5 ms·

I do not know enough to disagree with you on your main point, but I do have a few nits. You really don't need a study from Harvard to get data on this. If you

I do not know enough to disagree with you on your main point, but I do have a few nits. You really don't need a study from Harvard to get data on this. If you don't get it because of a lack of business experience, go talk to your local high-school-educated baker, mechanic or gas-station owner for a quick round-down. Talking to your local high-school-educated baker is not science. We confidently believe a great deal of things that are untrue, and getting it confirmed with science is valuable. In hindsight, it's usually easy to be unsurprised by a scientific result. Can you imagine possible circumstances that would lead you to confidently believe taxation and regulation to be the cause of many businesses' failure even if it were untrue? The evidence is overwhelming. Yet, we keep dicking around and supporting policies, politicians and people who somehow think they can violate the laws of physics and make things better by shafting everyone with more taxes. I would love to believe this, since that would be a good argument to have less taxes. However, as your only evidence, you offer an example of absurd property taxation on desks and chairs. Such taxes cost a business in legal, accounting, and administration fees, in addition to the tax itself, and it costs tax money to operate the government bureau to oversee all of this. All this looks to be a blatant example of government inefficiency. However, every country in the world, at least every democracy, suffers from such problems. At one point or another, the politicians have to trade political capital to push for the policies really important to them, their funders and their voter base, and less than ideal compromises do get made. I believe that taxation is inherently inefficient and I would like to see as little of it as possible. And I also believe that some functions of government are useful to society at large. A balance must be struck. This balance will include inefficiencies that come with running a political society. Given that a balance must be struck, it is possible that the optimal level of taxation would be higher than now. I do not know how to judge it - I have no basis for that. I would like to see the evidence that shows where that balance must lie. I find it otherwise unsurprising to see business owners arguing for lower corporate tax.

Domenic_S 14y ago
> Talking to your local high-school-educated baker is not science. We confidently believe a great deal of things that are untrue, and getting it confirmed with science is valuable. In hindsight, it's usually easy to be unsurprised by a scientific result. He's not talking about science per se, but the insane level of rules and regulations you've got to put up with as a business owner -- especially in California. In other words, my interpretation of the GP's remark is that you can get at least an order of magnitude measurement of the pain-in-the-ass/cost factor, which is likely several orders of magnitude higher than what you think it is if you haven't owned a business that has enough revenue to put you on the radar. The bias on HN is probably more towards software (where we can all 1099 each other) and not so much towards manufacturing (which is a major compliance pain). When you're dealing with manufacturing, things are different. You're dealing the EDD, FTB, INS and IRS (from an employee compliance standpoint), then you're also dealing with OSHA and the EPA and all their arcane rules and enforcers that hit you with $15k fines if you use dishsoap incorrectly. Then, on top of all of that you're paying a 35% tax rate. Honestly, I'm surprised manufacturing has lasted as long as it has in the US. > Given that a balance must be struck, it is possible that the optimal level of taxation would be higher than now. I do not know how to judge it - I have no basis for that. I would like to see the evidence that shows where that balance must lie. Well, you could read the article :) We have a control group (the US) and the test groups (Germany, China) are far outperforming us.
- _delirium 14y ago
  Germany is interesting as a control, because its overall tax rates are much higher than in the U.S.--- 41% of GDP for Germany, versus only 27% of GDP (at all levels of government) for the USA. But its corporate tax rate is lower, because it gets most of its tax revenue from personal income taxes and VAT. If we wanted the American tax system to become like Germany's, the steps would look roughly like: 1. significantly lower corporate tax rates; 2. nearly double personal income tax rates; 3. institute a federal VAT. But you don't end up with the German economic model if you do only #1...
  - dan00 14y ago
    "1. significantly lower corporate tax rates" This harmed the cities in Germany a lot and increased their debt. It's kind of a contradiction if Germany should be the economic guide, but it's cities can't pay for their public baths anymore.

Domenic_S 14y ago

> Talking to your local high-school-educated baker is not science. We confidently believe a great deal of things that are untrue, and getting it confirmed with science is valuable. In hindsight, it's usually easy to be unsurprised by a scientific result. He's not talking about science per se, but the insane level of rules and regulations you've got to put up with as a business owner -- especially in California. In other words, my interpretation of the GP's remark is that you can get at least an order of magnitude measurement of the pain-in-the-ass/cost factor, which is likely several orders of magnitude higher than what you think it is if you haven't owned a business that has enough revenue to put you on the radar. The bias on HN is probably more towards software (where we can all 1099 each other) and not so much towards manufacturing (which is a major compliance pain). When you're dealing with manufacturing, things are different. You're dealing the EDD, FTB, INS and IRS (from an employee compliance standpoint), then you're also dealing with OSHA and the EPA and all their arcane rules and enforcers that hit you with $15k fines if you use dishsoap incorrectly. Then, on top of all of that you're paying a 35% tax rate. Honestly, I'm surprised manufacturing has lasted as long as it has in the US. > Given that a balance must be struck, it is possible that the optimal level of taxation would be higher than now. I do not know how to judge it - I have no basis for that. I would like to see the evidence that shows where that balance must lie. Well, you could read the article :) We have a control group (the US) and the test groups (Germany, China) are far outperforming us.

_delirium 14y ago
Germany is interesting as a control, because its overall tax rates are much higher than in the U.S.--- 41% of GDP for Germany, versus only 27% of GDP (at all levels of government) for the USA. But its corporate tax rate is lower, because it gets most of its tax revenue from personal income taxes and VAT. If we wanted the American tax system to become like Germany's, the steps would look roughly like: 1. significantly lower corporate tax rates; 2. nearly double personal income tax rates; 3. institute a federal VAT. But you don't end up with the German economic model if you do only #1...
- dan00 14y ago
  "1. significantly lower corporate tax rates" This harmed the cities in Germany a lot and increased their debt. It's kind of a contradiction if Germany should be the economic guide, but it's cities can't pay for their public baths anymore.