3 ms·

There is so much wrong with this article that I'll only address one part. Taxing companies is illogical (ignoring that they are generally easier for politician

by MR4D 9y ago

There is so much wrong with this article that I'll only address one part. Taxing companies is illogical (ignoring that they are generally easier for politicians to tax than individuals, but that's another topic). For instance, companies can only do four things with their profits: 1 - pay employees more 2 - pay shareholders more 3 - build/buy more (what is usually called reinvesting or R&D, but can also mean buying thicker carpets and nicer offices) 4 - build up cash (which eventually will be used to do one of the above 3 items) Increasing taxes on companies only can reduce those 4 things. How a person can conceive that taxing them more has no impact is beyond me. In each instance there is a person that can be taxed at the end of the chain. So why do it twice? Taxing companies merely distorts markets (witness all the money AAPL & GOOD put thru Ireland, or how GE pays so little taxes, but has armies of lawyers who do nothing but ensure money is moved to places in ways it cannot be taxed). The author ignores reality and the many examples (I cited only 3) that disprove him in the hear and now. His question is good - indeed, very important - but his answer is not only bad, but also misleading and incorrect.

clairity 9y ago
i'll just address one part of your argument: do you know which of those items are taxed and which are not, and under which circumstances they are taxed? consulting an accounting text might help here (hint: some for sure, but all of them potentially can be tax free). livingston's corporate tax argument is actually pretty sound. he says raising corporate taxes (1) won't disincentive corporate job creation because corporations have long had a negligible impact on job growth, and (2) won't drive corporations overseas because they've long been majority overseas companies already and the percentage has held fairly steady over time. since corporations are people (and in some cases, more than people), let's tax them at the same rates as people. they won't be going anywhere and maybe we can build some infrastructure with the money raised and actually employ some real people while we're at it.
- MR4D 9y ago
  I don't need to consult an accounting text because I run a company and have to deal with it in real life. If you want obscure tax information that a fortune 100 company deals with then you'd have to go past an accounting text and into tax law anyway. For instance, companies like mine have to deal with dumb depreciation laws, which distort my buying decisions occasionally so that I don't have to depreciate equipment over some number of years. Let me just buy it and expense it - don't force me to write it off on a timeline that the govt. prefers. For instance, computers in the 1990's frequently were updated by companies every 24 months. Now it's probably twice that. Did the tax law change with it? No. And that's a distortion because it forces companies to either do something different than they otherwise would, or report something different than actions would suggest. To address #2 in particular, CNN disagrees: http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-inversion/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-i... Livingston can say all he wants, it doesn't mean he's right. I'll side with the hard facts instead of his argument, because his argument is not sound, and the facts are against him. If you don't believe me or CNN, then go talk with business owners - you'll find a wide range of opinions, but the majority will disagree with Livingston.
crdoconnor 9y ago
"Increasing taxes on companies only can reduce those 4 things." It tends to mostly only do 2. 4 only happens when there's a flutter of hope that there might be a tax holiday soon. I can only think of one instance of 1 off the top of my head and it was because Henry Ford hated his shareholders. "Taxing companies merely distorts markets" There is so much wrong with this sentence: * The presumption that markets start out 'perfect' and any attempt to change them is morally wrong. * The presumption that taxes somehow aren't intended to change markets (indeed, that's largely their only reason for being). >In each instance there is a person that can be taxed at the end of the chain. So why do it twice? To introduce a targeted deflationary measure at the point where it will do the most good. Outsized profits as % of GDP does real harm to the economy - it shifts disproportionate economic power into fewer hands and it effectively moves resources away from people who earn money by working into the hands of people who simply receive it by dint of their control over resources. >Taxing companies merely distorts markets (witness all the money AAPL & GOOD put thru Ireland If you could make a believable promise that corporation tax is, from this point on, only ever going to go up, all of that money would flood home tomorrow. It's holding out because Apple thinks that it can corrupt our legislators enough to get them to instigate a tax holiday.
- MR4D 9y ago
  Respectfully, no presumption was or is intended. That taxes distort markets is a comment on their effect, not a comment on the markets. Secondly, inefficient use of capital slows growth. Period. It's a mathematical relationship. Finally, if companies thought taxes would only ever go up, they would leave. Look at the numerous examples of countries that have tried that. CNN (not a bastion of right-wing business freedoms) cited 47 companies that left the US because of high taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-inversion/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-i...

by MR4D 9y ago

clairity 9y ago

i'll just address one part of your argument: do you know which of those items are taxed and which are not, and under which circumstances they are taxed? consulting an accounting text might help here (hint: some for sure, but all of them potentially can be tax free). livingston's corporate tax argument is actually pretty sound. he says raising corporate taxes (1) won't disincentive corporate job creation because corporations have long had a negligible impact on job growth, and (2) won't drive corporations overseas because they've long been majority overseas companies already and the percentage has held fairly steady over time. since corporations are people (and in some cases, more than people), let's tax them at the same rates as people. they won't be going anywhere and maybe we can build some infrastructure with the money raised and actually employ some real people while we're at it.

MR4D 9y ago
I don't need to consult an accounting text because I run a company and have to deal with it in real life. If you want obscure tax information that a fortune 100 company deals with then you'd have to go past an accounting text and into tax law anyway. For instance, companies like mine have to deal with dumb depreciation laws, which distort my buying decisions occasionally so that I don't have to depreciate equipment over some number of years. Let me just buy it and expense it - don't force me to write it off on a timeline that the govt. prefers. For instance, computers in the 1990's frequently were updated by companies every 24 months. Now it's probably twice that. Did the tax law change with it? No. And that's a distortion because it forces companies to either do something different than they otherwise would, or report something different than actions would suggest. To address #2 in particular, CNN disagrees: http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-inversion/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-i... Livingston can say all he wants, it doesn't mean he's right. I'll side with the hard facts instead of his argument, because his argument is not sound, and the facts are against him. If you don't believe me or CNN, then go talk with business owners - you'll find a wide range of opinions, but the majority will disagree with Livingston.

crdoconnor 9y ago

"Increasing taxes on companies only can reduce those 4 things." It tends to mostly only do 2. 4 only happens when there's a flutter of hope that there might be a tax holiday soon. I can only think of one instance of 1 off the top of my head and it was because Henry Ford hated his shareholders. "Taxing companies merely distorts markets" There is so much wrong with this sentence: * The presumption that markets start out 'perfect' and any attempt to change them is morally wrong. * The presumption that taxes somehow aren't intended to change markets (indeed, that's largely their only reason for being). >In each instance there is a person that can be taxed at the end of the chain. So why do it twice? To introduce a targeted deflationary measure at the point where it will do the most good. Outsized profits as % of GDP does real harm to the economy - it shifts disproportionate economic power into fewer hands and it effectively moves resources away from people who earn money by working into the hands of people who simply receive it by dint of their control over resources. >Taxing companies merely distorts markets (witness all the money AAPL & GOOD put thru Ireland If you could make a believable promise that corporation tax is, from this point on, only ever going to go up, all of that money would flood home tomorrow. It's holding out because Apple thinks that it can corrupt our legislators enough to get them to instigate a tax holiday.

MR4D 9y ago
Respectfully, no presumption was or is intended. That taxes distort markets is a comment on their effect, not a comment on the markets. Secondly, inefficient use of capital slows growth. Period. It's a mathematical relationship. Finally, if companies thought taxes would only ever go up, they would leave. Look at the numerous examples of countries that have tried that. CNN (not a bastion of right-wing business freedoms) cited 47 companies that left the US because of high taxes: http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-inversion/ http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/07/news/economy/tax-advantage-i...