"They" aren't benefiting from anything because "they" don't really exist. The stockholders and employees of the corporations benefit, and they do pay taxes. Let the Bush tax cuts expire - which mostly affect the rich - and that will more than raise enough revenue to ditch the corporate tax.
No. You are putting words in my mouth. I did not advocate lowering wages, removing pollution controls, scrapping safety regulations, gutting insurance rules, or any of the other things you mentioned. I want to change the tax code, and not even in a major way:
Step 1: Eliminate the corporate tax. Step 2: Let the Bush tax cuts expire.
The income has to come out of the corporation at some point - otherwise it is useless. It is either going to get paid out to employees or distributed as dividends or it will raise the stock price. Those are all taxed already, so I'm not talking about adding any bureaucracy.
So perhaps I agree with you that we shouldn't tax them, but only if you also abolish all the rights of corporations at the same time (rights to own property, patents, etc.)
Yep, we're pretty much on the same page - though as economic entities I think it makes sense to let them own property - including intellectual property.
Is that what you want, cos that's what will happen.
You serious? Simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire will more than make up for the loss of corporate tax revenue. Last I checked, the Clinton years were not apocalyptic.
I have the opposite view... we are giving China lots of depreciating paper and we get a bunch of goods and services. What are they going to do with that US paper? Eventually they have to spend it. When this happened with the Japanese, they ended up spending it on little tiny pieces of real estate in Manhattan at grossly inflated prices.
Fair trade, I'd say... $2 billion worth of Hondas for Rockefeller Center:)
Well, problem is, they only have a headquarters in your country, minimally staffed - all actual R&D happens in some other country which has low personal income tax.
Even with an increase in taxes to make up for the loss of corporate tax revenue, the US would still have a low personal income tax rate compared to the EU.
I am just saying that America is addicted to debt and our government is no exception.
I'm what you'd call a deficit hawk, so while I can get behind deficit spending in a recession, I'd obviously be for an increase in taxes to make up for the loss of corporate income tax revenue.
your argument gets more and more sinister with every reply in this thread.
Only because I cannot reproduce a good Dr. Evil style laugh properly via a message board.
Say, why not just make it 100% personal income tax for all, and call it a day?
That's exactly what I'm advocating. Nearly 100% of the government should be financed via taxes on individuals. Attract corporations to our shores and eliminate the stupid tax dodges. If you look at the numbers, it's really not that big of a deal.
Why are you telling me to piss off? I essentially agree with you. Taxing corporations is almost the same thing as taxing the wealthy. I'm just arguing that taxing the wealthy (i.e. the stockholders) is simpler and better for the country than chasing elusive corporate dollars that can move around the world like magic.
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I do not think corporations should be treated like a person - including the right to free speech. I fully support a constitutional amendment declaring as much.
BUUUT this is clearly something that supports large corporations and screws over little guys that don't have cayman island accounts.
Right, which is why I say kill the corporate tax and remove any benefit a Cayman account would offer. The owner of a corporation has to extract money from the thing at some point - tax that. You'll end up taxing transfers of stock, wages, and dividends... and we already do that! So my proposal adds zero complexity to the tax code:)
I say no individual income taxes, because corporations can afford to hire a staff of full-time accountants.
The big downside to jacking up the corporate taxes is that the corporations can (and do!) flee. People are much more reluctant to emigrate, and it's not clear where they could go anyhow.
If an artificial legal construct can have income and profit, there seems to be no reason why it ought not to be taxed,
Of course it CAN be taxed. I'm arguing that it's in our best interest not to tax them, that's all. I'm trying to be pragmatic... they aren't paying much tax now - so you have to either reform your tax laws to tax them more aggressively, leave them alone, or just throw up your hands and abolish the corporate tax. As absurd as it first sounds, I'd wager that the third option is actually the most straightforward. The second option is what will happen, and all this does is subsidize a bunch of lawyers and accountants.
I also happen to believe that dropping corporate taxes would bring a lot of money and jobs to the US, which would of course become a "tax shelter".
Slashdot Mirror
"They" aren't benefiting from anything because "they" don't really exist. The stockholders and employees of the corporations benefit, and they do pay taxes. Let the Bush tax cuts expire - which mostly affect the rich - and that will more than raise enough revenue to ditch the corporate tax.
No, taxes the corporate businesses and the wealthy people too. Tax them both.
They are the same people. Surely you must recognize this? Who cares where you tax them?
You wonder why you have a shit educational, welfare and medical systems in the US?
Enlighten me. I'd love to hear your almost certainly simplistic answer.
No. You are putting words in my mouth. I did not advocate lowering wages, removing pollution controls, scrapping safety regulations, gutting insurance rules, or any of the other things you mentioned. I want to change the tax code, and not even in a major way:
Step 1: Eliminate the corporate tax.
Step 2: Let the Bush tax cuts expire.
All the revenue, and no corporate tax BS.
Who said I support giving them 1st amendment rights?
The income has to come out of the corporation at some point - otherwise it is useless. It is either going to get paid out to employees or distributed as dividends or it will raise the stock price. Those are all taxed already, so I'm not talking about adding any bureaucracy.
So perhaps I agree with you that we shouldn't tax them, but only if you also abolish all the rights of corporations at the same time (rights to own property, patents, etc.)
Yep, we're pretty much on the same page - though as economic entities I think it makes sense to let them own property - including intellectual property.
Is that what you want, cos that's what will happen.
You serious? Simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire will more than make up for the loss of corporate tax revenue. Last I checked, the Clinton years were not apocalyptic.
What nonsense. Capital gains rates have gone up in the past with no such drama.
I'm also against that :)
I have the opposite view... we are giving China lots of depreciating paper and we get a bunch of goods and services. What are they going to do with that US paper? Eventually they have to spend it. When this happened with the Japanese, they ended up spending it on little tiny pieces of real estate in Manhattan at grossly inflated prices.
Fair trade, I'd say... $2 billion worth of Hondas for Rockefeller Center :)
Well, problem is, they only have a headquarters in your country, minimally staffed - all actual R&D happens in some other country which has low personal income tax.
Even with an increase in taxes to make up for the loss of corporate tax revenue, the US would still have a low personal income tax rate compared to the EU.
I am just saying that America is addicted to debt and our government is no exception.
I'm what you'd call a deficit hawk, so while I can get behind deficit spending in a recession, I'd obviously be for an increase in taxes to make up for the loss of corporate income tax revenue.
your argument gets more and more sinister with every reply in this thread.
Only because I cannot reproduce a good Dr. Evil style laugh properly via a message board.
Say, why not just make it 100% personal income tax for all, and call it a day?
That's exactly what I'm advocating. Nearly 100% of the government should be financed via taxes on individuals. Attract corporations to our shores and eliminate the stupid tax dodges. If you look at the numbers, it's really not that big of a deal.
Why are you telling me to piss off? I essentially agree with you. Taxing corporations is almost the same thing as taxing the wealthy. I'm just arguing that taxing the wealthy (i.e. the stockholders) is simpler and better for the country than chasing elusive corporate dollars that can move around the world like magic.
I agree - we need a Constitutional amendment which clearly delineates the rights granted to a corporation.
why don't they have the right to free speech as a group?
I fully agree that this is a perfectly valid interpretation of the US Constitution, and I do not begrudge the Supreme Court for it's decision.
That said, I think the Constitution needs an amendment making a corporation a special kind of economic-only entity.
Exactly my point.
The big earners would just live outside of the US
I don't care where they live, so long as they employ US workers and have US investors.
I also find the concept of the wealthy fleeing the US fairly humorous. Where are they going to live, exactly? In that tax haven called Europe? :)
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I do not think corporations should be treated like a person - including the right to free speech. I fully support a constitutional amendment declaring as much.
BUUUT this is clearly something that supports large corporations and screws over little guys that don't have cayman island accounts.
Right, which is why I say kill the corporate tax and remove any benefit a Cayman account would offer. The owner of a corporation has to extract money from the thing at some point - tax that. You'll end up taxing transfers of stock, wages, and dividends... and we already do that! So my proposal adds zero complexity to the tax code :)
If the artificial economic entity has rights, it should pay taxes too.
Then let the record show that I am for a constitutional amendment which removes a corporation's right to free speech :)
I say no individual income taxes, because corporations can afford to hire a staff of full-time accountants.
The big downside to jacking up the corporate taxes is that the corporations can (and do!) flee. People are much more reluctant to emigrate, and it's not clear where they could go anyhow.
Touche. :)
It's abstracted needlessly, though.
If an artificial legal construct can have income and profit, there seems to be no reason why it ought not to be taxed,
Of course it CAN be taxed. I'm arguing that it's in our best interest not to tax them, that's all. I'm trying to be pragmatic... they aren't paying much tax now - so you have to either reform your tax laws to tax them more aggressively, leave them alone, or just throw up your hands and abolish the corporate tax. As absurd as it first sounds, I'd wager that the third option is actually the most straightforward. The second option is what will happen, and all this does is subsidize a bunch of lawyers and accountants.
I also happen to believe that dropping corporate taxes would bring a lot of money and jobs to the US, which would of course become a "tax shelter".
However, Ireland which is Europe's version of India due to its low 12% corporate income tax (lowest in world)
There are places with lower corporate income tax. Bermuda has no income tax, IIRC.
But if you think it's bad in Ireland now, try raising the corporate tax rate. How many of those companies will stay in Ireland?