71–80 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it's not. It shows how much more profitable Berkshire Hathaway has been than other big companies. Which is what it's known for. You'd never want other companies paying as much tax if they didn't have the profit to back it up. It would bankrupt them.
Now apply that same logic to people.
https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/tpc-number-those-who-dont...
This number is actually a shame in the sense that it shows how little taxes are paid by other big companies.
IMO corporate tax should be zero, and we tax individual people instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if a household was only taxed on the money they managed to put away in savings and could count housing expenses, food expenses, education costs, healthcare, entertainment, vacations, vehicle purchases, etc. 100% against their income.
are you agitating to tax companies that lose money?
Here's some interesting thinking about different kinds of tax: https://economicsobservatory.com/which-taxes-are-best-and-wo... > "Raising the income tax rate has by far the least negative effect on GDP. In the long run, the simulation shows that the economy pretty much returns to baseline levels, with a slight increase in potential output. The opposite is true for corporation taxes. A rise in the corporation tax rate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think because they don't get any dividend to trigger income tax, instead they get a loan against their shares and spend that and roll over the debt to infinity.
I feel like this is a myth people share without ever looking into. You service the debt with income that you make and pay tax on the income you service the debt with
This number is actually a shame in the sense that it shows how little taxes are paid by other big companies.
The correct corporate tax rate is zero, or the correct income tax rate is zero. Double taxation on employees of corporations is ludicrous and warping. IMO corporate tax should be zero, and we tax individual people instead.
This number is actually a shame in the sense that it shows how little taxes are paid by other big companies.
No it's not. It shows how much more profitable Berkshire Hathaway has been than other big companies. Which is what it's known for. You'd never want other companies paying as much tax if they didn't have the profit to back it up. It would bankrupt them.
They do have the profit in that the money they make doing things exceeds the money they spend to do the thing, but though a series of tricks of varying legality and ethics they make it so on paper they do not have "profit" and therefore successfully avoid taxes.
Amazon reported losses for the first 10 years while growing to billions in yearly revenue.
>It would bankrupt them.
It really wouldn't have. While Amazon was growing to dominate retail and putting very many competitors out of business, they were paying 0 corporate taxes. Many companies play these tricks and many people want them to pay fair taxes. If you need to be tax free to break even, you should go bankrupt. Especially in the Fortune 500 region.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I most certainly cannot deduct housing, food, entertainment, vacations, or large purchases. > The problem is that we obviously can't let you deduct everything, because if you can deduct everything there would be nothing to tax, aside from savings. This is the point the parent poster is making. We say that it's ok for corporations to deduct everything, but not the people? Why are we ok with that?
>This is the point the parent poster is making. We say that it's ok for corporations to deduct everything, but not the people? Why are we ok with that? Because companies, to some approximation, are pass-through entities, so it doesn't make sense to tax them. Most of the stuff you buy are for own use/consumption. Food is an obvious one, but so are movie tickets TV and last year's European vacation. Companies don't do…
And yet they sure seem to cater a lot of lunches and dinners, pick up the costs for large corporate events, pay for suites at event venues, and fly executives around the world in private jets.
This number is actually a shame in the sense that it shows how little taxes are paid by other big companies.
The correct corporate tax rate is zero, or the correct income tax rate is zero. Double taxation on employees of corporations is ludicrous and warping. IMO corporate tax should be zero, and we tax individual people instead.
Money is taxed (generally) whenever it moves between parties. You paid tax on your income; you give (some of) it to someone else for goods or services - they pay taxes on it again. That's not double taxation, that's how tax works.
Money flows to the corporation. They pay some to employees, who pay tax on their income. They (might) pay some to shareholders, who (might) pay tax on dividends or capital gains. What is left (very simply speaking), the corporation pays tax on as its income.
This number is actually a shame in the sense that it shows how little taxes are paid by other big companies.
The correct corporate tax rate is zero, or the correct income tax rate is zero. Double taxation on employees of corporations is ludicrous and warping. IMO corporate tax should be zero, and we tax individual people instead.