re: #214 Obdicut

In what way? It’s a non-peer reviewed paper written to invite commentary.

I read it. It’s talking about statutory rates, not effective rates.

I’m sorry, but someone asserting that the difference between income and profits isn’t important really shouldn’t ask other people if they understand things. Do you understand yet why the difference between income and profit is hugely, hugely important?

Yes. But since the tax is on profits, not on the value added by the worker, what I’ve already said completely holds true. I”m sorry, but there really aren’t any more ways to explain to you why, economically, a profitable worker is not affected by a tax on profits. It makes them produce less profit for the company; however, since they’re still producing profit, they are a net benefit to the company.

If you can’t grasp that, this is not going to make any sense to you, but it’s a very, very, very easy concept to grasp.

I’m not sure why you’d ask me to cite a paper proving something I haven’t contended, except that at this point you really can’t do much except lash out at strawmen.

It is easy to show that profits don’t affect hiring, though; the current economy shows that.

It is exactly what you have contended. You have said that higher taxes have absolutely no impact on firms incentive to hire workers.
Yes Mankiw is talking about statutory tax rates, but profit for tax purposes is different to accounting profit. That is what effective tax rates take into account. The statutory rate might be 30% but the effective rate (on accounting profits) might be different. The two are still related. US effective corporate taxes are amognst the highest in the OECD as I have shown inlinks but you refuse to accept.
I have also cited a harvard economist and that other one from the CBO (sort of) but you refuse to accept that higher taxes on company profits hurt workers. Why is that when it is so logically and emprically clear?