61–70 of 82 posts
I am pretty liberal, but I DO think corporate taxes should be lower. We should tax the money that people pull OUT of a business for personal consumption, not the money that is being used to drive the economy.
But, to truly level the playing field, we would also have to tax capital gains at the same rate as wages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Federal government's role isn't to manage all commerce within the states. It's not a matter of what "federal law allows". Managing tax rates within states is not a Federal power enumerated in the Constitution. It's a good thing that States are forced to compete with each other on offering suitable economic environments for the businesses that they wish to attract. Big corporations can offer significant tax rev…
You misunderstood me: I'm not saying the states shouldn't be competing for business. I'm saying states shouldn't be allowed to give tax breaks to individual companies and not to others. That's effectively having different tax codes for different companies. It's is analogous to having different laws for different people (which, I assume would not be constitutional). The point is to create good economic environments wi…
I am pretty liberal, but I DO think corporate taxes should be lower. We should tax the money that people pull OUT of a business for personal consumption, not the money that is being used to drive the economy.
I don't actually have an opinion either way because I don't understand the tax system well enough. But I'm curious, why do you think: a) money pulled out of business for personal consumption isn't driving the economy? - that's how other businesses make money b) personal consumption isn't already taxed? That's what sales tax does right? c) money pulled out of businesses isn't used to finance other businesses? eg. I li…
To answer your points:
a) Yes, consumption drives the economy, but consumption does not 'multiply' like investment spending does. It would be much better for the economy for someone to buy a tractor than a speedboat, for example; the tractor is used to create more wealth, while the speedboat does not produce anything. We want to incentivize the investment type spending.
b) Yes personal consumption is already taxed. We would have to change the way and rate we tax to offset lost income, and do it in a way that is not regressive. If we get rid of corporate income tax, we can raise capital gains and income taxes on wealthy people without overly penalizing them.
c) Yes, you can obviously use money earned from one company to invest in another. A good tax structure would recognize that and encourage it.
I think all of this comes down to realizing that taxes do two things, raise revenue and drive behavior. We want to make sure the behaviors we cause are the ones we want as a society, while at the same time raising enough revenue to do the things government needs to do.
I am pretty liberal, but I DO think corporate taxes should be lower. We should tax the money that people pull OUT of a business for personal consumption, not the money that is being used to drive the economy.
I can get on board with that. This would help even small businesses that are reinvesting in growth. But, to truly level the playing field, we would also have to tax capital gains at the same rate as wages.
I am pretty liberal, but I DO think corporate taxes should be lower. We should tax the money that people pull OUT of a business for personal consumption, not the money that is being used to drive the economy.
Personal consumption is the leading 'driver' (or one of them) of the U.S. economy. I also don't see the distinction: Why shouldn't corporations pay their share, and why should private citizens have to pay more to cover it (taxes are a zero sum game)? Why is a citizen's personal budget somehow of little value, but corporate budgets are sacrosanct? I'm more concerned with protecting private people than corporations. >…
In short, corporations never 'take' income. It is the shareholders and executives who 'take' the income. Tax the money at that point, and at a level that offsets the loss of corporate income taxes. This would not be shifting the burden to other citizens, it is just realizing the truth that a corporation isn't a REAL person, it is a group of people, and those are the people who should be taxed.
No corporation with a good tax team pays anything more than 20% of taxes. This idea that 15% is going to really be THE thing that spurns business, well, it might work initially, but the reality is, it will just create more federal debt (think Bush tax cuts of 2003). Also, the current tax codes (loop holes) are too favorable for corps. With the proposed lower corp. base tax rate it will just make it easier for corpora…
maybe big corporations can afford to reduce their taxes, but small companies can't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The evidence is that US corporations are stashing ~$2 trillion dollars offshore. I'm not saying cutting taxes will fix the problem, but it is very apparent that the current tax rate is determining their behavior. Unfortunately it can become a race to the bottom for countries trying to capture the taxes on that income.
> it is very apparent that the current tax rate is determining their behavior That isn't necessarily true. It could be due to other laws, such as the one that allows them to stash money overseas tax-free. Perhaps that's the law that should change.
I'm skeptical that tax reform has a better chance of making it through this Congress than ACA reform, but: Can anyone comment on how a lower corporate rate would likely affect S corps and incentives to form them? Maybe a new 15% rate wouldn't apply to such firms, but if it did, wouldn't it represent a pretty big new benefit/loophole for incorporation?
The benefit of S-corps is to pass through taxation to the owner's personal tax return in order to avoid double taxation. There is no added benefit with lower corporate taxes because they are effectively 0% at the corporate level.
- http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/will-new-trump-tax-... - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/22/trump-could-gain-the-most-fro... - https://taxfoundation.org/details-analysis-donald-trump-tax-...
I'm skeptical that tax reform has a better chance of making it through this Congress than ACA reform, but: Can anyone comment on how a lower corporate rate would likely affect S corps and incentives to form them? Maybe a new 15% rate wouldn't apply to such firms, but if it did, wouldn't it represent a pretty big new benefit/loophole for incorporation?
Wouldn't apply to S-corps, as pass-through taxation from the company is applied at the owners' personal tax rate(s). But, indirectly, the biggest incentive that I can see would be with regard to retained earnings and reinvestment. For an S-corp, shareholders pay tax on profits according to their ownership percentage, irrespective of whether they even receive a distribution from those profits. And, if on Jan 1, the co…
see my post above - at times trump has stated that this _would_ apply to pass-through entities (s-corps, sole proprietorships and LLCs). at the moment however, this point remains unclear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can get on board with that. This would help even small businesses that are reinvesting in growth. But, to truly level the playing field, we would also have to tax capital gains at the same rate as wages.
Yes, we would; one of the main reasons we don't currently is BECAUSE of the corporate income tax. Currently, capital gains are 'doubly' taxed, first as corporate income and then as capital gains. We can offset a decreased corporate income tax by increasing capital gains taxes.
In any case, unfortunately, I've yet to hear the political advocates for corporate tax reduction/elimination argue nearly as vociferously for an increase in capital gains taxes.