Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corporations do pay lots of taxes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rotish
    replied
    Seriously, how can anyone defend raising the deficit 1.5 TRILLION dollars while having some Americans see substantial tax increases

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaphod
    replied




    Define who “them” is. List their names. Are you talking about people who own more of the corporation than you? Are you talking about the C-suite of the corporation?

    By taxing corporations more, you reduce the returns on your investments in those corporations and you increase the price of the products you buy. I’m not saying there isn’t a time when it makes some sort of sense to tax a corporation instead of the individuals who own that corporation, but there’s not some group of people out there that makes up “them.” It’s all us. Now, wealthier people may own MORE of a corporation than you do, so taxing the corporation is in effect making the income tax more progressive. Then the question becomes, how progressive is progressive enough?

    I guess I would propose that rather than saying “get those evil corporations” you simply “become the evil corporation” by buying more shares.
    Click to expand...


    I dont understand where youre coming from. No one has proposed a tax increase on corporations that I know of, this is totally wrong framing. We are discussing where any break would most benefit an individual. If we are simply discussing a break going either more towards or away from the individual, I prefer it towards the individual, its that simple. No one is talking about increasing corporate taxes at all, red herring.

    Leave a comment:


  • ifonlyFI
    replied
    I can't even touch any of the arguments above.  The expertise of the posters far exceed mine.  What I read into the corporate tax is that a lot of corporations are paying a rate much lower than mine.  Makes me want to believe in Robert Kiyoasaki's "Rich Dad, Poor Dad."  Be the corporation.

    Leave a comment:


  • tex
    replied


    it’s not an “us vs them”
    Click to expand...


    correct. the trade-off is owners of capital vs labor. high earning professionals that invest have a bit of both.

    it's not clear at all that using policy to further subsidize capital is the most efficient improvement to the system (by which i could mean capital markets, US political system, humanity, etc). productivity has sky rocketed and wages stagnated for decades - why? a dollar preferentially going to the shareholder may be pricing out the worker from participating at all. human capital on the sidelines is not good for the economy, unless we can automate or outsource it for cheaper. then what are you going to do about that human...

    not claiming to have a solution. appreciating the discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaphod
    replied






















    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand…


    This is a fair point to the extent you own the market.

    If you have big market investments, a corporate tax is a direct tax on your wealth.










    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand…


    Not at all. Decrease tax burden on corporations and their profits go up, sure, stock prices might go up as well, but its not the same degree nor are you the arbiter of what to do with that dollar. Give yourself a tax break and its 100% you, and your choice how to spend/save it. Give it to a corporation and it will be some fraction of that and limited choices. Very different.
    Click to expand…


    I agree I’d rather have the dollar in my pocket, but if you keep going along that line of reasoning, you wouldn’t want to invest any of your money in the market, since you have no say what they do with your money, no control, profits may or may not come back to you in the form of dividends, etc.  Better to put your dollars in the bank or start your own business.

    The investors own the corporations, and thus a tax cut on corporations is a tax cut for the investors, and a tax cut for you if you are an investor.  Ultimately it’s the same thing as owning a closely-held business, albeit with less control as you pointed out.
    Click to expand…


    No that doesnt make any sense as a line of reasoning and wasnt in that vein. We are strictly talking about how a tax cut passes through and its effect on you personally. It was solely to the ‘their/our’ argument. Its just not relatively as effective as getting a tax break yourself, no other extended argument. I mean I dont get the use of their private jet or whatever else they do with the tax breaks, but if I get it myself, I am in control of that.

    Taxes and such are zero sum in the short term, its very easy to see winners/losers.
    Click to expand…


    It makes some sense.

    The ed said it’s not us vs them since we own them.

    Yeah your relative effect argument holds water, but it doesn’t mean it’s us vs them, zero sum, etc.

    The private jet is irrelevant.  The company is using its assets to make money, and the more money they make (and keep), the more money it’s worth, the more your shares are worth.  Sure if they’re blowing it on thousands of jet hours in their G650s, you’re going to see less, but again the shareholders own the company.

    And for that matter, if you own the whole corporation, you get to use the private jet all you want.

    Corporations are people.  Obviously not every people is a shareholder, but most of us on here are.
    Click to expand…


    Yes. I strictly meant in the where the tax cut goes for this instant. True that many arent shareholders so the idea it helps most americans is just plain bs, especially considering those they pretend to help the most are least likely to benefit from corporate tax cuts. Would be better for americans to get the tax breaks and their dollars to flow to the market chosen corporations and for them to win by increased revenue and profit instead of being subsidized from tax cuts.
    Click to expand…


    It depends on how much you believe in the free market, trickle down economics, etc.

    There’s only so much you can cut taxes on somebody who doesn’t pay much or any tax.

    For what it’s worth, the corporations and small businesses do most of the hiring.  And it’s probably bad for the US revenue and the economy if corporations continue leaving the country for better tax rates.

    Ultimately I think I’d prefer that the individuals got the tax cut to 20% and not corporations, from a personal selfish standpoint, especially in the short term, but I do see the value in and need for corporate tax cuts.
    Click to expand...


    I dont think you'd have to do much to keep corporations from abusing those tax laws though, thats just the use of several very strange tax loopholes like IP, etc...close that and amend a couple things like a couple in this bill and they cant do that profitably at all. That part is very easy.

    I believe in bottom up processes in complex things like the economy far more than any trickle down bs. I mean I wouldnt take a tax break and spend it all myself, no way a corporation showers workers either. Makes no sense and been disproven time and time again.

    Our economy is mostly spending based. If they wanted to simply make people feel wealthier they could have reduced payroll taxes. It would be exceedingly simple and very direct and noticeable. However, everyone is kidding themselves if they dont recognize the major goal was to as softly as possible raise taxes on individuals to cut corporate rates.

    I'd be fine with a more empiric setting myself. X% is acceptable and reasonable tax receipt/gdp/profits, whatever number and make that it. No funny business.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craigy
    replied



















    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand…


    This is a fair point to the extent you own the market.

    If you have big market investments, a corporate tax is a direct tax on your wealth.










    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand…


    Not at all. Decrease tax burden on corporations and their profits go up, sure, stock prices might go up as well, but its not the same degree nor are you the arbiter of what to do with that dollar. Give yourself a tax break and its 100% you, and your choice how to spend/save it. Give it to a corporation and it will be some fraction of that and limited choices. Very different.
    Click to expand…


    I agree I’d rather have the dollar in my pocket, but if you keep going along that line of reasoning, you wouldn’t want to invest any of your money in the market, since you have no say what they do with your money, no control, profits may or may not come back to you in the form of dividends, etc.  Better to put your dollars in the bank or start your own business.

    The investors own the corporations, and thus a tax cut on corporations is a tax cut for the investors, and a tax cut for you if you are an investor.  Ultimately it’s the same thing as owning a closely-held business, albeit with less control as you pointed out.
    Click to expand…


    No that doesnt make any sense as a line of reasoning and wasnt in that vein. We are strictly talking about how a tax cut passes through and its effect on you personally. It was solely to the ‘their/our’ argument. Its just not relatively as effective as getting a tax break yourself, no other extended argument. I mean I dont get the use of their private jet or whatever else they do with the tax breaks, but if I get it myself, I am in control of that.

    Taxes and such are zero sum in the short term, its very easy to see winners/losers.
    Click to expand…


    It makes some sense.

    The ed said it’s not us vs them since we own them.

    Yeah your relative effect argument holds water, but it doesn’t mean it’s us vs them, zero sum, etc.

    The private jet is irrelevant.  The company is using its assets to make money, and the more money they make (and keep), the more money it’s worth, the more your shares are worth.  Sure if they’re blowing it on thousands of jet hours in their G650s, you’re going to see less, but again the shareholders own the company.

    And for that matter, if you own the whole corporation, you get to use the private jet all you want.

    Corporations are people.  Obviously not every people is a shareholder, but most of us on here are.
    Click to expand…


    Yes. I strictly meant in the where the tax cut goes for this instant. True that many arent shareholders so the idea it helps most americans is just plain bs, especially considering those they pretend to help the most are least likely to benefit from corporate tax cuts. Would be better for americans to get the tax breaks and their dollars to flow to the market chosen corporations and for them to win by increased revenue and profit instead of being subsidized from tax cuts.
    Click to expand...


    It depends on how much you believe in the free market, trickle down economics, etc.

    There's only so much you can cut taxes on somebody who doesn't pay much or any tax.

    For what it's worth, the corporations and small businesses do most of the hiring.  And it's probably bad for the US revenue and the economy if corporations continue leaving the country for better tax rates.

    Ultimately I think I'd prefer that the individuals got the tax cut to 20% and not corporations, from a personal selfish standpoint, especially in the short term, but I do see the value in and need for corporate tax cuts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaphod
    replied
















    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand…


    This is a fair point to the extent you own the market.

    If you have big market investments, a corporate tax is a direct tax on your wealth.










    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand…


    Not at all. Decrease tax burden on corporations and their profits go up, sure, stock prices might go up as well, but its not the same degree nor are you the arbiter of what to do with that dollar. Give yourself a tax break and its 100% you, and your choice how to spend/save it. Give it to a corporation and it will be some fraction of that and limited choices. Very different.
    Click to expand…


    I agree I’d rather have the dollar in my pocket, but if you keep going along that line of reasoning, you wouldn’t want to invest any of your money in the market, since you have no say what they do with your money, no control, profits may or may not come back to you in the form of dividends, etc.  Better to put your dollars in the bank or start your own business.

    The investors own the corporations, and thus a tax cut on corporations is a tax cut for the investors, and a tax cut for you if you are an investor.  Ultimately it’s the same thing as owning a closely-held business, albeit with less control as you pointed out.
    Click to expand…


    No that doesnt make any sense as a line of reasoning and wasnt in that vein. We are strictly talking about how a tax cut passes through and its effect on you personally. It was solely to the ‘their/our’ argument. Its just not relatively as effective as getting a tax break yourself, no other extended argument. I mean I dont get the use of their private jet or whatever else they do with the tax breaks, but if I get it myself, I am in control of that.

    Taxes and such are zero sum in the short term, its very easy to see winners/losers.
    Click to expand…


    It makes some sense.

    The ed said it’s not us vs them since we own them.

    Yeah your relative effect argument holds water, but it doesn’t mean it’s us vs them, zero sum, etc.

    The private jet is irrelevant.  The company is using its assets to make money, and the more money they make (and keep), the more money it’s worth, the more your shares are worth.  Sure if they’re blowing it on thousands of jet hours in their G650s, you’re going to see less, but again the shareholders own the company.

    And for that matter, if you own the whole corporation, you get to use the private jet all you want.

    Corporations are people.  Obviously not every people is a shareholder, but most of us on here are.
    Click to expand...


    Yes. I strictly meant in the where the tax cut goes for this instant. True that many arent shareholders so the idea it helps most americans is just plain bs, especially considering those they pretend to help the most are least likely to benefit from corporate tax cuts. Would be better for americans to get the tax breaks and their dollars to flow to the market chosen corporations and for them to win by increased revenue and profit instead of being subsidized from tax cuts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craigy
    replied













    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand…


    This is a fair point to the extent you own the market.

    If you have big market investments, a corporate tax is a direct tax on your wealth.










    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand…


    Not at all. Decrease tax burden on corporations and their profits go up, sure, stock prices might go up as well, but its not the same degree nor are you the arbiter of what to do with that dollar. Give yourself a tax break and its 100% you, and your choice how to spend/save it. Give it to a corporation and it will be some fraction of that and limited choices. Very different.
    Click to expand…


    I agree I’d rather have the dollar in my pocket, but if you keep going along that line of reasoning, you wouldn’t want to invest any of your money in the market, since you have no say what they do with your money, no control, profits may or may not come back to you in the form of dividends, etc.  Better to put your dollars in the bank or start your own business.

    The investors own the corporations, and thus a tax cut on corporations is a tax cut for the investors, and a tax cut for you if you are an investor.  Ultimately it’s the same thing as owning a closely-held business, albeit with less control as you pointed out.
    Click to expand…


    No that doesnt make any sense as a line of reasoning and wasnt in that vein. We are strictly talking about how a tax cut passes through and its effect on you personally. It was solely to the ‘their/our’ argument. Its just not relatively as effective as getting a tax break yourself, no other extended argument. I mean I dont get the use of their private jet or whatever else they do with the tax breaks, but if I get it myself, I am in control of that.

    Taxes and such are zero sum in the short term, its very easy to see winners/losers.
    Click to expand...


    It makes some sense.

    The ed said it's not us vs them since we own them.

    Yeah your relative effect argument holds water, but it doesn't mean it's us vs them, zero sum, etc.

    The private jet is irrelevant.  The company is using its assets to make money, and the more money they make (and keep), the more money it's worth, the more your shares are worth.  Sure if they're blowing it on thousands of jet hours in their G650s, you're going to see less, but again the shareholders own the company.

    And for that matter, if you own the whole corporation, you get to use the private jet all you want.

    Corporations are people.  Obviously not every people is a shareholder, but most of us on here are.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaphod
    replied










    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand…


    This is a fair point to the extent you own the market.

    If you have big market investments, a corporate tax is a direct tax on your wealth.










    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand…


    Not at all. Decrease tax burden on corporations and their profits go up, sure, stock prices might go up as well, but its not the same degree nor are you the arbiter of what to do with that dollar. Give yourself a tax break and its 100% you, and your choice how to spend/save it. Give it to a corporation and it will be some fraction of that and limited choices. Very different.
    Click to expand…


    I agree I’d rather have the dollar in my pocket, but if you keep going along that line of reasoning, you wouldn’t want to invest any of your money in the market, since you have no say what they do with your money, no control, profits may or may not come back to you in the form of dividends, etc.  Better to put your dollars in the bank or start your own business.

    The investors own the corporations, and thus a tax cut on corporations is a tax cut for the investors, and a tax cut for you if you are an investor.  Ultimately it’s the same thing as owning a closely-held business, albeit with less control as you pointed out.
    Click to expand...


    No that doesnt make any sense as a line of reasoning and wasnt in that vein. We are strictly talking about how a tax cut passes through and its effect on you personally. It was solely to the 'their/our' argument. Its just not relatively as effective as getting a tax break yourself, no other extended argument. I mean I dont get the use of their private jet or whatever else they do with the tax breaks, but if I get it myself, I am in control of that.

    Taxes and such are zero sum in the short term, its very easy to see winners/losers.

    Leave a comment:


  • The White Coat Investor
    replied
    Define who "them" is. List their names. Are you talking about people who own more of the corporation than you? Are you talking about the C-suite of the corporation?

    By taxing corporations more, you reduce the returns on your investments in those corporations and you increase the price of the products you buy. I'm not saying there isn't a time when it makes some sort of sense to tax a corporation instead of the individuals who own that corporation, but there's not some group of people out there that makes up "them." It's all us. Now, wealthier people may own MORE of a corporation than you do, so taxing the corporation is in effect making the income tax more progressive. Then the question becomes, how progressive is progressive enough?

    I guess I would propose that rather than saying "get those evil corporations" you simply "become the evil corporation" by buying more shares.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craigy
    replied







    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand...


    This is a fair point to the extent you own the market.

    If you have big market investments, a corporate tax is a direct tax on your wealth.










    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand…


    Not at all. Decrease tax burden on corporations and their profits go up, sure, stock prices might go up as well, but its not the same degree nor are you the arbiter of what to do with that dollar. Give yourself a tax break and its 100% you, and your choice how to spend/save it. Give it to a corporation and it will be some fraction of that and limited choices. Very different.
    Click to expand...


    I agree I'd rather have the dollar in my pocket, but if you keep going along that line of reasoning, you wouldn't want to invest any of your money in the market, since you have no say what they do with your money, no control, profits may or may not come back to you in the form of dividends, etc.  Better to put your dollars in the bank or start your own business.

    The investors own the corporations, and thus a tax cut on corporations is a tax cut for the investors, and a tax cut for you if you are an investor.  Ultimately it's the same thing as owning a closely-held business, albeit with less control as you pointed out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craigy
    replied




    I just have a REALLY hard time believing that corporations will pass on their tax cuts to their lowest paid workers, as has been argued would be the effect.

    All I know is I’ll be really pissed if my 401k contribution limit drops to $2400
    Click to expand...


    They won't.  Corporations pass their tax cuts onto their bottom line and their shareholders.  They will definitely hire more and be able to afford paying more generous compensation, but they're not simply going to take their tax savings and use it to boost salary.

    The benefit to the economy and workers from lower corporate taxes comes from more money being in corporate and shareholder pockets who, in turn, spend more and hire more and grow the economy.  How much that inspires you depends on how much you believe in trickle down economics.   

    Leave a comment:


  • Rotish
    replied
    Umm. It is us vs them. We’re crippling our future to the tune of trillions of dollars, and cutting those of us in HCOL areas out of potentially 5% of our Post tax income, so that I can POTENTIALLY see some higher returns (you make the stock market return comment out to be a little more cut and dry when you know how unpredictable it is)

    Leave a comment:


  • Zaphod
    replied







    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand…


    It’s not “their” it’s “our.” I’m not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are “they.” Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it’s all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it’s not an “us vs them” thing.
    Click to expand...


    Not at all. Decrease tax burden on corporations and their profits go up, sure, stock prices might go up as well, but its not the same degree nor are you the arbiter of what to do with that dollar. Give yourself a tax break and its 100% you, and your choice how to spend/save it. Give it to a corporation and it will be some fraction of that and limited choices. Very different.

    Leave a comment:


  • The White Coat Investor
    replied




    That doesn’t mean homeowners, the upper middle class, and people living in states with high taxes should pay finance their tax cuts
    Click to expand...


    It's not "their" it's "our." I'm not sure why people view corporations as somebody else. Corporations are us. If you own stocks, you are "they." Tax us on the corporate side, tax us on the personal side, it's all the same. Sure, there might be a more efficient to design the tax code, but it's not an "us vs them" thing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X