Yes, sure, that cost of taxes is passed on to consumers, but government needs to pay the bills. It needs tax revenue from somewhere.
I know you have bought into this Business vs. Government dialectic, but really, business gets a lot from government, therefore gov't deserves its tax revenues.
Government registers and protects business patents, lobbies foreign gov'ts on business's behalf and negotiates foreign trade deals (which helps our exporters), regulates and punishes unfair competition (which hurts honest businesses), guarantees bank deposits, punishes insider trading and manipulation of financial reporting (which hurts honest shareholders and employees), educates businesses' workforce (a "free" benefit to the private sector), provides roads, bridges, ports, and other infrastructure (which lowers transaction costs and stimulates trade), provides police to protect businesses' assets and employees, and even provides "free" medical care to businesses' workers (like Wal-Mart employees on Medicaid).
Then there are things like disaster relief, clearing snow, putting out fires, stopping mudslides, etc. -- all paid for by gov't.
In addition, government provides a great boon to business in the form of the Census Bureau. U.S. Census data is mined and sifted by just about every consumer products company in America, trying to figure out who their customers are, what they want, how much they earn, where they live, etc. This top-notch market research is provided "free" by gov't to the private sector -- research which the private sector on its own would never, could never, buy for itself.
Moreover, gov't spends $ billions on basic scientific research which, again, most companies do not have the resources to invest in themselves. (Only a few big companies, like IBM, still do basic scientific research). And yet businesses take advantage of that basic research when they do their applied science, and make a profit from it.
Or look at satellites and GPS technology: how do you think those satellites got up there? The private sector can't afford rockets, and it certainly didn't spend the money to bring rocket science and satellite technology to the point where it is today. You can thank Big Gov't for that.
Or look at your son-in-law: government provides him financing and incentives to develop land and building projects, turning unproductive land into productive land, employing people, and eventually providng tax revenue.
And although I'm generally against it, you know that gov't frequently provides tax subsidies and tax holidays for business to invest in their city/state, in the belief that this creates more jobs and wealth than it costs taxpayers in subsidies.
I could go on and on. Walter Williams, as usual, oversimplifies and is way off base. He acts like all gov't does is leech off business, and gives nothing in return. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
As for "life's essentials," I have my doubts about Americans buying only essential consumer goods. Our erstwhile economic boom wasn't driven by Americans buying baloney and canned tomato soup, and saving all their money to invest in business ventures and equities; it was driven by them buying flat screen TVs and other electroncis, expensive SUVs, gaudy McMansions, vacations, and trendy clothes. Profligate spending (financed by tech and housing bubbles), low interes rates, and gov't borrowing have driven our economy for the past 30 years. You don't seem to realize what our country has become, and what makes it go. You baby boomers have transformed the America of your parents which saved and produced into our superficial, consumer-driven culture, which spends and throws away. Where plastic, throwaway things are the measure of a man's worth and a company's bottom line.
But back to taxing businesses: it is always a fine line, a tradeoff between allowing business to flourish and providing for the general welfare (including the welfare of business). Absolutist arguments about the "evil" of taxation or "taxation is stealing" are juvenile and get us nowhere. Contrary to your assertion, "having your cake and eating it too" is advocating lower taxation without any corresponding reduction in gov't services. (Exhibit A: the Reagan and Dubya years). You'd be better served to concentrate your anger on spending, not taxes. Tell your gov't representatives exactly what spending you disapprove of. Don't advocate "starving the beast" and running up our nat'l debt without addressing spending.
J
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:07 PM, <Mom> wrote:
This is my point. Raising taxes on businesses only passes the cost onto consumers and that is what Obama is asking. Get money from business and in addition have consumers pay higher prices and more tax on that price. It's called having your cake and eating it too. Poor and middle class people need to consume life's essentials and those essentials are going up in price. How does that get the rich guy?
Prosperity Lost
http://townhall.com/content/080fe5a5-edc5-4287-9f5a-1a9db685df4f
No comments:
Post a Comment