Comments on: Tax incentives: Boeing 707 edition http://blogs.reuters.com/justinfox/2010/10/21/tax-incentives-boeing-707-edition/ Wed, 03 Nov 2010 15:52:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: anonymecon http://blogs.reuters.com/justinfox/2010/10/21/tax-incentives-boeing-707-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-97 anonymecon Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:04:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/justinfox/?p=22#comment-97 i think you're missing the point. the reason why boeing invested is that they knew their tax rate was temporarily high. if it had been permanently high, they wouldn't have done it. also, i am surprised - the corporate income tax applies to earnings, and investment is not deductible. i guess boeing managed to make the investment look like an expense. i think you’re missing the point.

the reason why boeing invested is that they knew their tax rate was temporarily high. if it had been permanently high, they wouldn’t have done it.

also, i am surprised – the corporate income tax applies to earnings, and investment is not deductible. i guess boeing managed to make the investment look like an expense.

]]> By: Developer http://blogs.reuters.com/justinfox/2010/10/21/tax-incentives-boeing-707-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-58 Developer Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:21:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/justinfox/?p=22#comment-58 I don't think this is the whole story. Boeing knew that the war/legislation would end some day, so they took the gamble. If high taxation was permanent, they would have no incentive to do so. I don’t think this is the whole story.

Boeing knew that the war/legislation would end some day, so they took the gamble. If high taxation was permanent, they would have no incentive to do so.

]]> By: Curmudgeon http://blogs.reuters.com/justinfox/2010/10/21/tax-incentives-boeing-707-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-49 Curmudgeon Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:09:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/justinfox/?p=22#comment-49 It's a good day when I read counterexamples to any conventional wisdom. It’s a good day when I read counterexamples to any conventional wisdom.

]]> By: MarkPalko http://blogs.reuters.com/justinfox/2010/10/21/tax-incentives-boeing-707-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-46 MarkPalko Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:37:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/justinfox/?p=22#comment-46 Has anyone looked at this in terms of landscape perturbation? It seems to be a good fit: http://observationalepidemiology.blogspot.com/2010/10/tax-increases-as-landscape-perturbation.html Has anyone looked at this in terms of landscape perturbation? It seems to be a good fit:

http://observationalepidemiology.blogspo t.com/2010/10/tax-increases-as-landscape -perturbation.html

]]> By: Gaute http://blogs.reuters.com/justinfox/2010/10/21/tax-incentives-boeing-707-edition/comment-page-1/#comment-45 Gaute Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:14:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/justinfox/?p=22#comment-45 You can see the same effect today on the Norwegian continental shelf. The oil profits are taxed 78%, so the down side of experiments with new technology for enhanced recovery is very low for the oil companies. The recovery rate there is way above what you find most other places. You can see the same effect today on the Norwegian continental shelf. The oil profits are taxed 78%, so the down side of experiments with new technology for enhanced recovery is very low for the oil companies. The recovery rate there is way above what you find most other places.

]]>