Corporate Tax Rate

[Perianne]

What should the corporate tax rate be in America?

I say 0%. What do you say?

[darin]

What should the corporate tax rate be in America?

I say 0%. What do you say?

I think that'd destroy most american tax payer families because the Govt would hike personal income tax through the roof. :(

Our govt has a nasty spending problem - NOT a 'monetary theft' problem as they rake in trillions of dollars.

[darin]

Found this Forbes article:


The budget impact would indeed be substantial. The Office of Management and Budget said in the mid-session budget review it released in July that revenue from corporate income taxes will be more than $300 billion in fiscal 2014, slightly more than 10 percent of total federal receipts for the year. Without that revenue (and, yes, I’m assuming no significant additional economic activity if the tax were eliminated), the deficit would be 54 percent higher than the $583 billion deficit projected in the mid-session review.

Additional federal borrowing costs would increase the deficit or reduce the surplus even further not just in 2014 but every year thereafter because interest payments would be higher.

This is when the debate on repealing the federal corporate income tax typically gets stuck. The usual assumption and recommendation is that it be eliminated but replaced with other taxes. Mankiw, for example, recommended that a consumption tax be considered.


But there is a way to change the debate substantially: Don’t just repeal the corporate income tax;, repeal it and at the same time eliminate all federal support for corporations on the spending side of the budget.

There is clearly $300 billion of subsides and other kinds of support for corporations in the federal budget in fiscal 2014. In fact, if you define federal corporate support broadly and include direct support, insurance, indirect subsidies and other types of payments to all industries, the amount of spending is at at least that level. It could be substantially higher. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2014/08/27/how-to-abolish-the-federal-corporate-income-tax-without-increasing-the-deficit/)

[indago]

I think that'd destroy most american tax payer families because the Govt would hike personal income tax through the roof. :(

Our govt has a nasty spending problem - NOT a 'monetary theft' problem as they rake in trillions of dollars.

Define "personal income tax".

[fj1200]

What should the corporate tax rate be in America?

I say 0%. What do you say?

Hey, you got one right. :poke:


I think that'd destroy most american tax payer families because the Govt would hike personal income tax through the roof. :(

Our govt has a nasty spending problem - NOT a 'monetary theft' problem as they rake in trillions of dollars.

Not necessarily, corporate tax revenues are only about 10% of the Federal budget and we should take into account how the revenues would shift to labor via income taxes or capital via capital gains or dividend taxes.


Found this Forbes article:

I wonder what they classify as subsidies.

Overall though the huge gains to our global competitiveness are the most important part IMO.

[indago]

I wonder what they classify as subsidies.

Overall though the huge gains to our global competitiveness are the most important part IMO.

"our global competitiveness"

Are you suggesting that we eliminate our pollution regulations, and workplace safety regulations and regress to the standards of places like Bangladesh, China, India, etc.?

[fj1200]

"our global competitiveness"

Are you suggesting that we eliminate our pollution regulations, and workplace safety regulations and regress to the standards of places like Bangladesh, China, India, etc.?

None of those have anything to do with the corporate tax rate so what you base your question on is unknown.

[indago]

None of those have anything to do with the corporate tax rate so what you base your question on is unknown.

Then how would you define "our global competitiveness"?

[fj1200]

Then how would you define "our global competitiveness"?

Being competitive globally. In this thread it's regarding our corporate tax rates and policy which at present are harmful. A domestic corporate tax rate benefits foreign labor for example.

[indago]

Being competitive globally. In this thread it's regarding our corporate tax rates and policy which at present are harmful. A domestic corporate tax rate benefits foreign labor for example.

Then how would a zero corporate tax rate help "our global competitiveness" without regressing our workplace health and safety standards and wage standards to those of our global competitors?

[fj1200]

Then how would a zero corporate tax rate help "our global competitiveness" without regressing our workplace health and safety standards and wage standards to those of our global competitors?

Because we would have a much lower, as in nonexistent, tax rate than our global competitors. I'm really not sure why this is confusing. :dunno: To the issue that you think is relevant we don't compete with foreign countries based on cheap labor; We compete based on capital and not labor.

[indago]

Because we would have a much lower, as in nonexistent, tax rate than our global competitors. I'm really not sure why this is confusing. :dunno: To the issue that you think is relevant we don't compete with foreign countries based on cheap labor; We compete based on capital and not labor.

You are saying that the cost of labor is not a capital expenditure?

[fj1200]

You are saying that the cost of labor is not a capital expenditure?

Labor is not a capital cost.

[darin]

Jeezus FJ. Its like she's picking one phrase from your every post and demanding you define it. "Depends on what your definition of "is" is...." Whats this topic again?

[indago]

What should the corporate tax rate be in America?

I say 0%. What do you say?

Why do you wish it to be "0%"?

[Perianne]

Why do you wish it to be "0%"?

To promote corporations to do business in America. The profits will go to someone (investors) and they will pay the taxes instead of the corporations.

[indago]

To promote corporations to do business in America. The profits will go to someone (investors) and they will pay the taxes instead of the corporations.

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

[Perianne]

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

I'm cool with that, too. But how will government support losers and freaks without the productive citizens paying taxes?

I am a-okay with paying taxes to support truly disabled people, seniors, and others who are unable to support themselves. As for the others, they are on their own.

[indago]

To promote corporations to do business in America. The profits will go to someone (investors) and they will pay the taxes instead of the corporations.

Why do you encourage government intervention into the lives of the inhabitants of the States?

[Perianne]

Why do you encourage government intervention into the lives of the inhabitants of the States?

I am not encouraging it. I am simply stating what will happen.

[fj1200]

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

Answer #1; The unfortunate 16th Amendment.
Answer #2; You prefer an indirect tax?

[indago]

I am not encouraging it. I am simply stating what will happen.

If you are desiring a "0%" tax on corporations, knowing that the burden would be shifted to the inhabitants of the States, then, in that case, it looks to me like you are encouraging it.

[fj1200]

If you are desiring a "0%" tax on corporations, knowing that the burden would be shifted to the inhabitants of the States, then, in that case, it looks to me like you are encouraging it.

Taxes on business are already on a pass-through entity. Investors, employees, and customers actually "pay" the taxes in the form of lower investment returns, lower wages, and higher prices.

[indago]

Answer #1; The unfortunate 16th Amendment.
Answer #2; You prefer an indirect tax?

The "16th Amendment" tax IS an indirect tax, an excise tax, and there are a myriad of excise taxes already enabled that are payed by consumers.

[fj1200]

The "16th Amendment" tax IS an indirect tax, an excise tax, and there are a myriad of excise taxes already enabled that are payed by consumers.

The Difference Between Direct Tax and Indirect Tax (http://www.investorguide.com/article/11164/the-difference-between-direct-tax-and-indirect-tax-igu/)
I grant you the semantic difference. I'm still not sure your point. Removal of a corporate tax (indirect) with its inherent shifting to investors and employees (indirect) makes no difference in that regard.

[indago]

The Difference Between Direct Tax and Indirect Tax (http://www.investorguide.com/article/11164/the-difference-between-direct-tax-and-indirect-tax-igu/)


I grant you the semantic difference. I'm still not sure your point. Removal of a corporate tax (indirect) with its inherent shifting to investors and employees (indirect) makes no difference in that regard.


The legal distinction between direct and indirect taxes was important enough to warrant the passage of a Constitutional amendment -- the 16th Amendment -- in 1913. Prior to this amendment the law was written in such a way that all direct taxes imposed by the government had to be directly apportioned to the population.

That is incorrect. Direct taxes are apportioned to the States according to their population, not "directly apportioned to the population". And, according to the Supreme Court, the sixteenth amendment created no new taxing authority.

[fj1200]

That is incorrect. Direct taxes are apportioned to the States according to their population, not "directly apportioned to the population". And, according to the Supreme Court, the sixteenth amendment created no new taxing authority.

I see no point in disputing a legalistic argument. We have what we have with it's current acceptance and it is within that framework that a better system needs to rise. FWIW we had a previous poster (johnwk) extol endlessly the virtues of the "Constitutional tax plan" and spent his time shooting down any alternative that fell short of that ideal. He was the enemy of the better for the perfect.

[indago]

I see no point in disputing a legalistic argument. We have what we have with it's current acceptance and it is within that framework that a better system needs to rise. FWIW we had a previous poster (johnwk) extol endlessly the virtues of the "Constitutional tax plan" and spent his time shooting down any alternative that fell short of that ideal. He was the enemy of the better for the perfect.

Just stating some facts! You brought up the article and its comments, which contain errors. I don't know who "(johnwk)" is, and haven't seen any of his points made.

[fj1200]

Just stating some facts! You brought up the article and its comments, which contain errors. I don't know who "(johnwk)" is, and haven't seen any of his points made.

Bring it up with the author. ;) And I don't expect you'd know who he is unless you've been looking around just that your arguments aren't too far away.

[indago]

We have what we have with it's current acceptance and it is within that framework that a better system needs to rise.

Then you prefer to build upon deviation rather than foundation?

[indago]

We have what we have with it's current acceptance and it is within that framework that a better system needs to rise.

"Indeed the Consent of the subject to all Laws, is so clearly necessary that no Man has yet been found hardy enough to deny it. The Patrons of these Acts allow that Consent is necessary, they only contend for a Consent by Construction, by Interpretation, a virtual Consent. But this is only deluding Men with Shadows instead of Substances. Construction, has made Treason where the law has made none. Construction, in short and arbitrary Distinctions, made in short only, for so many by Words, so many Cries to deceive a Mob have always been the Instruments of arbitrary Power, the means of lulling and ensnaring Men into their own Servitude, for whenever we leave Principles and clear positive Laws, and wander after Constructions, one Construction or Consequence is piled up upon another untill we get at an immense distance from Fact and Truth and Nature, lost in the wild Regions of Imagination and Possibility, where arbitrary Power sitts upon her brazen Throne and governs with an iron Scepter." — John Adams - 1768

[fj1200]

Then you prefer to build upon deviation rather than foundation?

I prefer to build upon the reality in which we live because that is where something can happen.

[fj1200]

1768

And? Wish in one hand...

[indago]

And? Wish in one hand...

I see that went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy over your head...

[fj1200]

I see that went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy over your head...

Not really. It's been clear for awhile now that quoting dead founders is not the key to success these days. It might make you feel better and be rather unfortunate but it won't get you anywhere.

[Perianne]

I really wish so many threads wouldn't end up in a pissing contest. You guys need to PM each other with insults instead of putting them in the thread.

IMO.