Results for “corporate tax” 239 found
Wednesday assorted links
1. SkyHub.
3. The economics of religious festivals in Mexico.
4. Claims about housing. And Samuel Hughes and Ben Southwood on very localized zoning — “strong suburbs.”
5. MIE?: Corporate tax futures.
6. Are universities really somewhat right-wing/centrist? (Teen Vogue)
Saturday assorted links
2. People systematically overlook subtractive changes. And a Patrick Collison comment: “An obvious point that took me way too long to appreciate: in software engineering, you should probably optimize for speed even when you don’t have to, because it’s one of the easiest/best ways to prioritize subtraction and parsimony in the solution space.”
3. Against alcohol.
4. Ezra Klein interviews Brian Deese about the economic thinking of the Biden Administration (with transcript). A good instantiation of “where they are at.”
5. Various observations on the Biden corporate tax plan.
6. ‘Sense of Disappointment’ on the Left as the N.Y.C. Mayor’s Race Unfolds.” (NYT) Again, I’m going to double down on my earlier claim that the progressive Left has peaked (which is not to claim that statism has peaked, it hasn’t). This is NYC people!
7. Fact and fiction about Ethiopia’s ethnofederalism? The content is hardly controversial to most readers I suspect, or even deeply committal on main issues, but the author chose anonymity nonetheless, which is itself a meta-comment on the piece’s own topic.
8. Map of all the physics particles and forces, highly useful, good explication, I don’t find any of this stuff intuitive. “Strangely, there are no right-handed W bosons in nature.” What is wrong with you people!? Why can’t it all be windowless monads? Or is it?
Monday assorted links
1. On the history and use of EUAs (NYT).
3. Sara Lowes on ethnographic and field data in economics.
4. Saez and Zucman respond to their critics in great detail.
5. The value of rapid self-testing for Covid-19. Yes it works and the medical professionals and the FDA are wrong on this one.
6. Logistical problems with supplying monoclonal antibodies, important. It is time to stop dumping on this treatment people, and get our act together. Now. Let’s not have another fiasco. And a good NYT story on the whole topic, you can feel the media mood shifting toward the positive and away from the skeptical.
7. Can you even win at the Japanese crane game? What else is like this?
8. The captain of Operation Warp Speed (WSJ).
9. How it enters your brain. Or might.
10. A Fine Theorem on Milgrom and Wilson, recommended, note that Milgrom also does not have a Ph.D. in economics.
Monday assorted links
1. “Sociable weavers work together to construct large nests in southern Africa, often in acacia trees. The nests can weigh as much as 1 ton and house up to 200 birds in individual chambers. Their cooperative behaviors also include chick rearing and defense against snakes and falcons.” Link here.
2. Why so much regional inequality in Britain (The Economist).
3. Both of these supposed Gauguins look like fakes to me.
4. Shruti on Indian Matchmaking (Bloomberg).
5. A sort of funny tweet stream about cross-national comparisons of corporate tax laws.
6. New and positive results on deworming.
7. “Zombie cicadas” infected with mind-controlling fungus return to West Virginia.
Tuesday assorted links
1. North Korean restaurants in Russia fail to draw diners.
2. Repeat link, but corporate taxes do seem to discourage investment. Just in case you had forgotten, or in case you had starting believing that correlation implies causation, or that lack of correlation implies lack of causation. Or something like that.
3. EV winner Lama Al Rajih works with Culdesac, a start-up that just premiered (WSJ), devoted to walkable, carless residential neighborhoods.
4. Caplan responds to Garett Jones on open borders.
5. Here is a serious pro-Morales take covering recent events in Bolivia.
My recent talk at OECD
It covers privacy, Facebook, security vs. competition, Huawei, the proposed digital tax, and recent OECD corporate tax proposals. Here is the video.
Words of wisdom
Amazon will pay property tax on its new Long Island City offices. It will pay corporate tax — not just on its profits, but on its capital base. Its employees, especially highly paid ones, will pay the city’s personal income tax. Those taxes, of course, will be somewhat offset by the incentives that the city has promised the company — up to $2 billion, depending on how many people the company hires and how many facilities it builds. Those incentives were a wasteful way to attract corporate investment. But in the long run, the tax revenue New York City gets from HQ2 will probably far exceed the cost.
That is from Noah Smith at Bloomberg. The “will” needs to be changed, otherwise right on target…
Publicly traded firms do not have an investment deficit
Using data from U.S. corporate tax returns, which provide a sample representative of the universe of U.S. corporations, we investigate the differential investment propensities of public and private firms. Re-weighting the data to generate observationally comparable sets of public and private firms, we find robust evidence that public firms invest more overall, particularly in R&D. Exploiting within-firm variation in public status, we find that firms dedicate more of their investment to R&D following IPO, and reduce these investments upon going private. Our findings suggest that public stock markets facilitate greater investment, on average, particularly in risky, uncollateralized investments.
That is by Naomi Feldman, et.al., from the Fed. Via Andrew McAfee and Matt Yglesias. Of course, this is very much the opposite of what you usually hear from other sources.
Friday assorted links
Is the case for free trade still valid in a world of welfare states?
That is a request from dearieme, and the answer is yes, the case for free trade is still valid.
First, some welfare states, such as the United States and Denmark, are quite compatible with full employment, or could be compatible with full employment if say monetary policy were better. The welfare state may still, through say tax rate effects, keep some family second earners out of the work force. That is likely inefficient, but it doesn’t boost the case for protectionism.
Second, the actual second best problem comes when a welfare state (especially a poorly designed one, and there are some of those) interacts with job churn. Given that some people are out of work, the welfare state may limit their incentive for job search, or the associated taxes and regulations may limit job creation on the employer side. So some workers will lose their jobs due to foreign competition, and find reemployment difficult or not sufficiently desirable relative to the dole.
Overall, though, a lot of those jobs were going to disappear anyway, because of either automation or simply shifts in consumer demand. In that sense free trade is simply the “messenger,” rather than a unique villain. Are jobs more precarious in larger trade zones? I can’t recall seeing a protectionist make that case, instead they simply rely on the superficial observation of the first-order, visible effect, namely that some jobs have gone away for trade-related reasons. The possibility of importing intermediate goods makes many jobs more stable, as do exports. There is no a priori reason to expect free trade to under-perform in this regard.
Free trade still gives an economy more wealth for dealing with transition problems, and it gives workers a better chance of finding a new job somewhere else. To be sure, not all classes or regions of workers will benefit from this dynamism at any point in time. But a welfare state will help protect those workers who do not.
For all of those reasons, the case for free trade is robust to having welfare states.
Alternatively, you might try a “race to the bottom” argument for thinking that free trade and welfare states may interact in counterproductive ways. Let’s say that free trade causes governments to compete to lure or keep business activity. That tends to encourage a social welfare state funded through consumption taxes (not corporate taxes), accompanied by a minimum of regulation. That sounds like an OK enough race to me. I’m not even sure there is a race to the bottom on the regulatory side, but at the very least there are incentives for regulation not to exceed a manageable level, again all to the better.
Monday assorted links
1. America is still a suburban nation.
2. “Evidence from applying this framework to these data indicates that between and 45 and 75 percent of the
burden of corporate taxes is borne by labor with the balance borne by capital.” That estimate seems high to me, but this paper is a serious effort.
3. Germany bans children’s smart watches.
4. “One of the friends who helped her through that period was Ivanka Trump, though their relationship has grown more complicated.” This article is really quite something. NYT, you have to keep on reading to grasp the narrative.
5. 100 cryptocurrencies in four words or less. You can play this game in your car with the children.
6. Most popular names for girls, state-by-state, year-by-year What is it with Nebraska and “Addison”?
Thursday assorted links
1. Eric Ohrn, on cutting corporate rates, using variation from the DPAD.
2. Derek Thompson is not yet a reactionary.
3. Tinder for Canadian policymakers.
4. When FDR filed for the EITC.
5. Useful Steve Landsburg on corporate tax incidence. And more Krugman. And the Larry Summers tax plan.
6. Will Wilkinson.
Sunday assorted links
1. Is the BBC tailoring some content to do away with the plot?
2. Mark Koyama reviews Peter Leeson.
3. Paul Krugman responds on corporate tax incidence. I see this as a classic case of “as usual the truth lies somewhere in between.” In response to Paul, foreign capital goes after American rents all the time (ask Toyota), exchange rate overshooting models have little validity in the data (“news” moves exchange rates), and I don’t see why the long-run is a bad guide to tax policy. That said, I do think more of the burden of capital taxation falls on capital than labor, but plenty falls on labor nonetheless. See the most recent comments from Summers, stronger arguments overall.
4. “The Seattle Sperm Bank categorizes its donors into three popular categories: “top athletes,” “physicians, dentists and medical residents,” and “musicians.”” Link here.
5. Excellent Scott Sumner post on an excellent John Cochrane post.
Saturday assorted links
Tuesday assorted links
1. There is no great caffeine bracelet stagnation.
2. Greg Mankiw seems to favor the new Republican tax plan. And Krugman comments. I say anything complicated they will just screw up, and the lack of transparency in the plan means eventually it will lead to a tax hike and furthermore a good deal of favoritism and rent-seeking along the way. Best hope is simply that they cut the corporate tax rate and don’t do much else on that front.
3. Chinese social media as a form of surveillance.