency with his bad policies..."
Please find someone (other than the voices in your head) making such a claim.
Please take my attempt at humor seriously, not literally.
I'm referring to the many comments where any criticism of Trump is brushed off by "but Kamala is worse," or justifications as,"it's necessary this time because..."
I’m referring to the many comments where any criticism of Trump is brushed off by “but Kamala is worse,” or justifications as,”it’s necessary this time because…”
It’s the standard Trump Defense: No matter what it is, Democrats did it first and worse, and that makes it ok. Anyone who disagrees is defending Democrats. That means you're a Democrat.
Poor Jeff.
So what has Trump actually done that is objectively worse than the current administration?
It’s almost like the common complaint from most posters (just like in 2016) is that the ratio of arguments against Trump vs Harris is like 10 to 1, even though Harris is objectively worse on every single subject except maybe abortion.
At some point it just seems to devolve into bickering over that instead of the actual policies.
Yeah. You're right. I guess I sometimes forget about the main article and view the comments like a message board which has the inverse ratio.
Yet it's bohem, so he will be strategically voting for the whore
ENB is not on the ballot and Harris was only a home wrecking mistress paid for her services through political patronage...oh.
And reluctantly?
And since the point of tariffs is to make people buy something other than the targeted product, all you have to do to avoid the "tax" is buy from somewhere else.
Kween Kamala's attack on your pocketbook is a bit harder to avoid.
Never thought I'd see the day when co-called conservatives defend taxes and attack people who criticize them.
You've literally been supporting higher taxes the last few months lol. Want the links?
So you can show off how stupid and dishonest you are? Sure.
Here's the thing. I probably won't notice. Because while you're busy skull fucking dead comments, I'll be living my life.
"I’ll be living my life."
If you had a life, would you be here constantly, every day, posting inane strawmen? Give us a break.
Never thought I’d see the day when so-called libertarians would rabidly condemn an attempt to coerce an abusive trading partner into removing trade barriers and stealing American IP.
all you have to do to avoid the “tax” is buy from somewhere else.
At a higher price (if available at all). No one is buying stuff from China because they love Chinese goods more than American ones.
Don't know about that. Some of the people who use Temu act like a cult.
Maybe I haven't kept up recently. I still don't think that being made in China is the main selling point, but the low prices and flashy ads for interesting looking things.
Off shore manufacturing is steadily diversifying away from China. For example, Apple is bringing factories on line in India.
I have a 100% American made phone. The string between the cans doesn't work great for texting though.
I have a 100% American made phone (I’m fairly sure, it's at least 50 years old, from when people rented phones from AT&T). It has a dial and a hard wired connection to the wall. And usually works when the power goes out.
You still have a land line? Wowzah.
My mom still has an old rotary phone. It's older than me and still works. That thing is a weapon. Hit someone in the head and that’s the end of them.
Cell service is really bad at my house. And I'd rather not have people calling me wherever I am anyway.
You can always turn your ringer off, or even the whole phone.
Wow. Do pulse-dial phones still work?
As a kid we had a pulse phone on a party line shared with our neighbors. Now I get pissed off if videos stream at 720P.
We are all spoiled.
They did last time I tried which was a few months ago.
Tariffs are not taxes on consumers! They're taxes on China! China pays the tariffs! Why can't you leftists understand this?
Poor sarc.
Extra hilarious as I can show links recently of him supporting tax raises. But tariffs are the real issue at 50B a year. Not regulatory, corporate, or income taxes.
Extra hilarious as I can show links recently of him supporting tax raises.
You won’t produce links. Just quotes. Or just lies. If you produced links then you’d be forced to be honest (HAAA HA HA HA HA!) and admit I was responding to defense spending increases combined with tax cuts by saying would be more honest and responsible to pay for spending increases with taxes.
We all know that Jesse is honest, and you’re not. You’re such a pathetic asshole.that you can’t see that and finally just go away. Then again. You’re the same dumb bitch who was stupid enough to threaten me, then you hid like a little bitch.
Now bye bye bitch.
So, she's reliably terrible in every regard. Good to know.
So Harris has campaigned on "joy" and "energy" for 6 weeks, while dodging interviews and policy specifics. Her first week of policy proposals includes the following:
Food shortages (price controls on groceries)
Higher housing costs (25K handouts to home buyers)
Cratering retirement account balances (higher corporate taxes)
Destroying retirement income (50% long term capital gains tax)
Sorry, the bitch is giving us a discount 49%
Unrealized gains tax.
You missed her other promise to tax realized long term gains at 49%. The unrealized gains was proposed at 20%.
But no write off for unrealized losses I bet.
What do you expect from the daughter of a Marxist economist?
Not enough daddy issues.
Yes, using Jamaica he has shown her how to get an award for destroying a country's economy.
Tariffs may boost prices, but if your job gets outsourced overseas, a worker probably prefers the tariff's price increase to the unemployment line and ultimately ending up in a lower paying line of work.
If all manufacturing gets shipped overseas, you get a service econony which is a low wage debt economy that will eventually implode... kind of like now. This kind of stuff is why the LP constantly gets nowhere and nobody takes it seriously.
Your country can either have real output with real value, or currency devaluation while you try to fling the fiat money poker chips around the table faster. Choose wisely.
It’s at least worth considering that one effect of a tariff is to spur purchasing domestic versions of a given product, albeit less of them, which cycles money into the domestic economy through both payroll and consumer purchasing.
If you buy that product from a foreign entity, that money cycles through some other countries economy. (Of course, the regulatory state apparatus gets their share of that in the US but business does not unless they also happen to get fat subsidy to stay open.)
American consumers will likely be better off, but last I checked in order to be a consumer in the first place one needs an income stream. Domestic businesses pay American’s, foreign businesses do not.
Certainly foreign businesses do indeed employ many Americans and pays their wages, but notably the whole point of all this offshoring is to reduce that number by as much as possible. Remove the comparative advantage of labor from most foreign companies, and they would not survive in a competitive market.
Basically, Americans can not compete with foreign labor and that is by design by our own government. All those labor protections and environmental protections that American’s are so proud of actually make us less competitive, at least generally speaking. Some industries or particular businesses will be the exception to that rule, and often because of special pleading by politically connected businesses.
None of this necessarily makes tariff’s a good idea, at least generally, but when you compare to Kamala’s plan to set price controls the choice is pretty fucking clear unless you’re totally retarded. Notably, Kamala is also in favor of tariff’s for a variety of reasons, so the choice should be instantly clear to any thinking creature.
The first rule of capitalism: Capital flows to where labor is cheapest. Business and capital, have no interest in national boundaries.
But, this isn’t robbing Peter to pay Paul. It’s a timing difference.
As labor becomes comparatively more expensive in one locale, the work - both product and service potentially - is moved to the cheaper locale. But competition will drive up the labor cost there over time. And capital will move to a new, lower labor cost place.
Socialists should love this. It’s the “equality” they seek. Labor cost equalizing around the world over time. The disparities are temporary on a long horizon time line. But, they will always be present. And moving over time.
What about the US worker who relies on foreign commodities to produce their products? Collateral damage?
Basically. Lets not pretend that the EPA and OSHA have no effect on manufacture of parts either though.
Note I’m not really in favor of tariffs by and large, but one’s against China in particular I really have no problem with as they are not a fair and honest trading partner in the first place. Nixon fucked up.
If we have to rely on unethical trading partners due to our overly protectionist nonsense here in the United States, the policy itself is probably a bad one.
Parts from Germany or Canada would likely be as much or more expensive even without tariff's, but really it totally depends on what in particular we're talking about.
Cmon. You’ve been in these threads enough. Sure actions encouraged by the China State Government for various forms of theft swamp tariffs in costs, but domestic manufacturing should just be quiet because it will benefit a consumer for a few years. Sure it will also deceptive future IRAD and domestic development as more and more company funds go into security while seeing a reduction of sales… but think of the near term!
I mean covid showed what happens if that is your supply chain. Supply chain disruption is a calculated and monitored risk. Just because you want to set it to 0 doesn't mean it isn't a cost.
Wow, your economic illiteracy is striking.
If your job gets outsourced overseas, then (all else held equal) you weren't as good as your job as that other guy overseas. In other words, you deserved to lose that job. If you want to keep your manufacturing job from being outsourced overseas, find ways to make your stuff better and/or cheaper than the other guy. Tariffs raise prices for everyone while benefiting only a small politically-connected few.
To you second paragraph, investment banking is also part of the service economy. I imagine most of them would be quite surprised to hear their jobes described as "low wage" or subject to implosion.
Doctors, dentists, lawyers and accountants are also "service" industries. Service is still real output with real value. This ought to be obvious - it it didn't have value, you wouldn't pay for it. But I have to believe you still pay to get your hair cut and your teeth fixed. This myth that manufacturing is the only source of value is as antiquated as merchantilism.
re: "you weren't as good at your job"
More precisely, you weren't good enough to justify your salary compared to the costs of the other guy. If you want a higher salary or cool benefits, you have to earn them. Nobody "owes you" squat.
So everyone should be a Chinese sweatshop laborer making $1/day in squalid conditions. If even one person on earth is willing to debase themselvws to that degree, then we are all required to, according to you.
Golly, I can't imagine why the LP gets hardly any traction with working folks with arguments like that.
If trade were fair, it could be free. Otherwise the more crooked, backwards country just wins, and then we're all less free - not to mention broke - in the long run.
and then we’re all less free – not to mention broke – in the long run.
Equity!
I used to be a literal card-carrying libertarian party member but the immigration and tariff policies are colossally stupid and ignore the actual reality on the ground for regular folks, of whom - assuming "free and fair" elections (lol) - you need the support of a majority, or at least a fairly big plurality to give you an electoral college win for the presidency.
I don't care what an adult puts in their body as long as they're not hurting anyone else, or what consenting adults do behind closed doors, and I don't think the government should dictate the benefit or wage schedule to private business (among a host of other stupid regulatory and distortionary things it should not be doing), although I do think we'd be better off if they'd stuck to legitimate anti-trust work (but... what's the last actual legit monopoly they busted up... AT&T, 50+ years ago? And then we just got regional monopolies instead...)
The point of tariffs is to correct for unscrupulous foreign distortion of markets (such as slave labor or foreign government subsidies of industry). Once a country's manufacturing base is hollowed out, it goes BROKE, because it produces nothing of VALUE. In the long run, NOBODY is employed except the defense contractors and the government goons, everyone else is a poor, desperate serf, and you're f**ing Venezuela, just by more roundabout means. Then the only way to keep the shit-show propped up is endless inflationary debt and a clampdown on civil liberties (because those poors who used to be not poors are going to be REALLY pissed about it and you can't buy off the ENTIRE country with fiat debt forever).
And, that is... pretty much exactly what the Divided Subjurisdictions of America is doing RIGHT. FRICKING. NOW.
Or I was priced out of the market via American employment and environmental laws, making people overseas that aren't required to follow those more attractive.
Why else do you think capitalists moved their production facilities to communist or near-communist countries, exactly?
Also, for what it's worth, this is literally what is referred to as an 'uneven playing field'.
If your job gets outsourced overseas, then (all else held equal) you weren’t as good as your job as that other guy overseas.
I see you noticed how dumb this comment was.. but your fix didn’t help.
Cost of employment is more than just wages. You have regulatory costs, federally required benefits, legal costs based on the state… etc.
A lot if your argument is based on government mandated excess costs. For example ACA. You have to pay those taxes here, but not in China. Same with SS.
So basically your argument comes down to regulatory and legal requirements of the state and fuck the worker. Meanwhile ignoring China’s willful theft of company investments to reduce costs.
I mean your arguments are the same ones the south used to justify slavery.
Fuck you and the "all else being equal" when you know for a fact that a large part of that decision and cost is driven by people like Kamala that look to regulate everything and not the employee. You want to argue to unwind it all back to equal, then you might have something but this is just peopke using the levers of power crushing them to create some breathing room for themselves.
And you think tariffs are the solution? When has 'more government' ever been the right answer to too much government?
Calling for protectionist tariffs is not innocent "creat[ion of] some breathing room" - it's punishing everyone for the benefit of a politically-connected minority.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment. Maybe you're saying that outsourcing is the answer to too much government. If so, that aligns with what Prof Somin keeps saying about foot-voting. If the regime you're under is too oppressive, just leave. There is a lot to be said for that argument. However, little of it would be relevant Liberty Yeti's original comment above.
They can be when dealing with a bad market actor as I've linked to dozens of times at this point.
Ignoring bad market acts just leads to... wait for it... more bad acts.
If someone is robbing you and then selling the shit they stole from you at a discount of your prices, do you think government has a valid course of action to stop the theft or not?
So, you maintain that countries with low environmental regulation with comparatively very little employment protection are ubiquitously more competent than their American counterparts. Curious.
Is this simply the most oblique criticism of American public education I've ever seen, or are you a victim of said American public education yourself?
What is perhaps the most entertaining is that teachers are usually included in the 3rd tier economy and it seems they managed to produce you, which is something of an indictment on it's own.
If your measure of a thing includes everything from investment bankers making 6+ figure salaries to waiters making less than minimum wage, it's a bad measure that's overly broad to the point of uselessness. Perhaps that's why you want to cite 'service sector' as a group that's almost purely Doctors and investment bankers when it's more like retail workers and waiters. A bigger gap would be hard to imagine, frankly.
“If your job gets outsourced overseas, then (all else held equal) you weren’t as good as your job as that other guy overseas. In other words, you deserved to lose that job.”
But you and I both know that all else is not equal and it wasn’t equal when the companies first started to offshore and outsource. Because our own government has been putting their thumbs on the scale for nearly 100 years.
I get that people don’t like tariffs, but acting like they’re this horrible unmitigated immorality doesn’t make sense to me. Especially in light of all the ways the government fucks over home grown business. Maybe the solution is to convince the government to kill some of these rules and regulations that stifle our industry?
Sarc doesn’t give a shit about tariffs. This is all about his irrational drunken hatred of Trump.
Maybe the solution is to convince the government to kill some of these rules and regulations that stifle our industry?
Well, we know that one of the candidates is 1000% not going to do this. The other one, 50/50, but mean tweets.
Trade itself is not always the same thing. Trade between two different parties in some arm’s length transaction is one thing. Trade that is an internal accounting construct within a single company is something else. For one – in the former, price itself is a real signal. In the latter, price itself is simply a bookkeeping measure.
Tariffs are simply one of many different kinds of transaction costs that can affect whether trade will occur within a corporate/organization setting or will occur between independent players in a ‘market’. We don’t pay any attention to that even though the idea has been known since Coase wrote The Nature of the Firm in 1937.
Tariffs and trade policy can affect whether we are tilting the field towards large multinationals (with global supply chains) or towards small companies/individuals (where the transaction cost of globalizing a supply chain is outside the skill set of the individual or any revenue they can generate) .
Communists do not require a middle class.
Sure they do. After all, they need someone to blame.
ultimately and quickly it is destroyed
And a parasitic infestation always needs a healthy host to feed from.
Fuck Harris (no, Willie not that way)
Harris should be asked about the effects of higher corporate taxes on the middle class, when and if she ever holds a press conference.
We already know her response: Price caps.
It’s so easy!
Salex taxes (of which tariffs are) are voluntary.
Therefore, in the hierarchy of "taxes are theft", they are orders of magnitude more moral than all others.
There's a difference between revenue tariffs and protectionist tariffs.
Revenue tariffs must be low enough that they don't increase prices beyond what people are willing to pay. Ideally they bring in no revenue because they steer people away from the tariffed stuff.
Protectionist tariffs must be high enough that they increase prices beyond what people are willing to pay. Ideally they have no protectionist effect because people still buy the stuff.
Anyone who claims they have both effects is a liar.
Did you get that backwards? Wouldn't protectionist tariffs be the ones where you don't want people to buy the stuff, and revenue tariffs the ones where you do?
Yeah I mangled that comment.
Surprised my hate club hasn't already had a circle-jerk all over the comment while bragging about how they're going to bookmark it.
I guess you aren’t as big a deal as you think.
You’re retarded enough on this topic, don't need to keep adding. Especially your continued knowledge on types of tariffs. You keep missing the market response tariffs used, once again, to stop a foreign state from bad market acts disrupting markets. But you’ll never include those because of your TDS.
You should also learn what supply shift is one of these days. You argue as if all tariffs are global.
Therefore, in the hierarchy of “taxes are theft”, they are orders of magnitude more moral than all others.
Well, what about those of us that don't subscribe to the "taxes are theft" dogma? Which kind of taxes do you think we view as "more moral than all others"?
Wealth taxes and death taxes most likely. The natural conclusion of your ugly resentment.
That's because higher corporate taxes are passed along to consumers, employees, and investors in the form of high prices, lower wages, and lower investment returns.
Whoa, whoa whoa! Are you trying to tell me if my property tax goes up, my house doesn't pay it, I do?
More like if property taxes go up your landlord will increase your rent.
Only property taxes work that way. Land taxes do not. The owner of the land has to pay the land tax - the renter doesn't. Of course that's why all states changed their laws to morph land taxes into property taxes instead.
'Kamala Harris' Plan To Hike Corporate Income Taxes Would Fall on All Americans'
Yeah, but handouts and special programs for select demographics guaranty they will come out ahead.
Indeed.
STEAL from the productive! FUND laziness!
What could possibly go wrong?!?! /s
I miss the days people actually knew *earning* was part of getting.
And there's your "Joy."
Isn't it strange.
If a corporation passes along all expenses to its customers, then prices should have dropped when corporate tax rates were cut... but they didn't. But we're supposed to imagine that companies will instantly hike them if they are restored to what they were before?
Homo Economicus is a fairy tale, just like "enlightened self interest". Tolerance for price hikes is long past, especially for balance sheet changes as inconsequential as this - a percentage, of a percentage, of a percentage, of tax adjusted profit.
They went up a lot less. Finance 101. An investment is looking for a particular rate of return and level of risk. Tax the companies, that means risk is up and return is down, so they WILL pass on the cost, one way or another.
Now... it could be price hikes. It could be layoffs. It could be short-sighted cost-cutting, because Wall Street very stupidly only cares about how sexy you are and what you did for them lately, and not your fundamental long-term economic soundness (Tesla's valuation peak being just one example).
Also, the tax cut did go to anyone with a 401(K) / 403(b) / IRA ... because companies bought stock and increased their prices. So there *was* a benefit to regular folks, but it went to the middle class investor (and other investors), not consumers.
Oddly, corporate profit margins tend to fall into a narrow range over time.
Basic Info. Corporate Profit Margin (After Tax) was 9.65 as of 2024-01-01, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis. Historically, Corporate Profit Margin (After Tax) reached a record high of 10.71 and a record low of 4.1, the median value is 6.47. Typical value range is from 8.75 to 9.95.
Why? Because if you are making a lot of money, it gets noticed, and competitive pressures ensue, IOW, other people get in on it.
If a corporation passes along all expenses to its customers, then prices should have dropped when corporate tax rates were cut… but they didn’t.
No, you have to understand that cutting corporate taxes allows big corporations to hire more workers, spend more on R&D, raise wages for everyone! It all trickles down, don't you see? But, yes, as Boehm is saying, raising corporate taxes means that they will raise prices rather than cut back on labor costs. I mean, I suppose they could just accept that their net profits would be lower.
"then prices should have dropped when corporate tax rates were cut…"
Prices did drop because wages increased.
Classic fairy tale case of "Quick! Look over there. What elephant in the room."
Please. Whatever you do in life, don’t go into corporate management.
When companies get windfalls, they buy back stock benefiting stockholders. When companies have to pay more taxes, customers pay more. Proof of the unmitigated avarice of Capitalism.
Confusingly, the Times also specifies that “no one making less than $400,000 a year would see their taxes go up”—a talking point that Biden has used for years and that Harris is apparently preparing to adapt (and the Times is happy to parrot).
But that is simply not true. The Joint Committee on Taxation, a bipartisan congressional number-crunching entity, ran the numbers on that corporate income tax hike when Biden proposed it earlier this year. According to the committee’s analysis, even Americans in the lowest income category (those earning less than $10,000) would see a tax hike if the corporate income tax was increased.
I get that it can be confusing to know what is or isn’t a tax after National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), but Eric Boehm is wrong to argue that consumers paying higher prices for goods at a store is a tax hike. It is not. If he had said that people making 0-$10,000 would see an increase in prices because of the corporate tax hike, then he would be correct. This isn’t just a matter of semantics. It is not inevitable that a business will raise its prices by X% because it is paying X% more in tax to government. And it is certainly not the case that all income groups would experience the same net effect if they do raise prices.
Let’s look at those numbers Boehm links for us. (He says they are from The Joint Committee on Taxation, a Congressional committee, but the link goes to a Twitter post by Erica York of the Tax Foundation, and the data shown does not identify the source.)
The table purports to show the “estimated distributional effect of increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% for the calendar years of 2022 and 2031.” I presume that 2022 was chosen as a reference year, since this obviously would not be a retroactive change in the tax rate. The table lists the number of tax returns for each income group and the total impact on all of those tax filers (the impact is likely a combination of taxes and prices, as the higher income groups probably will earn less dividends and such.) For instance, for the 0-$10,000 income group:
# returns 2022: 2,430,000
impact: $81 million
#returns 2031: 10,051,000*
impact: $140 million
That would mean that the average tax filer in that bracket would have paid an extra $33 in higher prices in 2022, had the corporate tax rate been 28%. If it does go up to 20% for 2031, they would pay $14 more.
For fun, let’s look at 3 other income ranges. (returns are in thousands and impact in millions)
$50,000-$75,000
returns 2022: 19,660
impact: $1872
returns 2031: 28,916
impact: $3585
average per filer – $95 in 2022, $123 in 2031
$100,000-$200,000
returns 2022: 30,879
impact: $10,745
returns 2031: 37,363
impact: $16,170
average: $348 in 2022, $433 in 2031
$1,000,000+
returns 2022: 819
impact: $16,708
returns 2031: 805
impact: $15,688
average: $20,400 in 2022, $19,488 in 2031
Could that, perhaps, be the big concern of the Tax Foundation? That people with the most income are going to be the most impacted?
Everyone does pay something more when the tax rate on any broad base of taxes increases. It does spread throughout the economy. The alternative to raising tax rates is to drastically cut spending, since our deficits and debt have ballooned past anything even Reagan would have imagined.
Ask those people making less than $10,000 a year if they think it would be a good deal to seriously cut back on Medicaid spending, SNAP, and other entitlements to avoid paying an extra $33 a year in higher prices.
*This one of the things that makes me want to look at this full report (wherever it comes from) instead of just this table. It shows much higher numbers of tax returns in 2031 for all but the highest couple of income ranges than you could expect an increase in population to account for in 9 years. Is it assuming that there is some reason that people that haven’t been filing tax returns will start doing so in the interim?
Ask lazy worthless people who won’t even bother to be an asset to anyone else but themselves if they’d like more STOLEN sh*t???
The solution isn’t in the answer to that question the solution is addressing the stupidity and criminality in such questions.
THEFT is a net-negative. Always has been always will be.
'Guns' don't make sh*t.
How about a little patriotism here, a little team spirit? Would anyone be pointing guns at CEO's and CFO's to force them to pass on all of their cost increases to consumers? Who forced these people to increase the prices of food and gasoline during and after the pandemic? Why can't these people, at least some of them at least some of the time, convince their shareholders to chip in by accepting 2.5% profit margins instead of 5%? And convince their retail operations to accept 2.5% markups for the duration of a national emergency?
I know, I know, capitalism doesn't work that way. How it does work during national emergencies, though, is that CEO's and the shareholder class do not feel the sting of higher food costs while the working class (employed and unemployed) does. If a dozen eggs cost double, and New York strip steaks cost half again as much during a pandemic, the 10%-ers don't worry about it and keep on buying them while the workers have to shrug their shoulders and hope for better days.
…convince their shareholders to chip in by accepting 2.5% profit margins instead of 5%?
Because your money can bring 4-1/4% in the bank, risk free.
And when profit margins are -5%??? Just file bankruptcy or apply for a "working class" paid BAIL-OUT????
Might I suggest that pea-brains like yourself actually try running a company before mouthing off about what companies should be doing. Why don't YOU put your money where were mouth is since you seem to think you know how to do it.
That is what makes capitalism so great. YOU CAN do everything you suggested IF you are willing to put your own assets on the line to do it ----------- JUST LIKE THE OWNERS DID -----------. So you can prove your ideas correct / working.
And this is what makes government ran economies so bad. A whole bunch of stupid idiots trying to run something they know nothing about and have none of their own $ on the line.
What is missing is saying:
"Kamala Harris proposes REGRESSIVE corporate income tax."
Proving that may or may not be easy due to the burden being shared by consumers, employees, and investors.
Proving that may or may not be easy due to the burden being shared by consumers, employees, and investors.
If you go by the analysis provided via the Tax Foundation that I examine above (The Tax Foundation is a right-of-center think tank. The Tax Policy Center is the left-of-center equivalent), raising the corporate tax rate would be a markedly progressive change.
That is what I find so interesting about this article. The argument of Boehm and the Tax Foundation is that raising the corporate tax rate is bad, because even poor people would pay more. But their own numbers that they use to back up that claim shows that the poor, the working class, and the middle class would pay modestly higher prices for things (from less than $40 a year for the poor up to a few hundred dollars more a year in the $100k-$200k/yr income range), while it is the wealthy that would see large increases in costs and higher taxes. That's exactly what the left always says that they want - for the wealthy to pay more of the costs of government.
If Reason and the right-leaning economists want the wealthy to pay less in taxes, that is not a ridiculous position to take. But they might want to do a better job of backing up the usual assertions that this benefits the rest of us proportionally. For instance, as someone that earns less than $100k a year, how is it in my interest for those making more than $1 million a year to pay ~$20k less in taxes a year so that I can pay around $100 less at the store each year? They need to explain that not only with, "Hey, you're paying $100 a year less! Why should it matter to you how much the wealthy pay?" They need to explain why keeping government spending down in order to enable the wealthy to pay less doesn't end up costing me more than $100 a year in government services I might want or need.
Looters gonna loot if they can.
-jcr
Yep.
Why is every policy proposal these days, run through a how it affects the various socioeconomic classes as a first test of “is this a good policy”? And, a very easily manipulated test at that.
Divide and conquer perhaps?
With this attitude, the nation will soon fall to third world status. While the rest of the world laughs at our weakness and moves on. With gusto most likely.
Who oh Who is going to pay that $35 TRILLION debt????
Whatever happened to the ?free? sh*t BS????
The SPENDING is the problem; and [D]'s know how to SPEND.
Orange-Man Trump is not great, but Vice President Kamala Harris is frankly in a class of her own with just how terrible she is. Neither should be president, but she should never every without any doubt be in control of the reigns of power. She reeks of the absolute worst aspects of what is wrong with government.
Trump may stink, but it's nothing in comparison with the stench of Vice President Kamala Harris and the attempts to manipulate the voters by the corporate media propaganda machine.
Where are your official policy/issues/platform and why are you hiding in the basement and not doing interviews? Vice President Kamala Harris as an anointed nominee as president is an insult to the voters.