5 ms·

Fun facts about corporate taxation (Source: https://www.managementstudyguide.com/history-of-corporate-taxation.htm https://www.managementstudyguide.com/history-

Fun facts about corporate taxation (Source: https://www.managementstudyguide.com/history-of-corporate-taxation.htm https://www.managementstudyguide.com/history-of-corporate-ta...): First introduced: 1894 Reintroduced: 1913 with a rate of 1% Personally this makes me assume that corporate tax should not exist. If it worked for hundreds of years without it, it's most likely just supporting the authority and growth of the state.

dx034 6y ago
For the longest time companies didn't exist. Any business tended to be associated with a single person who paid taxes. Companies as a separate legal entity are comparably young. So the tax didn't exist because there wasn't much to tax before, not because it's wrong to have one.
- I_am_tiberius 6y ago
  That is a misinterpretation. I say this because corporate tax is an addition to individual taxes. Taxes of individuals are paid anyway via P&L overhead!!! Owners of businesses pay personal income tax (which was lower 100 years ago as well) in addition to corporate income tax (plus tax on dividends).
- blackshaw 6y ago
  Not true. The first real corporations in the modern sense (private legal entities that existed separately from their owners) were the English and Dutch East India companies, which were founded in 1600 and 1602 respectively. 1894 is closer to the present day than it is to the first corporations. And the general legal concept of a "company" was hardly new in 1600 - in the Western world it dates back at least as far as Roman times. The Company of Merchants of the Staple of England was founded in 1319; the Company of Merchant Adventurers of London in 1407. Merchants and explorers in the 16th century and onwards used corporation-like entities to raise and organise the funding for their voyages. > there wasn't much to tax before Those European merchants made a hell of a lot of profit.
  - oblio 6y ago
    Yeah, but at the time (1600, 1700) there were something like 1-2-10 corporations per country, if that. 95% of the countries of the world didn't have any corporations. England had some, the Netherlands had some, probably France and maybe a handful of countries. They weren't really relevant to the day-to-day lives of 99% of the people living back then. You need to also present some perspective when making a claim.
  - dx034 6y ago
    But most merchants didn't operate in separate legal entitities. There were very few companies, for the longest time just major trade, railroad and banking. Dutch East India is so famous because they're an exception, not the norm.
knubie 6y ago
And the income tax was introduced in 1861 at a measly 3 percent.
- tryptophan 6y ago
  And was only supposed to target “the rich”. I think we can all agree that is not how it worked out.
oblio 6y ago
What was the amount of public roads, schools, healthcare facilities, etc., etc., available at the time? Public expenses have skyrocketed because... we want them to.
- I_am_tiberius 6y ago
  You're talking about scalability. The point is that it would have been possible to scale investments based on the the growth of GDP. What was done however, is financing the things you mentioned with debt (debt == future taxes). Debt should not be necessary in my opinion. Furthermore, I'm irritated by how little impact digitalization of bureaucracy had during the past 30 years. Normally this should have meant decrease in taxes or decrease in debt but instead debt increased. My assumption is that this is because of an decrease in state overhead and state investment efficiency.
  - oblio 6y ago
    Health expenses have risen faster than GDP across the entire developed world.
    - I_am_tiberius 6y ago
      I'm sure that is correct. What do you think is the right way to cover health care costs? Here some options: 1. Using corporate tax paid by organizations. 2. Using income tax paid by individuals. 3. Independently from taxes - via private insurance. 4. Using whatever tax a state get through with. I'm interested in your opinion (also other ideas you might have). I think taxes should have a specific purpose. Surely CO2 and noise tax are not enough to cover a minimum state infrastructure. VAT should be the only general purpose tax though.
      - oblio 6y ago
        I'm not sure and I don't think it's a simple problem. What I do know for sure is that if we hold a referendum in almost any country in the world, asking: "Would you like your total taxes reduced by 10%? Yes / No" "Yes" will win. People always want to reduce taxes, but they don't want to give up anything in return.

dx034 6y ago

For the longest time companies didn't exist. Any business tended to be associated with a single person who paid taxes. Companies as a separate legal entity are comparably young. So the tax didn't exist because there wasn't much to tax before, not because it's wrong to have one.

I_am_tiberius 6y ago
That is a misinterpretation. I say this because corporate tax is an addition to individual taxes. Taxes of individuals are paid anyway via P&L overhead!!! Owners of businesses pay personal income tax (which was lower 100 years ago as well) in addition to corporate income tax (plus tax on dividends).
blackshaw 6y ago
Not true. The first real corporations in the modern sense (private legal entities that existed separately from their owners) were the English and Dutch East India companies, which were founded in 1600 and 1602 respectively. 1894 is closer to the present day than it is to the first corporations. And the general legal concept of a "company" was hardly new in 1600 - in the Western world it dates back at least as far as Roman times. The Company of Merchants of the Staple of England was founded in 1319; the Company of Merchant Adventurers of London in 1407. Merchants and explorers in the 16th century and onwards used corporation-like entities to raise and organise the funding for their voyages. > there wasn't much to tax before Those European merchants made a hell of a lot of profit.
- oblio 6y ago
  Yeah, but at the time (1600, 1700) there were something like 1-2-10 corporations per country, if that. 95% of the countries of the world didn't have any corporations. England had some, the Netherlands had some, probably France and maybe a handful of countries. They weren't really relevant to the day-to-day lives of 99% of the people living back then. You need to also present some perspective when making a claim.
- dx034 6y ago
  But most merchants didn't operate in separate legal entitities. There were very few companies, for the longest time just major trade, railroad and banking. Dutch East India is so famous because they're an exception, not the norm.

knubie 6y ago

And the income tax was introduced in 1861 at a measly 3 percent.

tryptophan 6y ago
And was only supposed to target “the rich”. I think we can all agree that is not how it worked out.

oblio 6y ago

What was the amount of public roads, schools, healthcare facilities, etc., etc., available at the time? Public expenses have skyrocketed because... we want them to.

I_am_tiberius 6y ago
You're talking about scalability. The point is that it would have been possible to scale investments based on the the growth of GDP. What was done however, is financing the things you mentioned with debt (debt == future taxes). Debt should not be necessary in my opinion. Furthermore, I'm irritated by how little impact digitalization of bureaucracy had during the past 30 years. Normally this should have meant decrease in taxes or decrease in debt but instead debt increased. My assumption is that this is because of an decrease in state overhead and state investment efficiency.
- oblio 6y ago
  Health expenses have risen faster than GDP across the entire developed world.
  - I_am_tiberius 6y ago
    I'm sure that is correct. What do you think is the right way to cover health care costs? Here some options: 1. Using corporate tax paid by organizations. 2. Using income tax paid by individuals. 3. Independently from taxes - via private insurance. 4. Using whatever tax a state get through with. I'm interested in your opinion (also other ideas you might have). I think taxes should have a specific purpose. Surely CO2 and noise tax are not enough to cover a minimum state infrastructure. VAT should be the only general purpose tax though.
    - oblio 6y ago
      I'm not sure and I don't think it's a simple problem. What I do know for sure is that if we hold a referendum in almost any country in the world, asking: "Would you like your total taxes reduced by 10%? Yes / No" "Yes" will win. People always want to reduce taxes, but they don't want to give up anything in return.