I saw this and just had to post it .

December 22, 2012 - “What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or read in history books,” she likes to tell audiences.

“I am a witness to history.

“I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history.

If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.

“We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls.

She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers.

“Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”

No so.

Hitler is welcomed to Austria

“In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unem- ployed. We had 25 percent inflation and 25 percent bank loan interest rates.

Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were go- ing from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs.

“My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.’

“We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933.” she recalls. “We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living.

Austrian girls welcome Hitler

“Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group – Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone in Germany was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.

“Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

“We were overjoyed,” remembers Kitty, “and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and
everyone was fed.

Austrians saluting

“After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

“Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his family. Many women in the teach- ing profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been re- quired to give up for marriage.

“Then we lost religious education for kids

Poster promoting "Hitler Youth"

“Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school.. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn’t pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang ‘Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles,’ and had physical education.

“Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail.”
And then things got worse.

“The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free.

“We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

“My mother was very unhappy,” remembers Kitty. “When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn’t do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun – no sports, and no political indoctrination.

“I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing.

A pro-Hitler rally

“Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time, unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler.

“It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn’t exposed to that kind of hu- manistic philosophy.

“In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death.

“Women who stayed home to raise their families didn’t have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

“Soon after this, the draft was implemented.

Young Austrians

“It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps,” remembers Kitty. “During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys.

“They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines.
“When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.
“Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

“When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately es- tablished child care centers.
“You could take your children ages four weeks old to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, seven days a week, under the total care of the government.

“The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

“Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna..
“After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything.

“When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full.

“If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the med- ical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

“As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80 percent of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families.

“All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

“We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables.
“ Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because peo- ple might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn’t meet all the demands.

“Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

“We had consumer protection, too

Austrian kids loyal to Hitler

“We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, and then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

“In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps. The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated.

“So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good man- ual work.

“I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van.

“I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months.

“They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

“As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

“Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

“No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

“Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”

“This is my eye-witness account.

“It’s true. Those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

“America is truly is the greatest country in the world. “Don’t let freedom slip away.

“After America, there is no place to go.”

Merry Christmas!!

How was your Christmas ?

Just A moment.

HAY Mary Christmas everyone I was wondering if everybody  could just take a moment and say what there up to for the holidays. :)

ANOTHER research paper. :)

 Yet another, and yes more boring, paper on economics. :)

Research Paper

Jordan Reed

   In today’s political and economic debates, the subject of tax cuts versus government spending is an extremely volatile issue. It is a polarizing agent in the very definition of where political parties stand on method of governance, and not just in America but in many OECD nations as well. Because it is such a representative issue, both sides of the spectrum persist that their economic formula is superior to the others. This mutual persistence makes it often difficult to get a clear concise picture on the better market ideology. Now, due to recent events in the political sphere, the viability and efficacy of tax cuts has been seriously questioned and in some cases discarded entirely. These events have led me to do my research paper upon whether taxes have a negative effect on the economy, and if tax cuts have a revitalizing influence or not.

  To begin, it would be good to quantify just what these two sides represent exactly. There are numerous sects peppered throughout the spectrum, but, in order to streamline the argument, we can recognize two main factions: Keynesian and Chicago School. Each represents a foundation in their respective thought processes. Keynesian economic theory was a theory that arose around the early 20^th century. It was formed by John Maynard Keynes, and it focused on the idea that aggregate demand dominates the prosperity and productivity of an economy. The corollary to this statement is that the government has the responsibility of spending to increase the overall demand of an economy in times of recession.  In opposition to this theory, the Chicago School of Economics purported that the free-market can best distribute resources, and government interference should be as small as possible. Because of this emphasis on less interference, the use of tax cuts became a common pillar of the theory. This focuses primarily on the supply of an economic model, thereby earning this theory the moniker supply-side economics. Now, the trouble comes when these systems are compared. Each situation in which one of these theories was implemented had different variables in the market, different macroeconomic situations, and varying degrees by which the theories were implemented. These influences make large-scale dissection of these policies and their effects difficult, but it is not impossible. At certain times, there have been administrations completely behind a certain economic model, and the administration’s policies included the implementation of many of the factors contained in a specific school of economic thought. By isolating certain choices of policy during this period of implementation and the subsequent results in a cause-and-effect relationship, we can draw conclusions on the overall impact of said policies.

  First, we will observe the effects of implemented Keynesian policies in the Roosevelt administration of 1933-1945. The blame for the depression had fallen heavily upon the Republican Old Order, and this resulted in the rare occurrence when both the legislative and Executive branches of government were ousted. The new economic outlook of this administration was dominated by the New Deal, which relied heavily on the interventionist principles of Keynes’s ideas. Shown in Fig. 1 (Romer 1992:757-784), the national GDP had plummeted through 1929-1932, and, even though the descent had slowed by 1933, the election of the new administration was almost inevitable. The overwhelming election of Roosevelt gave him a definite “mandate of the people” to enact drastic change. This change included such acts as CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps), PWA (Public Works Administration), CWA (Civil Works Administration, and WPA (Works Progress Administration).Using government wages, these programs were used to employ large segments of the jobless population.  In Keynesian principle, the government spent revenue to employ citizens in works, and these public sector employees would increase the aggregate demand in the economy through the public works system. This policy of government mass-employment is lauded by Keynes himself in a letter to President Roosevelt: “public authority must be called in aid to create additional current incomes through the expenditure of borrowed or printed money. “ (Keynes,1933:2) Fig.2 (Romer 1992:757-784) shows just how many jobs these policies pushed the government to employ. Further examples of Interventionist precedent are scattered throughout this administraton’s terms and policies, but it would not serve to expand our study into these at this time.

  Before weighing and discussing these findings, I would also present an opposing event that illustrates a similar circumstance but has a radically different solution. The election of 1980 serves as a pivotal turning point in the Kenyesian/Chicago School(or neo-classical as it had become called) contention. In veiw of context, the Kenyesian economic structure had become so entrenched that President Nixon was quoted as saying, “We are all Keynesians now” But, in the 1970s there came a period of stagflation, where inflation skyrocketed, growth stagnated, and unemployment remained at a heightened level. This was detrimental to the Kenysian economists, because their policies were so closely tied to the incumbent party. When the stagflation continued, the people overthrew the current administration in the election of 1980, and supply-side economists became the new leading theorists.  One of the keystone programs of the incoming regime was the institution of a supply-side economic model, and a pillar of this model was a massive tax cut to all income brackets. This tax cut was realized in the Economic Recovery Tax Rate of 1981 that entailed a phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates over 3 years, with the top rate dropped from 70% to 50%. The Reagan administration and Chicago School theorists claimed that the tax cuts would provide growth in the tax base while simeoultaneously enriching the populace. Did it accomplish these things? Were these tax cuts successful in their stated purpose? Statistics from the period show that GDP grew at an annual percentage rate of 3.1 from 1980-1988, real family median income rose 0.8% annualy, and unemployment annualy fell by 0.3%. Even more telling is the fact that each quintile of living’s real income was raised by at least 5%. (Moore) Looking at these statistics, it would seem reasonable to at least make a superficial claim that tax cuts do indeed have a postive effect on the economy. The problem with this line of thinking is it doesn’t lay rest the basic question of whether tax cuts or government spending are more effective. After all, these two methodologies of governance are mutually exclusive. One represents government intervention during recession while the other focuses on minimal government interferance.

  To solve the problems above, we must examine the factors and evidence in each case, and define what would constitute a “successful” policy. For my paper, I am constituting a successful policy as one that spurs the economy to greater GDP than it would have experianced otherwise .

    First, we examine the New Deal example. Did the Keynsian method work? Upon first glance the evidence seems convincing. The GDP skyrocketed from 58 billion in 1933 to nearly 130 billion in 1941. This is one area where we must understand the intricacies of the historical context. Part of that enormous increase in GDP can be partly attributed to the energizing effect of America’s entrance into World  War 2. For this reason, it would be more informative to study the economic evidence of pre-WW2. With this in mind we can now see that the GDP jumped to approximately 90 billion in 1938. This 32 billion increase over five years is spectacular in any circumstance, but the claim that the rapid growth was caused by the fiscal  policies of FDR has been questioned in recent studies. Economist Christina Roma put forth a study that the government spending of the New Deal had less of an effect on the growth of GDP. She proves this through the use of an algorithm that incorporates the recessions and revoverys of previous instances. The simulation allows one to see approximately what the GDP growth would have been without the fiscal policy of 1933. (see fig. 3). (Romer) By looking at this chart that the Keynsian policies employed had nearly no effect on the growth. In the limited scope of this example, we can derive that a policy of government spending to increase demand is flawed, but it should be repeated that the diverse variables comprising the different markets must be taken into account in any conclusion.

  Of course, it is does nothing to quell a controversy if one policy is proven flawed but the other is not tested for its own authenticity. We now study the Reagan period of economic policy, and the Chicago School methodology brought with it. Applying the same litmus test we used on the New Deal policies, did Reagan’s tax cuts spur growth? We see in figure 4 that the growth during the Reagan administration was the second largest post WW2. In addition, A broad view showed that the growth came after two consequtive falls in growth. More than that, it could be implied that the economic stagflation would not have recovered without some major change, and that change was this change in economic policy.

  Viewing all the presented evidenc e, a few conclusions can be drawn from them. First, in the examples listed we see the weakness of Keynsian policies. It should be remembered that though they didn’t have an effect in these instances, but there are numerous studies that present further evidence on the different facets of the economy. What is proven in this paper is that the Keynsian ideology does not particularly contribute to the overall growth of GDP.

  Another conclusion that could be drawn is that, while interventionistism does not work, tax cuts have a pro-growth effect on the overall  economy. Because the measurement of success being gauged was GDP, that was the targeted statistic, but there are numerous other statistics, unemployment and real family income just for starters, that show a favorable change due to tax cuts and Chicago School policies.

  The final conclusion is that, while these issues have become a defining point of alliegiance in politics of the modern day , tax cuts and government spending are in themselves not complete economic policies. Just as there are numerous variables and nuances in a market, there is an equal amount of complexity in any economic plan. Tax cuts versus government spending really illustrates the difference in the way of approaching an economic  plan to solve a problem.

 

Works Cited

Keynes, John. "AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT." 16 December 1933.

Moore, William A. Niskanen and Stephen. "Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record." 22 October 1996. Cato Institute. Web. 25 November 2012.

Romer, Christina D. "What Ended the Great Depression?" The Journal of Economic History 52.4 (1992): 757-784. Web. 25 November 2012. <http://www.jstor.org.dbsearch.fredonia.edu:2048/stable/2123226?seq=11>.

Figure 1

Figure 2Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Just the kind of research paper you would expect from the Gryphon..

Hey All Bloggers!

This is Gryphon here. I hope everyone has enjoyed their Thanksgiving and respective time being thankful and stuff. I know I most certainly have. As most of you know, my college life is consuming most of my time, but I decided that this assignment could serve the dual purpose of being a blog post and a research paper on corporate taxes.( With a title like that, I realize no one will actually read the post. Don't worry about it. It just makes me feel good to post something. :D )

p.s: remember the Prof gave me some really strange parameters. So remember most of the stuff is mine, but there are places where I was forced to insert the "required content". See if you can guess which part wasn't mine. :P

                         Corporate Taxes: A Study That Shows Sometimes Less Really Is More

   Imagine a college student. He had worked exhaustively for the past four years in order to graduate. The courses and challenges of college had been difficult, but the individual endeavored onward, investing immense amounts of time and money into the final goal of achieving a degree. Finally, the student, passing hurdle after hurdle, graduates. The person then sets to searching for a job which will not only pay the bills but also employ the degree he laboriously earned, but opportunities dry up and any openings seem to disappear quickly. As the unemployed graduate grows more desperate, he finally finds a low-level job outside his field, but it at least pays for his expenses.  Now as his college loans start accumulating interest, the bewildered student wonders just where the good jobs he had been preparing for went to.

   This is just an example of a common problem pervasive throughout America today. The economy and job market have stagnated to the point where one of every two college graduates are unemployed “Chew”. Debt continues to grow upwards while the job market shrinks, and businesses do not have the means to continue steady expansion. This weak economy is the result of the economic recession, and, while there are many factors and variables involved in the study of the recession economy, a facet particularly pertinent to the business community and job seekers is the issue of corporate taxes. While the effect of taxation is itself a large complex issue, we can gain a greater understanding of the whole by studying one of the parts. The part that I will focus on is the negative effect of the current USA corporate tax rate on firms and corporations, and why it should be lowered.

  First, before we analyze this toll, it would be profitable to define exactly what I mean by corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are “A levy placed on the profit of a firm, with different rates used for different levels of profits. Corporate taxes are taxes against profits earned by businesses during a given taxable period; “(“ (Investopedia)”) In approximation, it is a tax placed on the earnings of businesses. By knowing what exactly corporate taxes are, we can now properly weigh it’s effects, and why it should be lowered.

  Now, in a time when the deficit is at an all time high, people having less money to spend, and jobs scarce, many people might wonder at the logic of lowering the tax rate for businesses, but the fact is this is the right time to cut the rate. As of 2012, the United States of America achieved an effective  corporate tax rate of 34.6%,the highest rate in the G7 (the economic planning council) and the  the fourth highest rate in the world. While other industrialized nations have intitated corporate tax cuts for their countries, America continues to have a rate double that of the national average and well above that of other industrialized nations. (Institute)  This has several effects on businesses. Most important is that it destroys the competitive viability of America.  Firms and corporations with the means naturally seek lower tax havens, taking their jobs with them.The Examiner magazine said this, “In an expose on March 27th by CBS's 60 Minutes, hundreds of companies, and over $1.1 trillion dollars, are now being kept overseas providing nothing to the US economy due to stringent tax laws and regulations which make it difficult to invest, create new jobs, and find profitability if incorporated in America.” (Kenneth Schortgen Jr)

  Likewise, the jobs that could be given to American families should be reason enough for alleviating the tax burden. Yet, there are those that purport that these statistics are false or misleading.  Democracy in America, a popular political blog, has stated “Members of the business community, for their part, have long maintained that America's corporate rate, nominally the highest in the world, should be lowered. But that 35 percent rate is more theory than practice. Studies indicate that after tax breaks, the effective corporate tax rate is in fact closer to 25 percent, and one analysis found that nearly 300 major companies paid an average rate of just 18.5 percent between 2008 and 2010.” (R.M.) When reading this, it is important to note that it is true that some of these corporations do pay less than the effective rate, but there is a fallacy apparent in the logic. The article doesn’t go deep enough into the problem. Where did the companies get these tax breaks? They received them by relocating and off-shoring to areas with a more profitable tax rate, which the corporations had to do to avoid the excessive corporate tax in the first place. An example of this would be the tech giant Apple, who built factories in Ireland, routs internet traffic through Luxembourg, and then banks the profits in the Netherlands. All these operations create jobs for these nations, and the reason for this overly complicated trek is that each of these countries has tax laws vastly lower than America’s. In addition, while a select few firms can offshore, other companies cannot afford these loopholes, and the largest percent of taxes fall upon them hardest. (Prante) It is much like the family business or local firm that provides an infrastructure for an area. These small based businesses simply do not have the contacts or resources to relocate to these tax havens, and they must then compete with businesses that have. This presents the dual problems of a foreign based corporate system and also an imbalanced domestic market. An easy solution to both these problems is to lower the tax rate to a value where it is more attractive and profitable to keep their operations in the US. It would

  Similarly, a common charge brought up against the idea of reducing the rate is that the government cannot afford to lose the revenue. These detractors claim that tax cuts do not actually spur on growth, and thereby the government would lose a source of income for no reason. The problem in this is those opposed to the tax cuts make two incorrect assumptions. One, tax cuts do in fact spurs growth. There are numerous historical examples of this very thing occurring. In 1981, the USA had an unemployment rate of 7.5% and corporate tax rate of 46%. After the corporate tax was cut down to 35% by the Reagan Administration, the national unemployment rate fell to 5.0%. These statistics show an enormous growth in employment. Knowing that tax cuts of this kind can spur growth actually solves the second misconception. With the increased growth spurred by the tax cuts, government would actually bring in more income than at higher rates, because it would be getting slightly less from an economic base that is constantly growing, resulting in more income overall. This idea is illustrated handily by an economic model called the Laffer Curve. Created by the economic advisor Arthur Laffer, the Laffer Curve shows a relationship between tax rate and tax revenue. According to the Cato institute, “The Laffer curve illustrates the idea that above a certain tax rate, cuts to the rate cause the tax base to expand sufficiently for revenues to increase. The U.S. corporate tax rate is above that rate, and thus in a strong Laffer zone.” (Edwards)  The Laffer Curve is also handily shown true in real world examples. In 1985, Ireland had a corporate tax rate of 50%, but their overall corporate tax revenue was only 1% of their Gross Domestic Product. Over the next nineteen years the Irish government underwent a series of reforms that lowered the rate down to 12%, and coincidentally the corporate revenue skyrocketed to 3.6% .This is an increase of roughly 300%.  What we see in these examples is basically the ideal Laffer Curve effect. Although, with this diagram in mind, it is important to note that not all tax cuts have this dramatic of an effect. In order to be most effective, corporate tax reductions must be employed in proper areas and are only one piece of an economic plan. But, as these examples and models show, the use of tax cuts is a powerful positive economic stimulus.

   With all these facts, statistics, and arguments, it all boils down to one simple question. What does it matter? Perhaps economics and politics do have some meaning, but is it truly worth wasting time thinking about it? The answer is yes. We could ask that same question to our College graduate locked in a spiral of debt. Perhaps one of the companies that were forced to offshore might have had a job for him. Maybe he could have found employment with a local business, except that businesses are not hiring because they have to deal with an unfair tax system and ambiguous competition. If you could ask this individual or countless other unemployed people, I think they would tell you anything affecting business is of the utmost importance to them.

  On the other hand, one could even expand the observation further. What about the family and relationships of this graduated individual? The only job he can find is one that only just fulfills his needs. It definitely doesn’t leave any left over to stop his college debt from accumulating interest. The stress of his situation taints many varied areas of his life, from his self-image to his relationships. He would feel stuck in this cycle. Alternatively, it might be imagined that the graduate could move to get one of the few jobs out there. While this scenario is much better than being unemployed, it also strains any relationships he might have had, and it removes any developed structure for the newly employed to lean upon. These symptoms of extended unemployment and desperate employment cause not only economic disturbance but also psychological tension.

   Understanding all the evidence presented hitherto, one can see the damage done by the inefficient and detrimental corporate tax system. Jobs, profits, revenues, economic security, and growth, all these items are endangered for everyone by an economic policy that discourages internal and external competition. Hopefully, the American policy will soon swing to support a stronger pro-business stance, because it would be a senseless shame if the American people continued under the misconception that corporate tax cuts are the problem, when in fact they are part of the solution.

 Works Cited

Chew, Kristina. 1 in 2 College Graduates Unemployed or Underemployed. Ed. inc. Care2.com. 22 April 2012. Web. 23 November 2012.

Edwards, Chris. Coporate tax laffer curve. November 2007. Cato Institute. Web. 23 November 2012.

Institute, Cato. New Estimates of Effective Corporate tax Rates on Business Investment. na February 2011. Cato Institute. Web. 23 November 2012.

Investopedia. Corporate Tax. n.a. ValueClick, Inc. Web. 23 November 2012.

Kenneth Schortgen Jr. US corporate tax rates the primary cause for companies moving overseas. 11 March 2011. Clarity Digital Group LLC d/b/a Examiner.com. Web. 23 November 2012.

Prante, Drs. Robert Carroll and Gerald Ernst & Young LLP. Long-run macroeconomic impact of increasing tax rates on high income taxpayers in 2013. na July 2012. Ernst & Young. Web. 23 November 2012.

R.M. The trouble with tax reform. 4 Febuary 2011. The Economist. Web. 23 November 2012.