4 ms·

When I read about sales taxes and arbitrary taxes on commodities I think just like you have said. If he wants a tax that doesn't hit consumers he should just r

When I read about sales taxes and arbitrary taxes on commodities I think just like you have said. If he wants a tax that doesn't hit consumers he should just raise federal corporate taxes. In fact, removing subsidies would be a good start.

mozumder 11y ago
A tax on consumers is fine if it's used to guide people away from consumption of that product. We do that for Tobacco, for example. The less oil the world uses, the better.
- hackerboos 11y ago
  You don't need cigarettes. You do need energy.
  - ant6n 11y ago
    oil !=== energy
marcoperaza 11y ago
Corporate tax is a political sham, a sleight of hand by politicians to make taxes more palatable to voters. There is no such thing as a tax on corporations that's not a tax on people. Corporate income is either paid out as salaries or dividends, or spent on purchasing goods from other firms (so eventually only dividends and salaries). Taxing corporations means reducing salaries and reducing dividends. The corporate tax also benefits big firms with overseas offices and armies of tax accountants and lawyers, at the expense of small and medium sized businesses that can't afford to play the tax avoidance game. We should eliminate the corporate tax. Make it revenue neutral with equivalent small bumps in the income tax. But it actually doesn't generate much revenue to begin with, more evidence that it's not worth the trouble.
- hackerboos 11y ago
  It's 11% of the federal budget [1]. We'd be talking about a steep rise on payroll and income taxes to replace it. It would actually be a lot more than 11% if it wasn't for avoidance by multinationals like Apple. [1] - http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/policybasics-taxrevenues-f1_rev3-11-15.png http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/pol...
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    When you compare it to the income tax, that's not a big percent. The corporate tax is equivalent to an income tax on people, but with the strange property that it distributes the burden between the classes (shareholders vs employees, though there is a lot overlap) through the market instead of by law. Depending on the situation in a particular firm, the burden might be wholly on employees or wholly on shareholders, but probably somewhere in-between. This is all ignoring that some of the burden could be shifted to consumers too, depending on how competitive the market is and what the margins are. As I said, you would raise the income tax on the middle to high brackets to offset abolishing the corporate tax. You'd be taxing the same people, for the same money, with much less hassle for everyone. What does the corporate tax accomplish that an equivalently higher income tax does not? It's the same money.
    - adventured 11y ago
      It would of course be far better than that. The low corporate tax rate would attract vast numbers of relocations. Companies like Pfizer would stop fleeing the US; major corporations in other nations would relocate.
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
        It's really sad that our politics is so dysfunctional that we'd rather hold on to this harmful fiction of a tax, just so some politician can play people against each other, than make common sense reforms that wouldn't even change the total tax level.
Jwilkinson 11y ago
Removing subsidies would be a huge start.
prostoalex 11y ago
Would that include the subsidies for solar rooftop installations, wind energy projects and electric vehicles? Problem with that approach is that you quickly get into "subsidies I like" and "subsidies I dislike" territory.

mozumder 11y ago

A tax on consumers is fine if it's used to guide people away from consumption of that product. We do that for Tobacco, for example. The less oil the world uses, the better.

hackerboos 11y ago
You don't need cigarettes. You do need energy.
- ant6n 11y ago
  oil !=== energy

marcoperaza 11y ago

Corporate tax is a political sham, a sleight of hand by politicians to make taxes more palatable to voters. There is no such thing as a tax on corporations that's not a tax on people. Corporate income is either paid out as salaries or dividends, or spent on purchasing goods from other firms (so eventually only dividends and salaries). Taxing corporations means reducing salaries and reducing dividends. The corporate tax also benefits big firms with overseas offices and armies of tax accountants and lawyers, at the expense of small and medium sized businesses that can't afford to play the tax avoidance game. We should eliminate the corporate tax. Make it revenue neutral with equivalent small bumps in the income tax. But it actually doesn't generate much revenue to begin with, more evidence that it's not worth the trouble.

hackerboos 11y ago
It's 11% of the federal budget [1]. We'd be talking about a steep rise on payroll and income taxes to replace it. It would actually be a lot more than 11% if it wasn't for avoidance by multinationals like Apple. [1] - http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/policybasics-taxrevenues-f1_rev3-11-15.png http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/pol...
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  When you compare it to the income tax, that's not a big percent. The corporate tax is equivalent to an income tax on people, but with the strange property that it distributes the burden between the classes (shareholders vs employees, though there is a lot overlap) through the market instead of by law. Depending on the situation in a particular firm, the burden might be wholly on employees or wholly on shareholders, but probably somewhere in-between. This is all ignoring that some of the burden could be shifted to consumers too, depending on how competitive the market is and what the margins are. As I said, you would raise the income tax on the middle to high brackets to offset abolishing the corporate tax. You'd be taxing the same people, for the same money, with much less hassle for everyone. What does the corporate tax accomplish that an equivalently higher income tax does not? It's the same money.
  - adventured 11y ago
    It would of course be far better than that. The low corporate tax rate would attract vast numbers of relocations. Companies like Pfizer would stop fleeing the US; major corporations in other nations would relocate.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      It's really sad that our politics is so dysfunctional that we'd rather hold on to this harmful fiction of a tax, just so some politician can play people against each other, than make common sense reforms that wouldn't even change the total tax level.

Jwilkinson 11y ago

Removing subsidies would be a huge start.

prostoalex 11y ago

Would that include the subsidies for solar rooftop installations, wind energy projects and electric vehicles? Problem with that approach is that you quickly get into "subsidies I like" and "subsidies I dislike" territory.