Thoughts on Corporate Taxation

The most frequent argument against American states raising corporate taxes that I have seen is that this will cause corporations to move their headquarters out of the state in question, transferring their jobs and patronage to another state in the process.

But this argument has a fundamental flaw. Besides having the general defeatist tone of a state that is enslaved to corporations for its well-being, it underestimates the power of the state itself to regulate commerce.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

In context, since the ability to regulate intrastate business activity is not barred from the states by the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment allows states to levy taxes on any and all entities that do business in a state, whether they reside there or not. It is perfectly legal for the government of Wisconsin to tax an Illinois citizen for activity in Wisconsin; why should an Illinois corporation be any different?

Besides, the state government could lower taxes on businesses that choose to host their headquarters in the state itself, creating a positive incentive to create jobs there. #

kjk

On Hysteria

A protester holding a "No Socialized Medicine" sign.

Let’s get the opinions of a few conservatives: How would you describe the recently passed universal health care bill?

“… a socialist scheme.”

“The bridge to socialism.”

“Mandated Health-Care Socialism.”

As I mentioned in an earlier post, most people who throw around words like ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ do so without knowing exactly what they mean. Let’s first look at an actual socialistic health care system, that of Soviet Russia. All health care workers were government employees under this system, and the most minute health care procedures were written by the central government. Much more capitalistic and much less federally regulated is the United Kingdom’s single payer system, with health care costs paid with public funds, but a mix of public and private insurance companies. Less regulated still is Canada’s health care system, with a ‘public option’ for federal funds. Universal health care passed in the United States doesn’t even go as far as Canada’s legislation does. Before conservatives cry “socialism”, they should take a moment to learn what it actually means. #

kjk

Communism?

Quick, think of three communist countries.

Most likely among your responses were the former Soviet Union, (mainland) China, or Cuba. Maybe you thought of Vietnam or North Korea, or even Albania or Laos.

I am sorry to inform you that whatever your answers were, they were quite incorrect.

Understanding why necessitates a more thorough and nuanced understanding of ‘communism’ than is currently possessed by most citizens, regardless of their government. During the mid-to-late 19th century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote well-intentioned, philosophical as well as political treatises predicting the fall of capitalism. A simplification of their predictions follows:

  1. A capitalist economy eventually drives a wedge between two classes of society, the working-class proletariat and the wealthy bourgeoisie.
  2. The social turmoil stemming from this division leads to a revolution of the proletariat, instituting a government run by the working class, called socialism. Class distinctions are abolished.
  3. With no class distinctions, there is no need for a government. The state eventually “withers away”, and everyone works together, peacefully, without distinction, for the good of the whole. This is called communism.

From the original definition of communism given by Engels and Marx, we see that a ‘communist government’ or ‘communist state’ is simply an oxymoron. The very presence of a communist society implies a lack of government. Nations such as the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Cuba (which, you notice, do not contain the word ‘communist’ in their names) simply endorse the philosophy of Marx and Engels, and believe themselves to be on the second step. So-called ‘communist states’ are simply attempted socialist approximations at a true classless, stateless communist society.

Indeed, these ‘communist states’ are often even more repressive than the capitalist societies they replaced. In every “working man’s revolution” that we have seen to date, class distinctions have not been abolished – the outgoing bourgeoisie’s place is merely occupied by the leaders of the proletariat. This class swap, as it were, does nothing to aid the proletariat, that disgruntled working class we see today in almost every society. Instead, it simply placates them for a time, giving them the illusion of governmental control where instead it is removed. If religion “is the opiate of the masses,” as Marx famously alleged, then the idea of communism is a potent cannabinoid. #

kjk

I’dn’t’ve posted this if you’d’ve just said something.

Multiple contractions.

These appear to be ridiculous constructions, useless combinations of short words. However, I love them, and they’re used in day-to-day conversation. Read the title out loud; they’re not as odd as you might think. Let’s look at the most common forms.

Simple forms follow this structure: pronoun + modal verb (generally only “would”-more on that later) + state of being verb.

Pronoun_____1st Verb_____2nd Verb______Contraction

I_______ +___would___+___have____=____I’d’ve
You____+______”_____+_____”______=___You’d’ve
He/She/It_____________________________He’d’ve, She’d’ve, It’d’ve
We___________________________________We’d’ve
They_________________________________They’d’ve

N.B. The ‘v’ sound can be dropped for flow: “we’d’ve”, for example, often becomes “we’d’a” in spoken language.

Negators can be added as well, for further fun.

Pronoun_____1st Verb_____Negator____2nd Verb_____Contraction

I________+__would___+____not____+___have___=____I’dn’t’ve
You_____+____”______+____not____+____”_____=____You’dn’t’ve
He/She/It_______________________________________He’dn’t’ve, She’dn’t’ve, It’dn’t’ve
We_____________________________________________We’dn’t’ve
They___________________________________________They’dn’t’ve

Given that “would” makes for the most readily understood contractions, the others can’t be ignored. Who could pass up the opportunity for “shall”?

1st Verb____Negator_____2nd Verb____Contraction
Should___+___not___+____have___=__shouldn’t’ve
(Archaic)__________________________shan’t’ve
Would____+___not___+____have___=__wouldn’t’ve
Could____+___not___+____have___ =__couldn’t’ve
Might____+___not___+____have___ =__mightn’t’ve
Must_____+___not___+____have___=__musn’t’ve

Note that future tense can be used as well; swap out “would” for “will”. I’d’ve written more if I had more time. #

adh