4 ms·

No Federal Taxes for Dozens of Big, Profitable Companies

31 points by ablekh 6y ago

roenxi 6y ago
In theory, correct me if I'm wrong, but corporate tax rates should be regressive. Duke Energy & Nike aren't selling to the 1%, their selling to the masses. Raising corporate taxes pushes towards either less product being produced or higher prices if investors demand the same returns. The details are complex, but there is a great argument for Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Land Tax and then call it done. The 1% can't get the money out of these businesses without taking it as income or capital gains. Otherwise the money is simply being invested in getting goods/services to people cheaply. That seems like a good thing to be putting money towards, what is the government going to do with it that is better?
- geogra4 6y ago
  Land value tax like georgism?
- NotACop182 6y ago
  Company A makes Company B (Shell) In a low tax country. Company B now holds patents, services, Ect and bills company A. Company B has tax free money to payout to company heads and others tax free. The bigger the company the more they should be tax. If they raise prices competition can come in and compete for market shares. I’m a firm believer we should tax companies more if they don’t pay or give certain benefits to workers. The tax will be higher then if they had given those benefits. All win in this scenario. Tax bad behavior reward good behavior.
- closeparen 6y ago
  If my stock portfolio already funds my lifestyle, marginal dollars earned by the companies I own don't affect how much stock I need to sell. Because I don't sell, they're not subject to capital gains. They just accumulate in my portfolio tax-free. The more unequal the society, the greater the share of economic activity that is like this. In ours, probably a lot. Corporate taxes are the only opportunity to get anything from this kind of wealth creation.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Take a few steps back and think through that again from a whole system perspective. Corporations are the supports of the entire way of life that people enjoy. They are the only mechanism we've figured out that can sustain complex, interconnected and rather privileged modern lifestyles. That money being untaxed isn't some sort of loss - these businesses are substantially better than the government at getting people food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and comfort. That is genearlly stuff we all want to encourage. If you take money out of them, there will be less of all those things. You aren't getting anything out of that invested money, you're just trying to set the economy up for a future where more people get more stuff. I'll accept that theory isn't the best way to run a tax system, but "oh no we aren't taxing the engines of prosperity" isn't, in itself, a decent argument. Corporations are a long way down the list of things that are good tax targets.
    - closeparen 6y ago
      That money being untaxed means the government has to be funded on the backs of workers instead. We have a progressive tax on labor, we squeeze the crap out of specialists and management, and then we leave owners alone. This is crazy.
      - roenxi 6y ago
        Corporations aren't a real thing, they're an abstraction. You'll noted that the money isn't being spent by the very wealthy (otherwise they'd be paying CGT or Income tax). In the financial world, the money will be coming from them. In the real world, the money is coming out of systems that support the lifestyle of workers. Look at it this way - you can't point to something that the business owners had to give up (because they didn't access the money, if they had they'd be paying CGT or Income tax). But the government is diverting real resources somewhere. In practice, those resources are going to be coming from the workers! Which is why taxing corporations is not the best idea, once you follow the real flows of goods and services. It is a stealth tax on income, a bit like payroll tax. Better to make these taxes direct so people understand what they are paying.

31 points by ablekh 6y ago

In theory, correct me if I'm wrong, but corporate tax rates should be regressive. Duke Energy & Nike aren't selling to the 1%, their selling to the masses. Raising corporate taxes pushes towards either less product being produced or higher prices if investors demand the same returns. The details are complex, but there is a great argument for Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Land Tax and then call it done. The 1% can't get the money out of these businesses without taking it as income or capital gains. Otherwise the money is simply being invested in getting goods/services to people cheaply. That seems like a good thing to be putting money towards, what is the government going to do with it that is better?

geogra4 6y ago
Land value tax like georgism?
NotACop182 6y ago
Company A makes Company B (Shell) In a low tax country. Company B now holds patents, services, Ect and bills company A. Company B has tax free money to payout to company heads and others tax free. The bigger the company the more they should be tax. If they raise prices competition can come in and compete for market shares. I’m a firm believer we should tax companies more if they don’t pay or give certain benefits to workers. The tax will be higher then if they had given those benefits. All win in this scenario. Tax bad behavior reward good behavior.
closeparen 6y ago
If my stock portfolio already funds my lifestyle, marginal dollars earned by the companies I own don't affect how much stock I need to sell. Because I don't sell, they're not subject to capital gains. They just accumulate in my portfolio tax-free. The more unequal the society, the greater the share of economic activity that is like this. In ours, probably a lot. Corporate taxes are the only opportunity to get anything from this kind of wealth creation.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Take a few steps back and think through that again from a whole system perspective. Corporations are the supports of the entire way of life that people enjoy. They are the only mechanism we've figured out that can sustain complex, interconnected and rather privileged modern lifestyles. That money being untaxed isn't some sort of loss - these businesses are substantially better than the government at getting people food, clothing, shelter, entertainment and comfort. That is genearlly stuff we all want to encourage. If you take money out of them, there will be less of all those things. You aren't getting anything out of that invested money, you're just trying to set the economy up for a future where more people get more stuff. I'll accept that theory isn't the best way to run a tax system, but "oh no we aren't taxing the engines of prosperity" isn't, in itself, a decent argument. Corporations are a long way down the list of things that are good tax targets.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    That money being untaxed means the government has to be funded on the backs of workers instead. We have a progressive tax on labor, we squeeze the crap out of specialists and management, and then we leave owners alone. This is crazy.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      Corporations aren't a real thing, they're an abstraction. You'll noted that the money isn't being spent by the very wealthy (otherwise they'd be paying CGT or Income tax). In the financial world, the money will be coming from them. In the real world, the money is coming out of systems that support the lifestyle of workers. Look at it this way - you can't point to something that the business owners had to give up (because they didn't access the money, if they had they'd be paying CGT or Income tax). But the government is diverting real resources somewhere. In practice, those resources are going to be coming from the workers! Which is why taxing corporations is not the best idea, once you follow the real flows of goods and services. It is a stealth tax on income, a bit like payroll tax. Better to make these taxes direct so people understand what they are paying.