3 ms·
In some sense I agree with you. And it seems that, anyway, the big multinationals can find ways to squirrel away their profits without having to pay much, if an
by jabl 10y ago
In some sense I agree with you. And it seems that, anyway, the big multinationals can find ways to squirrel away their profits without having to pay much, if any, taxes anyway. So in this way corporate taxes hit the SMB's while the big boys get a free pass..
However, one argument against lowering corporate taxes I've seen is that it would incentivize people to skirt around their personal taxes by "using" corporations. Instead of buying your own car, let a corporation (maybe your employer, maybe your own 1-person corporation that everybody would set up in a system like this?) own the car and you just use it. So somehow you'd need to prevent that kind of behavior. Perhaps shifting the tax burden from income to consumption would do that, IDK and I'm too tired to think about it now.
Another tax that economists generally seem to think well of, is land value taxes (originally by Henry George, IIRC). But these seem more or less impossible politically, as the politicians are generally better of than the average Joe and tend to own more land/property..
- eru 10y agoIt's not just the politicians: home owners---which are the majority of landowners---vote more than renters.
- Negitivefrags 10y agoI don't know how it works in the USA, but under the NZ tax system you can't just have your company buy a car for you to use personally. If you use a company car for any private use then you have to pay Fringe Benefit Tax. http://www.ird.govt.nz/business-income-tax/expenses/vehicle-exp/bit-expenses-vehicleexp.html http://www.ird.govt.nz/business-income-tax/expenses/vehicle-...
- witty_username 10y agoI'm not sure about corporate law, but I think you'd have to pay your corporation to access the car; otherwise you're violating the fiduciary duty (and also piercing the corporate veil).