Just in time for Tax Day, the April 13 issue of Parade magazine gave readers left-wing talking points on corporate taxation dressed up as objective reporting.
Contributor Gary Weiss cited two left-wing interest groups and liberal Democratic congressman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) in "Are You Paying For Corporate Fat Cats?" By the end of the article, readers are all but left to seethe an angry "yes!" to that question.
Yet at no point were any economists consulted to point out that corporate tax levies are always ultimately paid by the consumer, who bears the final cost of goods and services produced by the taxed corporations. Taxes are yet one more input cost into final goods and services. So simply put, corporations don't pay taxes, individuals do.
Weiss failed to tackle the political slant of the groups he consulted, which were merely tagged as nonprofits. A quick Google search of the groups makes clear the liberal slant of the organizations.
For example, Weiss cited Charles Cray of the "watchdog group" Center for Corporate Policy (CCP). Cray's bio makes clear he's a veteran of left-wing organizations such as Citizen Works and Greenpeace USA.
Cray's colleagues on the CCP steering committee include an activist with MoveOn.org. CCP also approves many liberal legislative proposals aimed at curbing executive compensation.
In other words, CCP is obsessed with fostering and exploiting envy of corporate officers, particularly CEOs.
Citizens for Tax Justice is also well-credentialed with the political Left. From the CTJ's Web site:
CTJ's studies on the impact of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations have kept the issue alive in the debate over the federal budget deficit. CTJ's Inequality and the Federal Budget Deficit (1991) examined the linkage between tax cuts for the wealthy and the mounting federal deficit. This attention helped set the stage for President Clinton's 1993 budget act, which took back some of the tax cuts previously granted to the wealthiest Americans by the supply-side tax plan of 1981.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It's not as simple as taxes
April 12, 2008 - 20:27 ET by cleverpigIt's not as simple as taxes = price increase so it doesn't matter what corporations pay.
For one thing, that article says that individual tax burden is going up while corporate tax burden is going down. What is the explanation for that? What good does it do us to have cheaper goods if we just have to pay more in taxes to make up for the corporation's share.
Second, if it is all about the prices that consumers eventually pay, why aren't conservatives up in arms about excessive executive compensation? I get that you need to pay good people good money, but you can't tell me you think Visa would have trouble attracting talent if they cut their CEO's benefits package in half. There would still be lots of good people who wanted the job. Every penny of those salaries and bonuses is paid by consumers, right?
Third, when corporations create shell companies in other countries, they take money out of our system and put it in someone else's. I don't really have a problem with that-- I think that globalization means that our standard of living will eventually drop, while the SoL in other countries will rise because of our business. Seems only fair to me. However, for those of you who think equality is a dirty word, I'm surprised you're not angry that corporations aren't interested in propping up our standard of living anymore at the cost of their own profit margin.
What good does it do us
April 12, 2008 - 20:40 ET by dmntd1I thought it was made abundantly clear that the 'corporation's share' is coming from the consumers' pockets. So we're already paying the taxes, now you want yet another middle-man?
We would be up in arms if we thought the compensation was excessive. Keep in mind that although the head of Countrywide 'made' a lot of money, he lost somewhere around 19 times that much.
Which is another reason our tax-code is failing us. To heck with the money they're taking out, they're also taking jobs that Americans can do, will do and have done in the past.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective will that transcends the particular individual - Mussolini
"We would be up in arms if
April 13, 2008 - 10:58 ET by ckc1227"We would be up in arms if we thought the compensation was excessive.
Keep in mind that although the head of Countrywide 'made' a lot of
money, he lost somewhere around 19 times that much."
As a Conservative(or maybe the libertarian in me), I'd have to disagree on this one. Frankly, it's none of my business how much a private, for-profit business pays its employees. If they want to pay someone a billion dollars, so be it. It's not my money, and, as such, it's not my place to tell them how to spend it, whether I think it's excessive or not. And frankly, it's a bogus argument to begin with. In the grand scheme of things, executive pay is a drop in bucket, and has little or no effect on the pricing of goods. Exxon could have eliminated the very generous retirement package for their outgoing ceo a few years ago that had so many folks up in arms, and it would have made no difference on the price of gas.
I agree with your other points though. You can't insist on having the third highest corporate tax rate in the world on the one hand, and then bitch about corporations locating overseas on the other hand. If you don't want them to leave, make it less expensive for them to exist here. Make it cheap enough and businesses from all ovcr the world will be flocking here instead. At the least, maybe if Ohio would take that advice, they wouldn't be in the shape they are in job wise.
→ ckc
April 13, 2008 - 11:02 ET by Cool ArrowHow would the Libs feel if we put a cap on how much Tom Cruise or Oprah Winfrey could make.
Can't we argue their contracts are exorbitant.
♣ a seal
How come no Liberal is
April 13, 2008 - 11:13 ET by Free StinkerHow come no Liberal is calling for a cap on the Clinton's earnings?
/Sarcasm On Oh, yeah, that's going to happen. /Sarcasm Off
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!
ExxonMobil's tax payments
April 12, 2008 - 20:31 ET by ConservativeRexExxonMobil's tax payments every quarter=26 Billion dollars. Over 100 Billion in taxes per year. More than the total taxes payed by the entire bottom 50% of all taxpayers in the entire United States.
To a democrats sensibility I guess XOM is not paying their fair share. The dems want not only all of XOM taxes but all of their profits as well. The dems should put a pencil to how much they would be paying for a gallon of gasoline with only half the taxes XOM has put on every gallon of gasoline by the states and the federalis. They would then direct their anger and envy elsewhere.
Once again I am always
April 13, 2008 - 09:26 ET by jdhawkOnce again I am always amazed at the banal hate corporations drivel that comes out of the left. The fact is that the number ONE beneficiaries of corporate profits are local, state, and federal governments via corporate taxes. They get a bigger slice of corporate revenue then any other single entity.
What we need is less taxes at all levels.
By the way, the organizations that back this hate corporations campaign all have one thing in common. They don't pay any TAXES.
hey, it's Parade magazine, what do you expect?
April 13, 2008 - 12:03 ET by Jnoblealmost everthing in that thing is immediatly disposable....a fluff interview with some celebrity, a political investigation like this one with an almost assured left-wing slant to it (like the one last month about how trains are the answer to clogged highways and gas prices....yeah, trains. 1950 called, it wants it's idea back) and then the last three pages are full color ads for garden products and cheesy collector plates with a picture of an angel of something on them.
Parade
April 13, 2008 - 13:27 ET by samnichI read the article. He conveniently forgot to mention that corporations dividends are taxed to the recipients, individual stockholders. It was very liberal slanted.