Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The GDP of the Bay Area is about the same size as the GDP of Sweden.
No, it isn't. And if you knew what the numbers were you'd post them.
And you don't know what the Bay Area corporate tax revenue is either, so you're less than halfway to the point you need to be in order to make an intelligent statement about the comparative corporate tax burdens.
Which should make you embarrassed considering it was your choice to make the comparison in the first place, and you don't even have the numbers.
Quote:
Apple and Google park billions offshore, tax free. I wonder what that does to the percent of GDP calculation?
Nothing , because it doesn't generate corporate tax revenue and it isn't calculated as part of US GDP
No, it isn't. And if you knew what the numbers were you'd post them.
And you don't know what the Bay Area corporate tax revenue is either, so you're less than halfway to the point you need to be in order to make an intelligent statement about the comparative corporate tax burdens.
Which should make you embarrassed considering it was your choice to make the comparison in the first place, and you don't even have the numbers.
Nothing , because it doesn't generate corporate tax revenue and it isn't calculated as part of US GDP
yeah i guess it doesn't further your ideological goals to measure tax revenues against gdp
I don't like ideologies. You should read my posts more carefully, then you would understand that our point of views are pretty similar. It's just a fact that you can't show anything with the corporate tax to GDP ratio.
For example in some countries the corporate tax will be refunded if the profits are distributed to the owners, where they are taxed with the personal income tax. In Germany it can for example happen that the corporate tax is negative. But that doesn't mean that the profits aren't taxed. They are taxed on the owner level with the income tax. This example should make it absolutely clear that it's absurd to compare the corporate tax to GDP ratio between different countries.
No, it isn't. And if you knew what the numbers were you'd post them.
And you don't know what the Bay Area corporate tax revenue is either, so you're less than halfway to the point you need to be in order to make an intelligent statement about the comparative corporate tax burdens.
Which should make you embarrassed considering it was your choice to make the comparison in the first place, and you don't even have the numbers.
Nothing , because it doesn't generate corporate tax revenue and it isn't calculated as part of US GDP
So net exports isn't the X-M component of the calculation?
Sorry, but those figures are meaningless. A monthly rent of $3,000 for a rundown apartment in San Francisco contributes $3,000 to the GDP of the Bay Area. A monthly rent of $800 for a much nicer apartment somewhere in Sweden contributes just $800 to the GDP of Sweden. But in real terms (nice apartment vs rundown apartment) the $800 for the apartment in Sweden is worth more than the $3,000 in the Bay area.
It's utterly nonsense to compare GDP figures between Metro areas with entire countries. Absurd high rents in metro areas leads to inflated GDP figures.
Sorry, but those figures are meaningless. A monthly rent of $3,000 for a rundown apartment in San Francisco contributes $3,000 to the GDP of the Bay Area. A monthly rent of $800 for a much nicer apartment somewhere in Sweden contributes just $800 to the GDP of Sweden. But in real terms (nice apartment vs rundown apartment) the $800 for the apartment in Sweden is worth more than the $3,000 in the Bay area.
It's utterly nonsense to compare GDP figures between Metro areas with entire countries. Absurd high rents in metro areas leads to inflated GDP figures.
Congratulations! You found it all by yourself, and it only took 3 posts pointing out that you don't seem to know the actual numbers.
Nevermind that you didn't provide a source, and your number for "The Bay Area" mismatches the GDP of the San Franisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA by about $200 billion. Close enough, right?
Now step 2 is finding the corporate income tax revenues for the bay area. Good luck! And let me know when you find it, I am super-anxious to see what your actual point is.
Now step 2 is finding the corporate income tax revenues for the bay area. Good luck! And let me know when you find it.
The corporate tax rate is the same in the Bay Area as the rest of California. The federal tax rate is the same anywhere in the states. Are you feeling ok? This isn't complicated stuff.
I can download the data for corporate tax returns right from the IRS website. It's easy to find.
The only meaningless calculation is taxes as a percent of GDP. Heck, maybe rents in one area are four times higher than some other area because of local demand. Nah, that would never happen.
I'm not sure if the actual citizens of those countries feel the same...
One Swedish woman I knew awhile back was studying here in the U.S. She wanted to return home to Sweden because she like her home country's economic policies better. They were "more socialist."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
