4 ms·

Frankly, I’m happy as long as money is out of the government’s hands. Politicians have repeatedly demonstrated they can spend money way faster than they can gen

Frankly, I’m happy as long as money is out of the government’s hands. Politicians have repeatedly demonstrated they can spend money way faster than they can generate it. What’s the point of paying more taxes if they’re just going to waste the money? Leave it in the economy and let the market sort it out.

davidw 7y ago
It's not "out of their hands", they're just borrowing it.
jnathsf 7y ago
Seems like an overly simplistic view. If you take your logic to the extreme why have taxes/government at all. It’s interesting to see people complain about government but never take action on making their government better. The saying you get the government you deserve rings true here.
- chatmasta 7y ago
  I mean, I wouldn’t mind taking it closer to that extreme. Do we really need the hundreds of federal agencies and bureaucrats that are infesting our government right now? Or a defense budget orders of magnitude larger than other nations? Or billions of dollars in foreign aid? Let’s not forget income tax was introduced originally as a temporary solution to raise funds for World War I. Long term, it’s only increased since then. At what point do we say enough is enough, no more tax increases?
  - codyb 7y ago
    Using words like infesting is what people who’re demonizing others do. We’re currently living in the most peaceful era of human history, so maybe American hegemony isn’t terrible? There’s certainly been far less regional conflicts than ever before, I’d be hard pressed to find a decent reason how the world’s preeminent superpower wouldn’t play into that dynamic despite it’s missteps and overreaches which are very easy to point at. And income tax rates, especially for the extremely wealthy have been consistently declining since their highs post WWII which also coincided with one of America’s most egalitarian and balanced periods socioeconomically. Of course, now we have extremely low income tax rates for the wealthiest among us and near banana republic levels of wealth inequality with staggering statistics like the fact that 400 families own as much wealth in America as the bottom 150 million of it’s citizens. If we look at current trends in the Democratic party, which tends to represent more individuals than the Republican party despite the latter’s outsized share of privilege thanks to the Senate, gerrymandering, and the electoral college, we’re seeing large sentiments of exactly the opposite “at what point do we say enough is enough, no more tax cuts?”.
  - davidw 7y ago
    > bureaucrats ... infesting Even if you disagree with their necessity, that kind of language is needlessly inflammatory. I mean, I know this is The Internet and all, but come on.
    - chatmasta 7y ago
      Considering how much of the intelligence community and state department is working actively against the interests of the citizens it’s meant to serve, I’m not sure the term is entirely inappropriate.
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    Long term, it’s only increased since then. Not true. Top marginal tax rates have mostly dropped over time. They peaked at 94% during WWII, then dropped into the 70% range for a while. Two more drops in the 1980s, first to 50%, then 28%. Since then, the top rate has bounced back to 38% or so (depending on how to calculate it). Furthermore, federal tax receipts have hovered around 17% of GDP, regardless of marginal rates, over that entire period.
KingMachiavelli 7y ago
That's encroaching into a false comparison. Is the money politician's 'waste' any less in the economy than the money the corporations spend? Of course not, it's still going to trade hands after leaves the government. I feel there are two real issues here that the article (which is mostly just click bait) doesn't get into. 1. Are any of the companies violating current tax code? (i.e if they actually owe more taxes then the IRS should intervene) 2. How are they achieving these low tax rates? And when/should we fix the possible loopholes. It's really stupid to get mad at companies following the letter of the law. We should be made at the politicians who refuse to close the holes. And who knows, if it results in companies just spending/reinvesting more money to still avoid taxes than at least it's more in line with the intent of the tax code.
- chatmasta 7y ago
  Also, what some people call loopholes, others call incentives. The market is doing pretty well since the tax cuts, in terms of equity prices, wages and labor. It makes you wonder if the incentives (“loopholes”) are such a bad thing, or if they’re working as designed, and actually stimulating the economy.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  The issue is that it's not so much a loophole as it is a structural deficiency in the way international corporations are taxed -- it's supposed to be a tax on "profit" but it's straight forward to structure an international corporation such that its profits happen in whichever subsidiary they want. Then they naturally structure things so that profits accrue in a subsidiary in a low tax jurisdiction. The key to fixing this is to realize that VAT and corporate income tax are basically the same thing, except that instead of corporate income tax being paid to the jurisdiction where "profit" accrues (easy for a corporation to move around), it's paid to the jurisdiction of final sale (good luck moving all your customers).
spamizbad 7y ago
I'm of the opposite view: i'd rather have the money go to the government, which is accountable to me as a voter, rather than some board of directors which I will never have enough capital to impact in a meaningful way (either through my purchasing power or through share ownership)
- jtbayly 7y ago
  One share in a company gives you more voting power than at the federal level.
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    Apologies. This is way wrong. There are billions of Apple shares, for example.
codyb 7y ago
Seems like on every thread about regulation or taxes someone with a libertarian point of view has to chime in with this extremely orthogonal point to spread their views on government. For one thing, you’re arguing simultaneously that the government is spending more money than it’s generating while also arguing that people should pay less taxes which seems extremely odd in back to back sentences. For another you just toss in this implicit idea that government spending is wasted money. That may be something you believe but it doesn’t appear to be the belief of most Americans or Europeans who enjoy things like public utilities, roads, education, defense, research, etc. And finally, the point is, again, very orthogonal to the discussion at hand. It might be tangentially related but it’s an entirely different discussion. This article is talking about how these mega corporations are using tax evasion strategies to avoid paying their fair share in the existing framework. And your discussion is about reworking the entire framework, and feels slightly evangelical, and flippant.
- chatmasta 7y ago
  How is it any more evangelical than arguing that companies should pay for some nebulous concept of “their fair share?” What is “fair,” if not what’s legally required of them? Is anyone suggesting that these companies are breaking the law or violating the tax code? Btw, I would love it if the government could figure out how to spend money on “public utilities, roads, education.” And yet, our infrastructure is in an embarrassing state of disrepair, and our public education system is a laughingstock. Despite trillions of dollars that would be more than sufficient to fund these projects, nothing gets done. So why should I support giving them even more money? If the government could demonstrate an ability to allocate capital efficiently, then I could see the argument. But as is, they do a terribly wasteful job of investing it in projects that would actually benefit the public. Before raising taxes, maybe they should try rearranging the budget to prioritize projects that benefit everyone.
  - codyb 7y ago
    It’s evangelical because it’s being brought up in a conversation that’s not about that topic at all.
lukifer 7y ago
Not all government expenditure is waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State But it's also not hard to imagine equivalent scenarios of corporate welfare / graft. At some point, how different is it to give a corporation a bespoke $10B tax break, vs. wasting an identical amount in markup on a crony no-bid contract? Choosing the former over the latter is not necessarily any better. It's entirely reasonable to default to skepticism with regard to government spending; but that's different than the Norquistian view that taxation and government spending is a a-priori evil or net-negative on outcomes.

davidw 7y ago

It's not "out of their hands", they're just borrowing it.

jnathsf 7y ago

Seems like an overly simplistic view. If you take your logic to the extreme why have taxes/government at all. It’s interesting to see people complain about government but never take action on making their government better. The saying you get the government you deserve rings true here.

chatmasta 7y ago
I mean, I wouldn’t mind taking it closer to that extreme. Do we really need the hundreds of federal agencies and bureaucrats that are infesting our government right now? Or a defense budget orders of magnitude larger than other nations? Or billions of dollars in foreign aid? Let’s not forget income tax was introduced originally as a temporary solution to raise funds for World War I. Long term, it’s only increased since then. At what point do we say enough is enough, no more tax increases?
- codyb 7y ago
  Using words like infesting is what people who’re demonizing others do. We’re currently living in the most peaceful era of human history, so maybe American hegemony isn’t terrible? There’s certainly been far less regional conflicts than ever before, I’d be hard pressed to find a decent reason how the world’s preeminent superpower wouldn’t play into that dynamic despite it’s missteps and overreaches which are very easy to point at. And income tax rates, especially for the extremely wealthy have been consistently declining since their highs post WWII which also coincided with one of America’s most egalitarian and balanced periods socioeconomically. Of course, now we have extremely low income tax rates for the wealthiest among us and near banana republic levels of wealth inequality with staggering statistics like the fact that 400 families own as much wealth in America as the bottom 150 million of it’s citizens. If we look at current trends in the Democratic party, which tends to represent more individuals than the Republican party despite the latter’s outsized share of privilege thanks to the Senate, gerrymandering, and the electoral college, we’re seeing large sentiments of exactly the opposite “at what point do we say enough is enough, no more tax cuts?”.
- davidw 7y ago
  > bureaucrats ... infesting Even if you disagree with their necessity, that kind of language is needlessly inflammatory. I mean, I know this is The Internet and all, but come on.
  - chatmasta 7y ago
    Considering how much of the intelligence community and state department is working actively against the interests of the citizens it’s meant to serve, I’m not sure the term is entirely inappropriate.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Long term, it’s only increased since then. Not true. Top marginal tax rates have mostly dropped over time. They peaked at 94% during WWII, then dropped into the 70% range for a while. Two more drops in the 1980s, first to 50%, then 28%. Since then, the top rate has bounced back to 38% or so (depending on how to calculate it). Furthermore, federal tax receipts have hovered around 17% of GDP, regardless of marginal rates, over that entire period.

KingMachiavelli 7y ago

That's encroaching into a false comparison. Is the money politician's 'waste' any less in the economy than the money the corporations spend? Of course not, it's still going to trade hands after leaves the government. I feel there are two real issues here that the article (which is mostly just click bait) doesn't get into. 1. Are any of the companies violating current tax code? (i.e if they actually owe more taxes then the IRS should intervene) 2. How are they achieving these low tax rates? And when/should we fix the possible loopholes. It's really stupid to get mad at companies following the letter of the law. We should be made at the politicians who refuse to close the holes. And who knows, if it results in companies just spending/reinvesting more money to still avoid taxes than at least it's more in line with the intent of the tax code.

chatmasta 7y ago
Also, what some people call loopholes, others call incentives. The market is doing pretty well since the tax cuts, in terms of equity prices, wages and labor. It makes you wonder if the incentives (“loopholes”) are such a bad thing, or if they’re working as designed, and actually stimulating the economy.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
The issue is that it's not so much a loophole as it is a structural deficiency in the way international corporations are taxed -- it's supposed to be a tax on "profit" but it's straight forward to structure an international corporation such that its profits happen in whichever subsidiary they want. Then they naturally structure things so that profits accrue in a subsidiary in a low tax jurisdiction. The key to fixing this is to realize that VAT and corporate income tax are basically the same thing, except that instead of corporate income tax being paid to the jurisdiction where "profit" accrues (easy for a corporation to move around), it's paid to the jurisdiction of final sale (good luck moving all your customers).

spamizbad 7y ago

I'm of the opposite view: i'd rather have the money go to the government, which is accountable to me as a voter, rather than some board of directors which I will never have enough capital to impact in a meaningful way (either through my purchasing power or through share ownership)

jtbayly 7y ago
One share in a company gives you more voting power than at the federal level.
- jtbayly 7y ago
  Apologies. This is way wrong. There are billions of Apple shares, for example.

codyb 7y ago

Seems like on every thread about regulation or taxes someone with a libertarian point of view has to chime in with this extremely orthogonal point to spread their views on government. For one thing, you’re arguing simultaneously that the government is spending more money than it’s generating while also arguing that people should pay less taxes which seems extremely odd in back to back sentences. For another you just toss in this implicit idea that government spending is wasted money. That may be something you believe but it doesn’t appear to be the belief of most Americans or Europeans who enjoy things like public utilities, roads, education, defense, research, etc. And finally, the point is, again, very orthogonal to the discussion at hand. It might be tangentially related but it’s an entirely different discussion. This article is talking about how these mega corporations are using tax evasion strategies to avoid paying their fair share in the existing framework. And your discussion is about reworking the entire framework, and feels slightly evangelical, and flippant.

chatmasta 7y ago
How is it any more evangelical than arguing that companies should pay for some nebulous concept of “their fair share?” What is “fair,” if not what’s legally required of them? Is anyone suggesting that these companies are breaking the law or violating the tax code? Btw, I would love it if the government could figure out how to spend money on “public utilities, roads, education.” And yet, our infrastructure is in an embarrassing state of disrepair, and our public education system is a laughingstock. Despite trillions of dollars that would be more than sufficient to fund these projects, nothing gets done. So why should I support giving them even more money? If the government could demonstrate an ability to allocate capital efficiently, then I could see the argument. But as is, they do a terribly wasteful job of investing it in projects that would actually benefit the public. Before raising taxes, maybe they should try rearranging the budget to prioritize projects that benefit everyone.
- codyb 7y ago
  It’s evangelical because it’s being brought up in a conversation that’s not about that topic at all.

lukifer 7y ago

Not all government expenditure is waste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State But it's also not hard to imagine equivalent scenarios of corporate welfare / graft. At some point, how different is it to give a corporation a bespoke $10B tax break, vs. wasting an identical amount in markup on a crony no-bid contract? Choosing the former over the latter is not necessarily any better. It's entirely reasonable to default to skepticism with regard to government spending; but that's different than the Norquistian view that taxation and government spending is a a-priori evil or net-negative on outcomes.