But the claim was made that a cut in corporate taxes would result in a reduction in the prices that corporations charge. And the paper notes that corporations are more likely to direct the cost savings to things that improve their stock and bond prices. That may benefit individuals who own those investments, no doubt about that. But it does nothing to help the individual buying their goods. The corporate tax cut Cain proposes will help businesses and investors an a number of ways. It will not result in large scale reductions in the price we pay for goods on a daily basis.
There's a hell of a source for you.
Then by all means please direct me to studies that show that reductions in corporate tax rates result in price reductions for consumers. Europe went through a whole rash of tax reductions in the last decade - Ireland alone slashed their rates by 50%. Surely you can find evidence that such reductions resulted in price reductions can't you?
It doesn't necessarily have to. If your income is higher or, similarly, you have more money in your pockets due to paying lower taxes, you can afford more. The prices may be static (though I doubt that would happen over the long term, anything is possible), the amount of expendable income has increased anyway.
Do you really think that in this type of economic environment that corporations would not take steps to increase consumer sales if that were possibly and financially viable?
Of course they would. What that paper you cited was talking about (in 2001) might occur when a corporation was pretty flush with sales, but not when it’s treading water in terms of moving its goods.
A corporation cannot stay alive without earnings. And it can’t keep investors without earnings, either. So its bias will always be toward increasing earnings (sales) if that is lagging.
Also, putting costs savings toward investors still helps the economy. Investors are also consumers.