4 ms·

This is unfortunate. Corporate taxation is double taxation in the first place, and silly. Corporate profits are already taxed (in the form of dividends/capital

This is unfortunate. Corporate taxation is double taxation in the first place, and silly. Corporate profits are already taxed (in the form of dividends/capital gains to shareholders, and income tax to employees), there is no reason to tax them twice. Further, Corporate taxes make up a pittance of the total revenue by the federal US government. America wastes too much time worrying over the relatively tiny amount of corporate tax dodging when it spends trillions elsewhere. America would be much better off without corporate taxes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_tax#Arguments_against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_tax#Arguments_against

timedoctor 12y ago
Double taxation of corporate taxes exists in the US but it's not the case in every country. For example in Australia you get a personal tax credit for any corporate taxes that you pay. This is the reason why a lot of people choose an LLC in the US.
- kanwisher 12y ago
  S corps don't have double taxation either. Small companies where you would get tax credit shouldn't really pay much in corporate taxes since all the money goes to the owners at end of each year.
blackguardx 12y ago
Why tax people's labor instead?
dlp211 12y ago
http://gocomics.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5f3053ef017ee5819764970d-pi http://gocomics.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5f3053ef017ee581976...
saalweachter 12y ago
Piddling? 9% of the 2010 tax revenues is about 1.5% of the 2010 GDP. US capital gains taxes that year were about 0.3% of GDP, with a top tax rate of about 15%[1]. To make up the lost revenue from eliminating corporate taxes, you would need to raise the long term capital gains tax rate six-fold, to 90%. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/09/09/to-raise-the-capital-gains-tax-rate-is-to-not-raise-capital-gains-taxes/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/09/09/to-raise-the...
- mindcrime 12y ago
  To make up the lost revenue from eliminating corporate taxes, you would need to raise the long term capital gains tax rate six-fold, to 90%. Or we could just cut spending...
  - atmosx 12y ago
    Yeap since the US is big on public spending anyway.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      As far as I know, public spending in the US is about 40% of GDP, which is in line with other countries like Canada and Norway, and higher than countries like Japan and Switzerland.
      - twelvechairs 12y ago
        Exclude the military though and it will be a very different story
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        Reducing the military budget is a valid way to cut spending.
    - venomsnake 12y ago
      It is. Roughly 75% are SS, Medicare, Medicaid and the Army. Its just inefficient.
      - saalweachter 12y ago
        I believe you are confusing "expensive" and "inefficient". Medicare and Medicaid have the lowest overhead, lowest cost-per-patient, and more-or-less the highest customer satisfaction in the US healthcare system.
pktgen 12y ago
Every dollar is effectively taxed an infinite number of times; I don't understand why corporation/shareholder double taxation is a special case. A 0% corporate income tax rate would just allow unlimited tax deferment.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
discardorama 12y ago
> America would be much better off without corporate taxes. In 1952, 33% of the federal tax revenue came from corporate taxes. This figure was down to about 10% in 2013. So the corporations already have it very good.
jokoon 12y ago
I can't understand your position in this day and age, after the 2008 crisis and all the tax breaks that went on.
nandemo 12y ago
Your link is to a page with arguments against the dividend tax, which isn't the same thing. I think this one is more relevant to your comment: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ending-corporate-tax http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ending-corporate...
trhway 12y ago
>Corporate profits are already taxed (in the form of dividends/capital gains to shareholders, and income tax to employees) employees' income - salaries - is expenses and thus excluded from profits, so there is no double taxation here.
- otterley 12y ago
  Under GAAP (standard accounting practices) any profits become a liability in the form of shareholders' equity. When the shareholders sell, they're taxed on the profits. So it's a reasonable argument that taxing the profits are a form of double taxation.
  - killerpopiller 12y ago
    the minority of companies is shareholded in EU I think
    - hessenwolf 12y ago
      The minority is publically listed, for sure, but and ltd or llc I would expect is fairly bog-standard.
    - TheCoelacanth 12y ago
      I believe that's true in the US as well because there are a huge number of sole proprietorships and partnerships. However, the companies with shareholders tend to be much larger companies, so they still make up a very portion of the economy.
  - beagle3 12y ago
    The argument I'm familiar with for corporate taxation is that it is the cost for limited liability and being its own legal entity. You can just eliminate the corporate in the middle, and have all the profits, expenses and liabilities directly assigned to share holders. But no one wants the liabilities part. Dropping corporate tax is therefore "something" (limited liability) "for nothing".
darkr 12y ago
I agree in principal, but unfortunately taxing dividends is a necessity in the defence against tax avoidance. Were the practice to be abolished I could see companies using this as yet another loophole; faciltiating avoidance of both corporate tax (siphoning all of their profits through dividends) and income tax (by making all employees minor shareholders).
dghf 12y ago
Well, either the corporation is a separate legal person from its shareholders, in which case it should pay its taxes like everyone else, or it's not, in which case things like limited liability and the corporate veil have no foundation. Can't have it both ways. (Or shouldn't, anyway.)

timedoctor 12y ago

Double taxation of corporate taxes exists in the US but it's not the case in every country. For example in Australia you get a personal tax credit for any corporate taxes that you pay. This is the reason why a lot of people choose an LLC in the US.

kanwisher 12y ago
S corps don't have double taxation either. Small companies where you would get tax credit shouldn't really pay much in corporate taxes since all the money goes to the owners at end of each year.

blackguardx 12y ago

Why tax people's labor instead?

dlp211 12y ago

http://gocomics.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5f3053ef017ee5819764970d-pi http://gocomics.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5f3053ef017ee581976...

saalweachter 12y ago

Piddling? 9% of the 2010 tax revenues is about 1.5% of the 2010 GDP. US capital gains taxes that year were about 0.3% of GDP, with a top tax rate of about 15%[1]. To make up the lost revenue from eliminating corporate taxes, you would need to raise the long term capital gains tax rate six-fold, to 90%. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/09/09/to-raise-the-capital-gains-tax-rate-is-to-not-raise-capital-gains-taxes/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/09/09/to-raise-the...

mindcrime 12y ago
To make up the lost revenue from eliminating corporate taxes, you would need to raise the long term capital gains tax rate six-fold, to 90%. Or we could just cut spending...
- atmosx 12y ago
  Yeap since the US is big on public spending anyway.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    As far as I know, public spending in the US is about 40% of GDP, which is in line with other countries like Canada and Norway, and higher than countries like Japan and Switzerland.
    - twelvechairs 12y ago
      Exclude the military though and it will be a very different story
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        Reducing the military budget is a valid way to cut spending.
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    It is. Roughly 75% are SS, Medicare, Medicaid and the Army. Its just inefficient.
    - saalweachter 12y ago
      I believe you are confusing "expensive" and "inefficient". Medicare and Medicaid have the lowest overhead, lowest cost-per-patient, and more-or-less the highest customer satisfaction in the US healthcare system.

pktgen 12y ago

Every dollar is effectively taxed an infinite number of times; I don't understand why corporation/shareholder double taxation is a special case. A 0% corporate income tax rate would just allow unlimited tax deferment.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

discardorama 12y ago

> America would be much better off without corporate taxes. In 1952, 33% of the federal tax revenue came from corporate taxes. This figure was down to about 10% in 2013. So the corporations already have it very good.

jokoon 12y ago

I can't understand your position in this day and age, after the 2008 crisis and all the tax breaks that went on.

nandemo 12y ago

Your link is to a page with arguments against the dividend tax, which isn't the same thing. I think this one is more relevant to your comment: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ending-corporate-tax http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ending-corporate...

trhway 12y ago

>Corporate profits are already taxed (in the form of dividends/capital gains to shareholders, and income tax to employees) employees' income - salaries - is expenses and thus excluded from profits, so there is no double taxation here.

otterley 12y ago
Under GAAP (standard accounting practices) any profits become a liability in the form of shareholders' equity. When the shareholders sell, they're taxed on the profits. So it's a reasonable argument that taxing the profits are a form of double taxation.
- killerpopiller 12y ago
  the minority of companies is shareholded in EU I think
  - hessenwolf 12y ago
    The minority is publically listed, for sure, but and ltd or llc I would expect is fairly bog-standard.
  - TheCoelacanth 12y ago
    I believe that's true in the US as well because there are a huge number of sole proprietorships and partnerships. However, the companies with shareholders tend to be much larger companies, so they still make up a very portion of the economy.
- beagle3 12y ago
  The argument I'm familiar with for corporate taxation is that it is the cost for limited liability and being its own legal entity. You can just eliminate the corporate in the middle, and have all the profits, expenses and liabilities directly assigned to share holders. But no one wants the liabilities part. Dropping corporate tax is therefore "something" (limited liability) "for nothing".

darkr 12y ago

I agree in principal, but unfortunately taxing dividends is a necessity in the defence against tax avoidance. Were the practice to be abolished I could see companies using this as yet another loophole; faciltiating avoidance of both corporate tax (siphoning all of their profits through dividends) and income tax (by making all employees minor shareholders).

dghf 12y ago

Well, either the corporation is a separate legal person from its shareholders, in which case it should pay its taxes like everyone else, or it's not, in which case things like limited liability and the corporate veil have no foundation. Can't have it both ways. (Or shouldn't, anyway.)