Regarding the letter “Corbett's budget claim” by the executive director of Democrat staff for the state House Appropriations Committee: I do not question whether there was a budget deficit, but I do object to the statement about “cutting business taxes ... when the state couldn't afford to do so.” If the state cannot afford the cut in business taxes, neither can its citizens afford an increase.
Business taxes are paid in part by purchasers of the product made and by the employees and stockholders of the company. Taxes are a cost on business, and if competition does not work to hold prices down, the price of the product is increased. Where competition restricts price increases, there is an effect on the number of employees or a restriction on wage increases and that is paid for by the employees and stockholders.
One estimate is that every $1 increase in corporate tax will reduce wages by 60 cents. So, the question becomes: Should government work to reduce its costs and employees, or should companies restrict wages and lay off people? Which would be better for the economy?
If the economy gets weak, there are lower profits to tax, hurting both citizens and the state. If the economy gets stronger, tax revenues will increase without an increase in business taxes, since profits will increase. It seems the answer is to cut the business or corporate tax, and both the consumer and the state benefit. It still would help if the state would begin to reduce instead of growing in size and begin to control wasteful spending and limit spending to worthwhile projects.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.