Skip to main content

1952 recalled some more

She (my friend) then added her own comment:

There were a lot of things wrong with the 50's, but one parent working with another one staying home (which they owned) was doable when the onus of taxes wasn't on citizens.

The onus of taxes wasn't on the citizens because it was on the "corporations" you see. She seemed to be agreeing with the Sanders quote she attached that we ought to get back to that.

But what does it mean to tax corporations exactly? Is it a free lunch for the "citizens"?

Of course not. Depending on a variety of circumstances, a corporate tax gets money into the Treasury from one of three sources: the shareholders of the corporation in question; the consumers of the products and services it creates; the employees.

If the labor market for the sort of labor a particular corporation needs will allow, the corporation (a legal form for the interactions of natural people) will pass the cost of the tax that way. If the labor market doesn't allow this -- perhaps there aren't enough people with the right skills to go around -- the tax may well be passed to the consumers in higher prices. If the competitive situation doesn't allow this either, the tax presumably bites the holders of equity. I think it is a reasonable guess that third possibility is the desired one.

Yet it isn't clear to me why we should treat shareholders as illegal aliens, contrasting them with "citizens" in the way described above. The shareholders include pension funds, certainly, and those funds are supposed to protect the interests of large swatches of working people, those no longer actively in the work force as well as those who will remain there for years yet. The shareholders also include other institutions with broad demographic bases.

I'm not sure my friend thought any of this through.

Also, there is the matter of the breadth of home ownership. The comment, with its parenthesis, suggests that a couple raising children, and owning their own home, is an ideal thing, especially if the income of only one of them is sufficient to run the household and pay the mortgage. I had thought more recent events, events in this millennium, might have cured us of the romanticization of home ownership but, hey, some ideas die hard.

Allow me simply to set out the hypothesis that the way in which the U.S. government intervened in the economy to promote the housing industry in the 'Levittown' era, the intervention that created the housing glut to which my friend looks with such fondness, was rare and unsustainable. It was possible because the U.S. stood alone in the world. The U.S. was virtually the only developed capitalist economy in the world by 1945 that had been neither a battlefield nor (excepting of course Pearl Harbor) the target of ruinous bombardment.

That situation was bound not to last as the rest of the world, the bombarded and fought-upon parts, got back on their feet.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…