Corporate Taxes, Why?

[Vol8188]

I said if we get rid of the corporate tax then we should get rid of the income tax for the individual.

Here. You’re saying that. Why would getting rid of corporate taxes necessitate we get rid of income taxes?

I’m all for less taxes. But you’re making a false equivalency. The statement implies an unfairness

 

[DonjoVol]

It doesn't imply an unfairness. If you don't want corporations taxed then it should only be reasonable to get rid of the federal income tax for individuals.

 

[McDad]

I wish Americans were craving a sincere retooling of all taxes...corporate, personal, rates, exemptions...the whole corrupt system.

 

[Vol8188]

It doesn't imply an unfairness. If you don't want corporations taxed then it should only be reasonable to get rid of the federal income tax for individuals.

Why would that be reasonable if your "reason" isn't an unfairness?

 

[DonjoVol]

Why would that be reasonable if your "reason" isn't an unfairness?

Why would it be reasonable for employees to continue to pay a federal income tax?

 

[volkyries]

@Thunder Good-Oil IDK if it's true or not that every large country taxes businesses. But that's not really the topic.

The question is why is it necessary? Other countries do it, isn't a great justification. You seem to fear that companies will never take money out of the business. If so, that's a good thing. We should want people to invest in their business. But the truth is everyone has to live and that requires money.

So how can I just incorporate and then never pay taxes? Unless I'm misunderstanding that seems to be your fear

So did I miss the obvious response that corporations use and/or benefit from public resources so they should contribute to those resources through taxation.

You could argue that taxation of overseas profits might be questionable since they aren't using those resources per se, but you would have to find a balance between companies running all operations through the foreign components to avoid paying legit taxes for resources they do consume. Also, corporations are "people" so why shouldn't they pay taxes like one if they can enjoy some of the other benefits of being one.

 

[Vol8188]

So did I miss the obvious response that corporations use and/or benefit from public resources so they should contribute to those resources through taxation.

You could argue that taxation of overseas profits might be questionable since they aren't using those resources per se, but you would have to find a balance between companies running all operations through the foreign components to avoid paying legit taxes for resources they do consume. Also, corporations are "people" so why shouldn't they pay taxes like one if they can enjoy some of the other benefits of being one.

Idk that I understand your claim. Does creating a corporation increase the demand a business puts on public resources? For example if the biggest corporation in the world were to change their legal status to sole proprietor, would they now use less resources?

If so, we have just solved climate change. If not, why should they pay an additional tax?

The corporations are people ruling you're talking about was a ruling that simply stated creating a corporation does not limit your freedom of speech and that those running corporations just like sole proprietors and employees all have that basic right. Seems you're taking that a bit out of context.

 

[volkyries]

Idk that I understand your claim. Does creating a corporation increase the demand a business puts on public resources? For example if the biggest corporation in the world were to change their legal status to sole proprietor, would they now use less resources?

If so, we have just solved climate change. If not, why should they pay an additional tax?

The corporations are people ruling you're talking about was a ruling that simply stated creating a corporation does not limit your freedom of speech and that those running corporations just like sole proprietors and employees all have that basic right. Seems you're taking that a bit out of context.

The "people" angle it is not out of context. It allows corporations speech which means they have a say in our government and therefore, no representation without taxation.

Also, I haven't run the numbers but I am pretty sure that if the largest corporation when to sole proprietor, that person would pay a lot more taxes since the corporate rate is lower than the highest personal rate. Switching would also not reduce the use of public resources and it would also not reduce the amount of taxes since the sole individual would continue paying them (maybe even more).

Do you believe corporations get no benefit either in the tax code or the use of public resources?

 

[Vol8188]

The "people" angle it is not out of context. It allows corporations speech which means they have a say in our government and therefore, no representation without taxation.

Also, I haven't run the numbers but I am pretty sure that if the largest corporation when to sole proprietor, that person would pay a lot more taxes since the corporate rate is lower than the highest personal rate. Switching would also not reduce the use of public resources and it would also not reduce the amount of taxes since the sole individual would continue paying them (maybe even more).

Do you believe corporations get no benefit either in the tax code or the use of public resources?

Define "they"? The people who already pay taxes?

You realize the owners of corporations are still taxed on their earnings right? Even without "corporate taxes". So why are we taxing someone more for owning a corporation rather than any other type of business?

I believe they use public resources to the same extent as any other business of their size and in their industry, obviously. And that there is no 1 answer to tax benefits. Meaning for some businesses x is better, for others y is better. But if Y for your business situation is a corporation, why should we tax you more than if it were any other type of business?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

I want to expand on my precious response a bit.

Your notion of fairness seems highly skewed. You’re claiming because you pay taxes so should corporations but the reality is every member of that corporation pays income taxes.

So why should they pay an additional tax that you don’t pay? Or should we add an “employee” tax for you?

Corporations contribute roughly 7% of total tax revenue through corporate income tax. Individuals pay 50%. They are doing ok.

 

[Vol8188]

Corporations contribute roughly 7% of total tax revenue through corporate income tax. Individuals pay 50%. They are doing ok.

There's a whole lot more people than corporations. Doesn't seem like a reasonable standard. Also don't the owners of those corporations also pay part of that 50%?

So why are they paying twice but everyone else once?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

There's a whole lot more people than corporations. Doesn't seem like a reasonable standard. Also don't the owners of those corporations also pay part of that 50%?

So why are they paying twice but everyone else once?

Everyone is double, tripled and quadruple taxed. My income gets taxed, but I pay all sorts of other taxes with money that has already been taxed. I buy a car I pay taxes. I sell that car which has already been taxed at least once, the buyer pays taxes. Businesses have so many deductions from the revenue line to the taxable income line they pay taxes on but a fraction of what the individuals pay.

 

[Vol8188]

Everyone is double, tripled and quadruple taxed. My income gets taxed, but I pay all sorts of other taxes with money that has already been taxed. I buy a car I pay taxes. I sell that car which has already been taxed at least once, the buyer pays taxes. Businesses have so many deductions from the revenue line to the taxable income line they pay taxes on but a fraction of what the individuals pay.

That's different and doesn't excuse this. Corporations still pay other taxes on top of this. So "I have to pay other taxes" is not a valid excuse. Why should their income specifically be taxed twice

 

[volkyries]

There's a whole lot more people than corporations. Doesn't seem like a reasonable standard. Also don't the owners of those corporations also pay part of that 50%?

So why are they paying twice but everyone else once?

Because they chose to setup a corporation which has a more favorable tax code and it has a more favorable code to incentivize people to start business which creates jobs, provides people with a living, grows our country, etc. Nobody was forced to setup a corporation and you can believe they would have never done so if it didn't benefit them financially (probably more from a liability point of view, but also from tax).

 

[Orangeburst]

I wish Americans were craving a sincere retooling of all taxes...corporate, personal, rates, exemptions...the whole corrupt system.

I depreciate your comment sir.

 

[Vol8188]

Because they chose to setup a corporation which has a more favorable tax code and it has a more favorable code to incentivize people to start business which creates jobs, provides people with a living, grows our country, etc. Nobody was forced to setup a corporation and you can believe they would have never done so if it didn't benefit them financially (probably more from a liability point of view, but also from tax).

Odd given many people here seem upset that it's only 7%, that you would call it favorable. But yes, it is favorable for someone who can afford to keep their money within the corporation (also liability reasons). But why should that money specifically be taxed? The money that stays within the company.

If you invest in your 401k are your earnings taxed on that before you withdrawal it? Why should their investment?

 

[McDad]

I depreciate your comment sir.

tax puns. lol.

 

[McDad]

So did I miss the obvious response that corporations use and/or benefit from public resources so they should contribute to those resources through taxation.

You could argue that taxation of overseas profits might be questionable since they aren't using those resources per se, but you would have to find a balance between companies running all operations through the foreign components to avoid paying legit taxes for resources they do consume. Also, corporations are "people" so why shouldn't they pay taxes like one if they can enjoy some of the other benefits of being one.

The "people" angle it is not out of context. It allows corporations speech which means they have a say in our government and therefore, no representation without taxation.

Also, I haven't run the numbers but I am pretty sure that if the largest corporation when to sole proprietor, that person would pay a lot more taxes since the corporate rate is lower than the highest personal rate. Switching would also not reduce the use of public resources and it would also not reduce the amount of taxes since the sole individual would continue paying them (maybe even more).

Do you believe corporations get no benefit either in the tax code or the use of public resources?

Would you mind outlining a couple of example of the public resources Corporations use?

How is speech, rather than a vote, representation?

 

[volkyries]

Define "they"? The people who already pay taxes?

You realize the owners of corporations are still taxed on their earnings right? Even without "corporate taxes". So why are we taxing someone more for owning a corporation rather than any other type of business?

I believe they use public resources to the same extent as any other business of their size and in their industry, obviously. And that there is no 1 answer to tax benefits. Meaning for some businesses x is better, for others y is better. But if Y for your business situation is a corporation, why should we tax you more than if it were any other type of business?

I am taxed on my ownership of a corporation at a more favorable rate than my personal income from employment. So it is still cheaper for me to own a piece of a corporation that is taxed at its rate and then taxed for my ownership than for me to own. Also, I couldn't own a larger portion of a variety of different businesses without them being a corporation so another benefit of having corporations.

What proof do you have that corporations are taxed more than other types of business (assuming the business and corporations are all of similar size).

 

[McDad]

Corporations contribute roughly 7% of total tax revenue through corporate income tax. Individuals pay 50%. They are doing ok.

Which, to me, is the perfect argument for decreasing or eliminating corporate tax burdens. Whatever can be passed onto the consumer, or factored in to revenue, will be. which means the already overtaxed individual is paying hidden taxes passed on by the corporation.

 

[Vol8188]

I am taxed on my ownership of a corporation at a more favorable rate than my personal income from employment. So it is still cheaper for me to own a piece of a corporation that is taxed at its rate and then taxed for my ownership than for me to own. Also, I couldn't own a larger portion of a variety of different businesses without them being a corporation so another benefit of having corporations.

What proof do you have that corporations are taxed more than other types of business (assuming the business and corporations are all of similar size).

There's advantages for sure to any type of arrangement, otherwise the corporation wouldn't exist. My point is corporations are beneficial in some instances. I can't proclaim to know all of those.

But it sounds to me like you're saying you have a corporation that you use as an umbrella for multiple other things that you want to have ownership in. So do many American's through their 401k. Why should their money not be taxed until they withdrawal from the 401k, but yours should be taxed?

What's the fundamental difference?

 

[volkyries]

Would you mind outlining a couple of example of the public resources Corporations use?

How is speech, rather than a vote, representation?

Police, fire, legal system, road system, standing army, welfare (corporate subsidies), regulatory protections, etc. Corporations don't exist in a vacuum.

Speech influences voting so although they don't pull the lever themselves, they still can participate. I admit that one was a stretch but I went for it.

 

[volkyries]

There's advantages for sure to any type of arrangement, otherwise the corporation wouldn't exist. My point is corporations are beneficial in some instances. I can't proclaim to know all of those.

But it sounds to me like you're saying you have a corporation that you use as an umbrella for multiple other things that you want to have ownership in. So do many American's through their 401k. Why should their money not be taxed until they withdrawal from the 401k, but yours should be taxed?

What's the fundamental difference?

Corporations don't die would be the first reason and when they do it is usually via bankruptcy so in theory you could hide funds in them forever (believe Thunder touched on that earlier) and then blow it all and disappear.

My 401k is limited to my life and a maybe a short period after that. At some point, though, the 401k funds will be taxes when withdrawn and used. Again, the delayed taxation of a 401k is a carve out to incentivize saving for retirement which is not the same reason as creating a corporation so no real comparison there.

 

[Vol8188]

Which, to me, is the perfect argument for decreasing or eliminating corporate tax burdens. Whatever can be passed onto the consumer, or factored in to revenue, will be. which means the already overtaxed individual is paying hidden taxes passed on by the corporation.

Agreed. I think many people feel this part and that's why the desire to increase corporate tax and increase taxes on the wealthy exists. They're an easy place to point your finger. Not different than the way it was more common (I agree it still happens, but less) to blame outsiders (immigrants, minorities, etc) for problems within a country.

They see the government has a deficit. They think "I'm paying my share, clearly it's the others that are the problem". Without considering any other factors.

I've often defined leftist views as "the view a 5 year old would have if you presented them with a problem" or "the view you'd develop if you put the least amount of thought into something".

"her body her choice"
"we have to stop climate change, the planet matters more than your comfort"
"we should just give every free education, healthcare, etc"
"if we don't have enough money just print it or take it from the rich"
"if there's a shooting we should take the guns"

It all sounds good, as long as you just don't put any real thought into it.

 

[Vol8188]

Corporations don't die would be the first reason. My 401k is limited to my life and a maybe a short period after that. At some point, though, the 401k funds will be taxes when withdrawn and used. Again, the delayed taxation of a 401k is a carve out to incentivize saving for retirement which is not the same reason as creating a corporation so no real comparison there.

Sure they don't die. But the money still comes out, unlike your 401k. Correct?

So why should we treat it differently? And why can't I save for retirement by investing in my business?