4 ms·

I thought I remembered at some point (might have been more than a decade ago) that I heard that most economist thought that corporate income taxes were basicall

I thought I remembered at some point (might have been more than a decade ago) that I heard that most economist thought that corporate income taxes were basically a bad idea? Is this no longer held as a valid belief? Long term, I would almost prefer if we just moved to taxing people's assets. Maybe we can force corporations to basically pay out most of their profits to shareholders to avoid having them get too large?

dnautics 5y ago
taxing people's assets is complicated as hell. How much is your house worth. And before you answer that question, have you been in a bubbly market? Quotes for houses in the place I've been have gone up by 10% in the last 4 months. Now, suppose you have bought a house and suddenly all of your neighbors are rich. An appraiser comes to your place and suddenly you owe taxes and you basically get evicted from your home under a net-worth-taxation regime. 100% guarantee in your "ideal" situation, the rules will be abused to fuck over those with less clout.
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  Housing evaluations are very straight forward -- the market is what decides the price. Unless your house is something exotic like a castle or something. Every year the city or region you live in has a process to evaluate this value, and then asks you to pay a tax based on this. Generally if you feel the taxation is unfair, you can just sell the house -- if it doubled in value from the year before, according to the market, you'll probably be happy to pocket that profit. Otherwise property taxes are just how it goes when you're a house owner. Also you normally have a year to pay the tax, so there is lots of time to make a decision.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    > Generally if you feel the taxation is unfair, you can just sell the house let's just be clear about what you're saying. It's okay to effectively force people off of their homes that they have built an emotional attachment to. Perhaps their family has lived there for a few generations. They should just take the money and shut up.
    - hungryforcodes 5y ago
      I'm not saying anything. What other options do you have if the city has levied taxes you can't or are not willing to pay?
- JamesBarney 5y ago
  Taxing people's assets are complicated. But not because of houses. There are large portions of the U.S. where people are taxed based on their house value. Like in Houston where I pay ~3% of the value of my house every year in taxes. The real tricky part is small businesses. If I run a small software consulting business or own a bar how much is that worth? Is that the value of the software consulting business with me or without me?
- gher-shyu3i 5y ago
  We've had a solution for over 1400 years now. Look up Islam's Zakat laws. Much more affordable at only 2.5% on money above a certain amount that is sitting in the bank doing nothing. Things like produce and livestock have different measures depending on certain things. If you look up history, when everyone paid their Zakat in Iraq during the Ummayad empire, there were no more needy people left to accept it.
rayiner 5y ago
Most economists think corporate taxes are a bad idea: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-... > Tuesday's show presented the common-sense, no-nonsense Planet Money economic plan — backed by economists of all stripes, but probably toxic to any candidate that might endorse it. > Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.
- permo-w 5y ago
  Most economists think infinite growth in a finite world is a good idea. Companies reinvesting in themselves and growing bigger is not inherently a good thing. Large corporations, in my opinion, are already causing the breakdown of local societies. Deals are done over large areas, less and less people are in control of their own fates. More and more externalities are caused as business leaders are more detached from the realities of their actions. Wages for workers are lower as more needs to be paid to management, and profits get used for stock-buybacks rather than bonuses and higher wages, to please shareholders rather than workers
  - JamesBarney 5y ago
    > Most economists think infinite growth in a finite world is a good idea. Most economists thing growth and raising people's incomes is a good idea. Capitalism seems like a pretty good deal. Are there any other governments or societies you would think it would benefit the U.S. to switch to?
    - permo-w 5y ago
      I can name 5 without even putting 10 seconds' thought into it
      - JamesBarney 5y ago
        And those 5 are?

dnautics 5y ago

taxing people's assets is complicated as hell. How much is your house worth. And before you answer that question, have you been in a bubbly market? Quotes for houses in the place I've been have gone up by 10% in the last 4 months. Now, suppose you have bought a house and suddenly all of your neighbors are rich. An appraiser comes to your place and suddenly you owe taxes and you basically get evicted from your home under a net-worth-taxation regime. 100% guarantee in your "ideal" situation, the rules will be abused to fuck over those with less clout.

hungryforcodes 5y ago
Housing evaluations are very straight forward -- the market is what decides the price. Unless your house is something exotic like a castle or something. Every year the city or region you live in has a process to evaluate this value, and then asks you to pay a tax based on this. Generally if you feel the taxation is unfair, you can just sell the house -- if it doubled in value from the year before, according to the market, you'll probably be happy to pocket that profit. Otherwise property taxes are just how it goes when you're a house owner. Also you normally have a year to pay the tax, so there is lots of time to make a decision.
- dnautics 5y ago
  > Generally if you feel the taxation is unfair, you can just sell the house let's just be clear about what you're saying. It's okay to effectively force people off of their homes that they have built an emotional attachment to. Perhaps their family has lived there for a few generations. They should just take the money and shut up.
  - hungryforcodes 5y ago
    I'm not saying anything. What other options do you have if the city has levied taxes you can't or are not willing to pay?
JamesBarney 5y ago
Taxing people's assets are complicated. But not because of houses. There are large portions of the U.S. where people are taxed based on their house value. Like in Houston where I pay ~3% of the value of my house every year in taxes. The real tricky part is small businesses. If I run a small software consulting business or own a bar how much is that worth? Is that the value of the software consulting business with me or without me?
gher-shyu3i 5y ago
We've had a solution for over 1400 years now. Look up Islam's Zakat laws. Much more affordable at only 2.5% on money above a certain amount that is sitting in the bank doing nothing. Things like produce and livestock have different measures depending on certain things. If you look up history, when everyone paid their Zakat in Iraq during the Ummayad empire, there were no more needy people left to accept it.

rayiner 5y ago

Most economists think corporate taxes are a bad idea: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-... > Tuesday's show presented the common-sense, no-nonsense Planet Money economic plan — backed by economists of all stripes, but probably toxic to any candidate that might endorse it. > Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.

permo-w 5y ago
Most economists think infinite growth in a finite world is a good idea. Companies reinvesting in themselves and growing bigger is not inherently a good thing. Large corporations, in my opinion, are already causing the breakdown of local societies. Deals are done over large areas, less and less people are in control of their own fates. More and more externalities are caused as business leaders are more detached from the realities of their actions. Wages for workers are lower as more needs to be paid to management, and profits get used for stock-buybacks rather than bonuses and higher wages, to please shareholders rather than workers
- JamesBarney 5y ago
  > Most economists think infinite growth in a finite world is a good idea. Most economists thing growth and raising people's incomes is a good idea. Capitalism seems like a pretty good deal. Are there any other governments or societies you would think it would benefit the U.S. to switch to?
  - permo-w 5y ago
    I can name 5 without even putting 10 seconds' thought into it
    - JamesBarney 5y ago
      And those 5 are?