to your HTML Add class="sortable" to any table you'd like to make sortable Click on the headers to sort Thanks to many, many people for contributions and suggestions. Licenced as X11: http://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/licence.html This basically means: do what you want with it. */ var stIsIE = /*@cc_on!@*/false; sorttable = { init: function() { // quit if this function has already been called if (arguments.callee.done) return; // flag this function so we don't do the same thing twice arguments.callee.done = true; // kill the timer if (_timer) clearInterval(_timer); if (!document.createElement || !document.getElementsByTagName) return; sorttable.DATE_RE = /^(\d\d?)[\/\.-](\d\d?)[\/\.-]((\d\d)?\d\d)$/; forEach(document.getElementsByTagName('table'), function(table) { if (table.className.search(/\bsortable\b/) != -1) { sorttable.makeSortable(table); } }); }, makeSortable: function(table) { if (table.getElementsByTagName('thead').length == 0) { // table doesn't have a tHead. Since it should have, create one and // put the first table row in it. the = document.createElement('thead'); the.appendChild(table.rows[0]); table.insertBefore(the,table.firstChild); } // Safari doesn't support table.tHead, sigh if (table.tHead == null) table.tHead = table.getElementsByTagName('thead')[0]; if (table.tHead.rows.length != 1) return; // can't cope with two header rows // Sorttable v1 put rows with a class of "sortbottom" at the bottom (as // "total" rows, for example). This is B&R, since what you're supposed // to do is put them in a tfoot. So, if there are sortbottom rows, // for backwards compatibility, move them to tfoot (creating it if needed). sortbottomrows = []; for (var i=0; i
What are the unintended consequences of taxing U.S. businesses so much more on their payrolls than their corporate incomes?
This isn't necessarily an intellectual exercise - this is something that has been the case since 1978, when the amount of taxes paid by U.S. businesses first began regularly exceeding the amount of taxes they collectively paid on their business incomes.
Yesterday, we hypothesized that U.S. businesses would respond by shifting jobs outside of the United States, since that would be the most likely way they could preserve their revenues while avoiding the employers' portion of U.S. payroll taxes.
Today, we'll go a step further - we'll hypothesize that the jobs that would most likely be displaced in this way would most likely be in manufacturing. The reason why is because manufacturing is something that isn't necessarily location specific, as most service type occupations are.
For example, it doesn't really matter much where your mobile phone is manufactured - it could be in Europe, or Asia, here in America or in Africa for that matter - no matter where it might have been produced, it will still be the same mobile phone.
By contrast, the service occupations that support your mobile phone will be location specific. You can likely easily find local outlets for your service provider, which must be fairly close to where the customers for mobile phone service are.
To find out what's happened since 1978, we've created a chart showing the number of people who have been recorded as being employed in manufacturing in the United States from 1960 through 2010 (indicated on the left scale), against which we are showing the amount of U.S. direct investment abroad over the same period (indicated on the right scale), which indicates how much American businesses have invested in places other than the U.S.
Since that money has gone outside of the U.S., we're showing that value as a negative quantity. Aside from that, we've scaled our chart so that the numbers of manufacturing employees and the amount of U.S. direct investment abroad for 1978 are close to each other on the chart, and then we adjusted the vertical scales so that the horizontal gridlines on both scales would line up. Here are our results:
What we observe is that when federal payroll tax collections on businesses were lower than corporate income taxes, the number of Americans employed in manufacturing generally rose.
After 1978 however, as federal tax collections on U.S. employer payrolls have steadily risen to become the dominant form of taxation on U.S. businesses, the number of manufacturing employees has generally fallen. We see that there appears to be somewhat of a correlation between the two data streams.
There's more to it than just taxation however, as is pointed out in Andrew Butter's insider look, which is absolutely essential reading, at what other factors induced U.S. manufacturers to move out of America. We'll simply observe for our part that the disproportionate taxation of U.S. businesses on their payrolls would provide an ongoing financial incentive to drive such a change.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data. Table 1. U.S. International Transactions [Millions of dollars] - Line 51. Release Date: March 16, 2011.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. All Employees: Manufacturing (MANEMP), Thousands, Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted. Accessed 19 June 2011.
Labels: business, economics, taxes
Welcome to the blogosphere's toolchest! Here, unlike other blogs dedicated to analyzing current events, we create easy-to-use, simple tools to do the math related to them so you can get in on the action too! If you would like to learn more about these tools, or if you would like to contribute ideas to develop for this blog, please e-mail us at:
ironman at politicalcalculations
Thanks in advance!
Closing values for previous trading day.
This site is primarily powered by:
The tools on this site are built using JavaScript. If you would like to learn more, one of the best free resources on the web is available at W3Schools.com.