I just thought of a reason for why the effective corporate / upper bracket tax rate is persistently low. These entities simply avoid taxes by responding more effectively to tax incentives. Tax rebates are out there because the government wants to buy certain types of behavior right? The problem, accounting-wise, is that effective behavior-changing tax rebates don't show up as (income - expenditure), they just show up as reduced government income.

This is a case of the market value vs. book value dilemna. Things are worth more to you than what you paid for them, otherwise you wouldn't have decided to buy. Tax rebates buy behavior which is presumably more valuable to the government than the tax income lost, but under simple analysis is valued at the tax income lost.

Of course, when the tax-avoiding behavior is not the anticipated kind, then it is called a loophole. If you believe that regulators will never outsmart corporate tax lawyers, you should be arguing for a simplification of the tax code.

Notice where the tungsten broke, left a vapor plume, and then the molten metal formed little beads at the ends of the broken wire.

Let me first clarify that the word genetic in genetic fallacy does not refer to DNA. It refers to genesis, to the time-ordered chain of causality which leads to an idea. I was first introduced to this fallacy by one of Yudowsky's posts, which you can read for more information.

The genetic fallacy refers to the act of confusing the historical origins with the justifications for an idea. Yudowsky uses the example of the Kekule formula for benzene - just because Kekule first saw the structure in a dream does not mean it isn't scientific, because that structure has been subsequently justified by experimental observables.

--

It is unfashionable to be openly racist. Those who are racist must hide their motivations and find other reasons to justify their discriminatory behavior. Others, when they see through these ploys, accuse these people of racism.

Personally, I do not much care for making such accusations, because to do so would be to commit the genetic fallacy. If the openly declared reasons are weak, then the argument is weak - to assert that the idea is weak because it was motivated by racism is to appeal to the genetic fallacy, which is dishonest. Ideally, one should stick to attacking the reasons declared, and not be too easily drawn to speculation on intentions.