8 ms·
This is just so... weird. The obvious unintended consequence is to fire the lowest-paid workers. Outsource it to contractors, automate, whatever. Why does the r
by stickfigure 7y ago
This is just so... weird. The obvious unintended consequence is to fire the lowest-paid workers. Outsource it to contractors, automate, whatever. Why does the ratio matter?
If you want to redistribute wealth, do it the honest way that doesn't distort markets. Take it from rich people and give it to poor people!
- danmur 7y agoIt does seem like it's open to manipulation. More money for lawyers and accountants.
- olliej 7y agoI mean it also requires the companies to be incorporated in CA, but Delaware has gone to great lengths to make it super easy to be "a Delaware company" w/o any actual meaningful proportion of the business there.
- gnicholas 7y agoBy my reading, it applies regardless of place of incorporation: > The proposal would only apply to companies that post at least $10 million of taxable income from business conducted in California
- olliej 7y agoI'm just not sure how the various US courts would interpret that? Eg. lets says CA said you have to pay business tax if you make more than $X in CA, would that hold up?
- desdiv 7y agoThe status quo is that every company with operations in CA has to pay the CA corporate income tax based on its CA-derived taxable income. This is true regardless of where the company is incorporated. This is also broadly true for every state that collects state corporate income taxes i.e. they use their tax authority to levy tax on business activities conducted within their state.
- spspispod 7y agoThis seems like open and deliberate redistribution on those would vote for redistribution.
- mattxxx 7y agoWell, if you have 1,000 workers operating at the lowest wage, you have a choice to give them all raises or fire all of them. Whether or not this can be gamed isn't the issue here. I think it's good to increase pressure on companies to treat their employees fairly.
- inetknght 7y agoWhy fire all of them when you can give fifty of them promotions to middle managers in charge of training "contractors"?
- Mirioron 7y agoJust spin off that part of the company into a separate company.
- koheripbal 7y agoBetter yet, just automate their jobs away. Our company specializes in automating low wage clerical work. I think we put over a thousand people out of work this year through our various engagements.
- plutonicks 7y agoPart of the problem is that there are too many edge cases. Consider when Steve jobs had a $1 salary but the rest was stock options. This tax would not apply in these instance, but should. Wed also find that it does apply when it shouldnt. The biggest issue with any tax is the disproportionate impact on middle tier/s. The richest always find a way avoid it, and it doesnt target the poor.
- olliej 7y agoright? the rich can afford the accountants that can minimize their "income". the low income should theoretically have fair low tax rates. You're left with the middle ground where people earn enough to pay significant taxes, but not enough to afford gratuitous tax accountants. Not helped by lobbying determined to make taxes intentionally difficult in the US.
- WalterBright 7y agoThe 1% still pay 37% of all Federal income taxes.
- olliej 7y agoCould you provide a source, because im fairly sure that's not true, so if i'm wrong i'd love to know why/how?
- WalterBright 7y agohttps://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxe... It varies year by year.
- kmlx 7y agohttps://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/ https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-... not only is it true, but most people don't pay income tax or pay very little. the bottom 50% accounted for a measly 3% of all tax. this is the same in the UK and other countries. right now we use the top 1% as scapegoats for the borderline useless politicians.
- njarboe 7y agoThe problem is that under the current tax scheme in the US people are taxed on their total income and companies are taxed on their profits. This is a huge difference. So rich people, who can have companies do what they want, get taxed very little and people, with just income, get taxed a lot. I think if we could just get rid of the income tax somehow (like have a land tax instead) the country would be so much better off. You could just work for whoever you wanted without any paper work and people could just pay you. Rich people would have no need to create all of these companies and foundations. Everything would be much more free and efficient.
- justnotworthit 7y agoYou may be a fan of replacing the income tax with a consumption tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax
- glennpratt 7y agoSales tax in the US is generally the most regressive tax we have, so I'd say no. Are you suggesting something different?
- JshWright 7y agoThat would be much, much worse. It would be the exact opposite of what the GP comment suggested.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago> It would be the exact opposite of what the GP comment suggested. Huh? That comment suggested > The problem is that under the current tax scheme in the US people are taxed on their total income and companies are taxed on their profits. and > I think if we could just get rid of the income tax somehow (like have a land tax instead) the country would be so much better off. Replacing the income tax with a consumption tax follows directly from both of those points. As to the first, it replaces the system where companies are taxed on profits and people are taxed on revenue with a system where companies are taxed on profits and people are taxed on profits. As to the second, obviously, it gets rid of the income tax. What were you thinking your GP comment said?
- JamesBarney 7y agoExactly or move your low wage jobs to other states.
- ThrustVectoring 7y agoFun fact: this is already happening due to ERISA, the law governing 401(k) and other retirement plans. The law says, in part, that you have to offer your tax-advantaged plan to everyone that qualifies as an employee. You do not have to make everyone who contributes to your business in any capacity an employee. Google's 401(k) plan is pretty much the most generous you are allowed to give to employees. They contract out for every non-professional role and keep a sharp distinction between the "help" that cleans and cooks, and the employees that code and do business development etc.
- Ericson2314 7y agoWell they already went after the contractor loophole. This is virtue signaling and not the most effective, but it does create a real incentive and being forced to hire less and therefore automate more low wage work would be a good thing. Basically, this policy sets us up nicely for UBI.