A simpler solution to inflation

Economists argue that the treatment for inflation is to cool down economic activity, hence the policy of increasing the interest rate. (This strikes me as being disturbingly similar to the old adage of “feed a cold, starve a fever”, which while making superficial sense turns out to be medically incorrect, but I digress).

Business taxes are also supposed to reduce economic activity. So why not just peg the corporate income tax rate to the inflation rate?

The corporate tax rate would automatically rise when the economy is “overheating” and decline as it enters into recession. Removes a lot of politics and human error from monetary policy. Might also motivate Exxon to work a little harder to hold down energy prices.

Business tax prep becomes more complicated, but accountants need jobs too.

3 Likes

Removes a lot of politics


Ah - there’s the rub: Removes loads of lobbyist money and arguing points from the front pages of newspapers

Jeff

Ah - there’s the rub: Removes loads of lobbyist money and arguing points from the front pages of newspapers

And the national mantra for 40 years is “must not burden the JCs”.

The “supply side” counter to raising corporate taxes, would be cut government spending. Cut education. Cut road maintenance. Cut police and fire departments. The “water crisis” in Jackson, Mississippi, has been all over the news lately. The water system in that city has been collapsing for years due to underinvestment. It’s reminiscent of the Flint, Michigan, water crisis that was caused by a Lansing mandated spending cut. Make that the template for all of Shinyland, no schools, no roads, no water, no sewers, no police, no fire departments, millions of people laid off to cut “inflationary” demand, but the “JCs” are not “burdened”.

Steve

8 Likes

The “supply side” counter to raising corporate taxes, would be cut government spending.

Remove welfare payments (which pretty much ALL payments made) to the wealthy (individuals AND corporations). Huge savings realized immediately. They get EXACTLY what they SAID they wanted.

1 Like

Remove welfare payments (which pretty much ALL payments made) to the wealthy (individuals AND corporations).

Can’t do that. All the handouts to the “JCS” are “job creation”.

The beauty of plan Steve is two fold:

1: Laying off millions of government employees, because the vital services they provided are defunded, relieves the labor shortage, as the people would be stampeding to the “JCs” for a job, at any pay, any working conditions.

2: By defunding all the government functions, a large portion of the population of Shinyland would be living in squalor, due to their inability to pay out of pocket for health care, or education, clean water, sewer service, or anything else. This would solve the illegal immigration problem. Make life in Shinyland worse for the lower half, or more, of the population than in Guatemala, and people would stop coming here. The Guatemalans who are already here might even “self deport” back to Guatemala.

/(largest “end sarcasm” tag ever)

Steve

1 Like

no roads, no water, no sewers, no police, no fire departments

cause none of that would inconvenience the job creators?

I don’t think cutting the demand side is a very good idea. I don’t think that business thinks that is, either.

The government is run with funny money more than taxes anyway. I strongly suspect that the “JCs” want higher taxes on poor people to keep them stuck in low-paying jobs.

Remove welfare payments (which pretty much ALL payments made) to the wealthy (individuals AND corporations).

Can’t do that. All the handouts to the “JCS” are “job creation”.

Ah, but that is the beauty of my plan.

Tie payments to REAL “job creators” by actual jobs created (i.e. NOT FUNDED–but actually CREATED).

Any moron can FUND jobs created by a real job creator. So FUNDERS ARE ELIMINATED as beneficiaries of any job creation program–for the same reason the govt is eliminated as a recipient of those funds. Actually CREATING additional jobs is the objective. Funding businesses is what banks and investors do (they do NOT create jobs).

I strongly suspect that the “JCs” want higher taxes on poor people to keep them stuck in low-paying jobs.

Willi,

There are two classes of JC. One is in the states that pay $7.25 per hour to women and minorities. The other is in the states with higher minimum wages. The difference for the solvent wealthier employers is night and day. The solvent wealthy employers are not completely ruinous self serving idiots.

1 Like