The Instigator
Mcollado7
Pro (for)
The Contender
RonPaulConservative
Con (against)

Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Mcollado7 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 176 times Debate No: 97171
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

Mcollado7

Pro

So I took a decent amount of time to try and create a plan to incentivise companies to hire more people. I call it golden key economics. Please tell me if this would work, or if not, how could it be improved?

National corporate tax rate: 30%
Tax rate decreased by 1% for every 50k people employed.
1% taxes taken returned for every 50k people employed.
20% minimum tax floor. (Most companies hire less than 500k people anyway.)

Small business recognised by sba 50% of taxes taken returned.
This is to not treat small business unfairly by taxing them 30% instead, by returning 50% of the taxed income, it's effectively 15% taxes for the small business.

This is essentially a form of trickle down economics but to get the tax cuts you must first help the middle class by hiring more.

This should drastically cut unemployment and not drop the taxes too low as to not have a federal budget.
RonPaulConservative

Con

Here's a better idea: Corporate tax rate: 0%, that way buisnesses will have more money to invest in creating more jobs. Instead tax those who receive checks from that corporation, derived from those profits.
Debate Round No. 1
Mcollado7

Pro

So you'really suggesting to raisee taxes on the people and have 0% for corporations? What if companies don't pay people more? What's their incentive to do so? What if they just keep the profits?
RonPaulConservative

Con

Corporations don't just keep the money, it has to go somewhere, and is paid to their shareholders, we can just tax them. That way the corporation will have an incentive to reinvest this money rather than paying it to shareholders as to raise the price of its stocks.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 week ago
RonPaulConservative
I was actually thinking the same thing, taxing companies more who employ less people is not fair because then they have less money to employ people with, and is like fining you for being poor. It's a regressivew tax code is what it is, I believe in a flat tax code with tax exemptions.
Posted by binkshimself 1 week ago
binkshimself
Right. I think you're just adding on to my point that the definition of "small business" has some ambiguity.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 week ago
RonPaulConservative
@binkshimself
Yes, what defines a small buisness? Let's say pro defines this as, let's say, one worth below 10 million, but let's say the Fed inflates the dollar 100%, that 10m is only worth 5m in dollars of the previous year, is it fair to treat them as a big buisness even though they are, in effect, smaller?
Posted by binkshimself 1 week ago
binkshimself
First, you have to define exactly what a "small business" is.

From the looks of it, the pro argument is to lower taxes on "small businesses" (whatever that means), while creating incentives for extremely large businesses to grow. The problem is you hollow out the businesses in the middle. If a business gets a tax boost by being small, then presumably that tax boost will disappear once they begin to grow. They would have to then grow to a certain point - 500k workers being quite large - before they benefit at all from the tax system. This basically creates a system where small businesses stay small, and the few large corporations are benefited by the tax system by growing larger. I'm not sure if that is a recipe for success.

Also, the current realities surrounding the tax system need to be acknowledged. Most businesses now are not the traditional C-Corp, so changes in the corporate tax rate alone might not have the desired effect people thing it will. It's also worth noting that corporate profits are essentially taxes twice. Once at the corporate level, and again at the individual level when the dividends are taxes.
Posted by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 week ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
I could have gone on for much longer, but the character limit made it impossible to do so, therefore increasing the value of character space. ;)
Posted by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 week ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
@levi_smiles:

You are right to a point. Manufacturing is not the end all be all of an economy, healthy or otherwise. And there is a value in all things be they education or natural rersources.

That being said, I did not say that the productiuon of vast material goods is the point, I said "high quality, cheap material goods and services". Services are things like educating the uneducated. And it is not true that things like healthy, educated children have no value. We can and do put a value on such things. For example, don't those educated typically earn more money in the labor market as opposed to those that are not educated? If so, then isn't that a value put on those that are educated?

And the costs of education should go down, no? Well, for that there is a simple solution. Increase the supply of education providers, i.e., break down barriers that allow others to join the business of providing education. Then, those buying the product as wise consumers will seek out that product which has the most value, i.e. the highest quality at the lowest price, or cost/quality.

As for what you said about survival as a species. The entire point of the economy is to make survival easier not harder. Where once many people must work long hours of labor intenseive tasks, we now have machines that can do it, freeing people up to perform other tasks. As far as the value of natural resources go, there will not be a point where an entire system crashes because of the lack of one paticular substance, unless by the work of some outside influence such as government price controls. Things like oil and land will become more valuable as they become less common, and people will treat them with a higher value if they provide to be useful.

All such concepts are based on the economic law of supply and demand. And such is not a manmade law, it is natural law, for it cannot be changed by us.
Posted by Stratz 1 week ago
Stratz
According to Investopedia, employee salaries are already tax deductible, as are employee benefits such as health care coverage, travel expenses, etc.
Posted by levi_smiles 1 week ago
levi_smiles
@ Kescarte (apologies to Mcollado)

The point of modern economies is to manufacture material goods but such a dynamic has an obvious tipping point in a finite world, a point where manufacturing inhibits our survival as a species ( I'd argue we've already passed that tipping point in terms of energy demand & global warming). Humanity has a higher calling than just making more stuff better & cheaper- our priority is to guarantee that generations beyond this one can survive and ideally live a little better than past generations. Participation in that mission, it seems to me, is the right & responsibility of every human. At present population & technological levels we are destined to exclude the majority from any meaningful participation. We can readily place a dollar value on refrigerators & determine an attainable price point when every household can afford a refrigerator, but we aren't willing value a healthy, well-educated child and we aren't interested in bringing those costs down to a place where they are universally affordable. Yes, making more stuff is our present economic mission but it doesn't need to be and shouldn't be and in the big picture must not be if we are going to survive as a species.
Posted by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 week ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
You're right, but that is the point. Whenever an economy is growing (and the technology is improving) there will be less demand for human unskilled labor. But this is a good thing, not a bad one. Whenever a company can do without human workers because automation is cheaper, it follows that the products produced will be cheaper, and there will be a more abundant supply. That has been the main factor for the increased standard of living which we have been enjoying pretty much from the beginning of the inception of this country, and anywhere before where technological growth was created and encouraged. As long as we continue to do so, less people will have jobs, the few jobs that are left will not be labor intensive, and the standard of living will go up. where once people had to clean their own households, we will have robots and computer programs to do it. food will be grown by robots and harvested in a more efficient manner... apples might only cost 3 cents a piece... The possibilities are endless...

While it is true that these are purely speculative, it illustrates well my point. The purpose of any given economy is to create material goods. The increase in demand for the labor market is merely an means needed to bring about an ends, chiefly production of X product.
Posted by levi_smiles 1 week ago
levi_smiles
Correct the millions to billion in prior comment, pls
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.