3 ms·

Why not just do 25% corporate tax, with a reduction of 5% for every 1/4 of your workforce in the US. The added taxes from people working in the US more than m

Why not just do 25% corporate tax, with a reduction of 5% for every 1/4 of your workforce in the US. The added taxes from people working in the US more than makes up for the loss in corporate tax. Further, we can then export the goods and make a buck on that. I really don’t get what our gov is doing besides trying to do the worst job possible.

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
Because when you are paying zero (or close to zero) corporate taxes by offshoring your revenue recognition, a 25% rate is a big increase.
HWR_14 5y ago
> The added taxes from people working in the US more than makes up for the loss in corporate tax. Further, we can then export the goods and make a buck on that. The US government makes zero dollars on exports. And there's no reason to believe that the people working in the US would make up for corporate tax dollars. That logic is frequently thrown around to justify large corporate tax breaks but to the best of my knowledge, no review of the results has shown it to be true.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  > The US government makes zero dollars on exports. The companies that make the exports pay taxes. Their employees pay taxes.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > The companies that make the exports pay taxes. Except this thread is about doing away with those taxes because somehow "exports" make up for it. > Their employees pay taxes. Yes, they do. And this person suggests cutting corporate taxes by 5% for every 25% of the the employees located in the US. Do those additional employee dollars pay for the corporate tax cut?
chiefalchemist 5y ago
Worst job possible? From whose perspective? The larger corporations and associated financial elite aren't complaining about the current status quo. In fact, by most accounts, it's all working quite well for them. Based on your observation perhaps the better question is: Who exactly is the gov working for? But perhaps just having to ask that means we already know the answer?
dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
Great. I'll just add a minimum wage whatever department to scale up the number of employees. So create many minimum wage US jobs, and highly paid jobs elsewhere. Nice!
- vegetablepotpie 5y ago
  You can also just hire them part time so you don't have to pay benefits. Also change their schedules weekly so that the "employees" can't find additional work. That way, whatever taxes you do pay would just pay for EBT and Medicaid, you would have otherwise paid for with higher pay and health coverage had you hired full time.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
stdbrouw 5y ago
This sort of thing is very easily gamed using transfer pricing. There's a worldwide effort to see whether it's possible to tax using some combination of where profits are made, where the workforce is, etc. (OECD BEPS) but you can't "just" introduce a new bit of tax law and hope that it will survive the scrutiny thousands of tax lawyers eager to get their clients to pay as little as possible.

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago

Because when you are paying zero (or close to zero) corporate taxes by offshoring your revenue recognition, a 25% rate is a big increase.

HWR_14 5y ago

> The added taxes from people working in the US more than makes up for the loss in corporate tax. Further, we can then export the goods and make a buck on that. The US government makes zero dollars on exports. And there's no reason to believe that the people working in the US would make up for corporate tax dollars. That logic is frequently thrown around to justify large corporate tax breaks but to the best of my knowledge, no review of the results has shown it to be true.

Turing_Machine 5y ago
> The US government makes zero dollars on exports. The companies that make the exports pay taxes. Their employees pay taxes.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > The companies that make the exports pay taxes. Except this thread is about doing away with those taxes because somehow "exports" make up for it. > Their employees pay taxes. Yes, they do. And this person suggests cutting corporate taxes by 5% for every 25% of the the employees located in the US. Do those additional employee dollars pay for the corporate tax cut?

chiefalchemist 5y ago

Worst job possible? From whose perspective? The larger corporations and associated financial elite aren't complaining about the current status quo. In fact, by most accounts, it's all working quite well for them. Based on your observation perhaps the better question is: Who exactly is the gov working for? But perhaps just having to ask that means we already know the answer?

dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago

Great. I'll just add a minimum wage whatever department to scale up the number of employees. So create many minimum wage US jobs, and highly paid jobs elsewhere. Nice!

vegetablepotpie 5y ago
You can also just hire them part time so you don't have to pay benefits. Also change their schedules weekly so that the "employees" can't find additional work. That way, whatever taxes you do pay would just pay for EBT and Medicaid, you would have otherwise paid for with higher pay and health coverage had you hired full time.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

stdbrouw 5y ago

This sort of thing is very easily gamed using transfer pricing. There's a worldwide effort to see whether it's possible to tax using some combination of where profits are made, where the workforce is, etc. (OECD BEPS) but you can't "just" introduce a new bit of tax law and hope that it will survive the scrutiny thousands of tax lawyers eager to get their clients to pay as little as possible.