You are right. I should be more forthright; I was answering elsewhere. Here's another comment I made that's relevant.

"""

I think supply-side economics deserves more nuance than simply thinking we need to make the tax rate arbitrarily low. The Laffer curve isn't the only thing you should look at, since where you tax can be just as important as how much you tax.

Take corporate taxes for example. If one were to advocate to get rid of corporate taxes, you might think that person unabashedly biased. What kind of person would want to give tax breaks to the richest people (corporations) when everyday people are the most in need of those kind of cuts, right?

But the reality is that when you tax corporations, that is one of the most economically damaging taxes you can do. How about then, rather than taxing corporations, you tax the benefactors of those corporations directly? When you tax Walmart, sure you tax the C-suite, but you also make it so that Walmart can hire less people, and invest less in the economy. Rather than taxing the corporation, what if you just taxed the C-suite directly? Tax the Walton family, or the highest earning employees directly, and you get to have your cake and it too since you get similar amounts of tax revenue without damaging the economy nearly as much.

You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states. This is supply side economics at work, and an example of how supply-side economics can be easily misrepresented.

"""

▲

dec0dedab0de 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Next time start with this level of nuance. Flippantly arguing semantics about controversial issues is not the way.

	▲	manlymuppet 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It really isn't semantics. How do you compare a criticism, with a policy? Trickle-down economics doesn't have any legislative appropriations. It's not taught in economics classes. Like saying "what's the difference between a boat and a car?" I can tell you that a boat is not a car, but I can't compare the wheels of a car with a boat, nor the keel of a boat with a car. They are different things is all I'm trying to say. Now as for why I didn't expand with nuance earlier, in my defense I was expanding, but elsewhere in the thread. I foolishly thought this was enough.

▲

odo1242 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I see, interesting.

▲

bena 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states.

This is only true if you look at the standard tax rate. The effective tax rate of a lot of US corporations is appreciably lower.

It works in places like Scandinavia because they don't give corporations ways to lower their tax burden

	▲	manlymuppet 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My point still stands though. Taxing income and consumption directly (hopefully the income/consumption of rich people) is preferable to indirect corporate taxes. In other conversation though, am I curious to know where you got your data. As far as I'm aware the Scandinavian countries do in fact have a robust system of corporate tax incentives. This is part of the reason they boast such high productivity. I very well might be wrong here though, and the topic is interesting. Would you care to share a source?