5 ms·

Why should I care about the corporate tax burden? Taxes come out of people's pockets, not corporations. There's an argument to be made that we can get foreign

Why should I care about the corporate tax burden? Taxes come out of people's pockets, not corporations. There's an argument to be made that we can get foreign shareholders to pay taxes they otherwise wouldn't, but that's a much different argument than "corporations aren't paying their fare share".

andrewstuart 8y ago
>> Taxes come out of people's pockets, not corporations. That's not correct - corporations are meant to be paying significant tax.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
  It is correct. People own corporations. So if you're taxing a corporation, you're actually just taxing the people that own it. (And/or its customers or employees.) The only point in taxing corporations vs. people directly is if you're trying to target a set that's difficult to tax otherwise, such as rich people who own big corps but don't realize a lot of income on their own balance sheet. Which IMO is a fair group to target. But that's the point. Corporations are just things that are owned by people. People, ultimately, pay the taxes. So the question ought to be, which people do we want to pay more taxes, and what's the best mechanism to get them to pay those taxes?
  - Terr_ 8y ago
    > The only point in taxing corporations vs. people directly is I disagree, you're skipping a huge governmental benefit that almost all the biggest corporations request/receive: "Limited Liability." If Nuclear Asbestos Infant Toys goes bankrupt, everybody else is picking up the tab for land-cleanup and tumor-removal. In other words, those owners have chosen to socialize their company's risks, so it's only natural and fair for some of the company's profits to be socialized at the same junction.
    - thrill 8y ago
      The smallest corporation receives that same benefit.
      - Terr_ 8y ago
        Uh... okay? My point was that commonplace/large/consequential portions of the nation's economic activity occurs in the context of limited-liability.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
      I dunno if that's very different. Personal risks are socialized too -- via a mechanism known as bankruptcy. Anyway, again, it's a question of who you're targeting. If you think limited liability specifically is something that ought to incur a tax of that amount, then, sure, tax them that amount. But then company owners ought to be able to drop the limited liability feature and receive a lesser tax burden, right? I'm suspect Apple's owners would be happy with that trade. Unlimited liability in exchange for a zero percent tax rate? Bring it on. What, realistically, is the most damage that a computer is going to cause? The damages from patent infringement are often limited by the economic harm, which is at any rate likely to be far less than profits. Not to put words in your mouth, but if I had to guess you would not be willing to offer companies this out. I think that should make you question whether limited liability, specifically, is why companies should be taxed.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        Not OP, I'd be perfectly fine with a tax specifically on limited liability, and I think you vastly underestimate the value of that arrangement to the company owners.
    - 1ta 8y ago
      Limited Liability protects shareholders from the company's creditors. It says nothing about regulatory consequences. Nor a regulation treat a incorporated and unincorporated entity differently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Eridrus 8y ago
    Why is it hard to tax these things directly? Is it our dumb inheritance rules or something else?
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
      I don't think it is that hard, technically. At least not in broad strokes. You'd want to have some way to tax investment gains, even if unrealized. Then you levy that tax on rich people. One big problem with the corporate income tax is that you're also taxing pension funds, and middle class people who have small investments. And you're actually taxing them at the same rate (as a fraction of their holdings) as ultra wealthy people. In that sense the corporate tax is actually rather flat, which is normally something we progressives are not a huge fan of. The only thing that makes the situation even a little tolerable is that pension funds are going the way of the dinosaur and truly poor people cannot afford to invest, so the tax is mainly incident on the super wealthy. But the middle class is definitely getting a raw deal from corporate taxes.
- Lazare 8y ago
  A lot of places have a tax on houses, but that doesn't mean the house is paying the tax. :) Ultimately corporate taxes come out of the pockets of owners (via lower profits), workers (via lower wages), and customers (via higher prices), with the exact incidence depending on a number of factors.
peteradio 8y ago
So you are saying tax the shit out of the extremely high earning individuals?

andrewstuart 8y ago

>> Taxes come out of people's pockets, not corporations. That's not correct - corporations are meant to be paying significant tax.

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
It is correct. People own corporations. So if you're taxing a corporation, you're actually just taxing the people that own it. (And/or its customers or employees.) The only point in taxing corporations vs. people directly is if you're trying to target a set that's difficult to tax otherwise, such as rich people who own big corps but don't realize a lot of income on their own balance sheet. Which IMO is a fair group to target. But that's the point. Corporations are just things that are owned by people. People, ultimately, pay the taxes. So the question ought to be, which people do we want to pay more taxes, and what's the best mechanism to get them to pay those taxes?
- Terr_ 8y ago
  > The only point in taxing corporations vs. people directly is I disagree, you're skipping a huge governmental benefit that almost all the biggest corporations request/receive: "Limited Liability." If Nuclear Asbestos Infant Toys goes bankrupt, everybody else is picking up the tab for land-cleanup and tumor-removal. In other words, those owners have chosen to socialize their company's risks, so it's only natural and fair for some of the company's profits to be socialized at the same junction.
  - thrill 8y ago
    The smallest corporation receives that same benefit.
    - Terr_ 8y ago
      Uh... okay? My point was that commonplace/large/consequential portions of the nation's economic activity occurs in the context of limited-liability.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    I dunno if that's very different. Personal risks are socialized too -- via a mechanism known as bankruptcy. Anyway, again, it's a question of who you're targeting. If you think limited liability specifically is something that ought to incur a tax of that amount, then, sure, tax them that amount. But then company owners ought to be able to drop the limited liability feature and receive a lesser tax burden, right? I'm suspect Apple's owners would be happy with that trade. Unlimited liability in exchange for a zero percent tax rate? Bring it on. What, realistically, is the most damage that a computer is going to cause? The damages from patent infringement are often limited by the economic harm, which is at any rate likely to be far less than profits. Not to put words in your mouth, but if I had to guess you would not be willing to offer companies this out. I think that should make you question whether limited liability, specifically, is why companies should be taxed.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      Not OP, I'd be perfectly fine with a tax specifically on limited liability, and I think you vastly underestimate the value of that arrangement to the company owners.
  - 1ta 8y ago
    Limited Liability protects shareholders from the company's creditors. It says nothing about regulatory consequences. Nor a regulation treat a incorporated and unincorporated entity differently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Eridrus 8y ago
  Why is it hard to tax these things directly? Is it our dumb inheritance rules or something else?
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
    I don't think it is that hard, technically. At least not in broad strokes. You'd want to have some way to tax investment gains, even if unrealized. Then you levy that tax on rich people. One big problem with the corporate income tax is that you're also taxing pension funds, and middle class people who have small investments. And you're actually taxing them at the same rate (as a fraction of their holdings) as ultra wealthy people. In that sense the corporate tax is actually rather flat, which is normally something we progressives are not a huge fan of. The only thing that makes the situation even a little tolerable is that pension funds are going the way of the dinosaur and truly poor people cannot afford to invest, so the tax is mainly incident on the super wealthy. But the middle class is definitely getting a raw deal from corporate taxes.
Lazare 8y ago
A lot of places have a tax on houses, but that doesn't mean the house is paying the tax. :) Ultimately corporate taxes come out of the pockets of owners (via lower profits), workers (via lower wages), and customers (via higher prices), with the exact incidence depending on a number of factors.

peteradio 8y ago

So you are saying tax the shit out of the extremely high earning individuals?