what's wrong with the theory of tax incidence that says that when they are
officially "paying" the tax, the corporations are really shifting the tax
to consumers or to workers (rather than the stockholders)? It seems to me
that the only exception to the corporations' ability to do this kind of
shifting is when they own depletable resources (and capture scarcity
rents). But aren't there special tax breaks for corporations that own
depletable resources? Also, if the tax law _changes_, it's quite possible
that it catches many corporations by surprise (since it's usually so
complicated), so that they are unable to pass the tax totally onto workers
and consumers until they learn how to do it. But most tax changes seem to
lower the official corporate tax burden, not raise it.
Is McIntyre's research drawing our attention away from what's important?
At 09:48 PM 10/19/00 -0700, you wrote:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/20/business/20TAX.html
>
>--
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
