Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Corporate Income Tax

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2011 4:13:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well let's see where this goes.

There is a reason why I'm not accepted by socialists as "one of their own" despite my belief in a highly progressive tax system, multiple taxes on many aspects of life (I prefer many small taxes, rather then a single large tax), minimum wage, worker's rights, and a boat load of restrictions on the market to keep it safe for everyone.

Part of that reason is my beliefs on corporations and corporate income taxes.

I don't give life to corporations as many people seem to do. A corporation cannot really be "evil", only the people running the corporation can be "evil" (for those of you that are the moral nihilists, you should know what I'm talking about). If a car is being driven by a reckless driver, is it the car's fault? No, and if you remove that reckless driver and put in a good driver, the car suddenly becomes "good." The same is true for corporations, they are not evil and they are not greedy, however those that run them can be.

Much of the arguments on taxing come down to what the corporation would do with said money if it weren't taxed (conservatives say that if we tax them less, they'll invest it in more jobs to grow the economy, liberals say that if we tax them less, they'll just give it as bonuses to their rich owners). However, what really are the options that a corporation has to do with money that it makes? Lets take a look.

1) Invest that money in itself to grow and expand (open new factories or stores and such).
2) Invest that money in other companies (by purchasing stock or bonds, or buying other companies outright, though that is more of an investment for itself).
3) Hold the money for a rainy day (often as government bonds, cash, or some other highly liquidible asset).
4)a) (this is broken into two parts, though it can really be considered just one) Reward low-end employees (such as sales associates, general laborers, and such) by giving raises/bonuses/improved benefits.
4)b) Reward high-end employees (such as upper management, CEO, CFO, and such) by giving raises/bonuses/improved benefits.
5) Reward the shareholders with dividends on their stocks.
6) Invest that money in their community (this also relates to #1, since it is an investment in the goodwill of their name).

These are the different options that a corporation has when it is thinking about what to do with its money. I personally believe that depending on what a company chooses to do with that money should determine what taxes should be paid. And by taxing certain actions, that provides an incentive to choose different options.

I believe that the only two options which do not help the economy significantly are options 4b and 5 (option 3 doesn't "help" the economy directly, but it helps the company survive tough times, thus making recessions shorter and less painful). Which I believe can be solved with steep progressive tax rates (I think the top teir should be at over $3 million, but that is for a different thread) and with capital gains counting as income (so if it is a person that is investing, it counts just like personal income, or if it is a company, it counts as corporate income).

This means that corporate income can be lowered so that a company has more moeny to apply to other options (which in turn benefits the economy). And if the corporation still wishes to give huge bonuses to CEOs, then those huge bonuses will be taxed at the personal income level.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 12:22:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/4/2011 4:13:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
and a boat load of restrictions on the market to keep it safe for everyone.
Restrictions are what make it harder for there to be competition, increase prices, and make it harder for new companies to enter the market, thus killing jobs. Restrictions only benefit existing businesses and no one else, no matter how liberals try to whitewash it.
JimProfit1
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2011 3:31:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Taxes are always good. There's never been a tax I did not like. Just some taxes are better then others. Some are more efficient then others. A corporate tax is a wonderful way to defuse a monopoly, prevent outsourcing, and increase government revenue fast!

Corporations have a lot more money then people. Collectively, a corporation can flip a much larger bill. And then when you target specific corporations, be they of less then desirable traits such as some pornography company, or some high end money carrier like Microsoft, there's just so many possibilities. I wish I was the one making the tax laws, you would never have to worry about the word "deficit" again. Never said people had to like it.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2011 2:46:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Jim is back!

By the way, I don't think corporations should even exist in the first place but I don't approve of taxation.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 11:00:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/12/2011 3:31:56 AM, JimProfit1 wrote:
Taxes are always good.

Course they are.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 5:12:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/12/2011 3:31:56 AM, JimProfit1 wrote:
Taxes are always good.

So if someone decided to levy a 100% income and capital gains tax on you and you only, that would still be fine?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 5:13:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/17/2011 5:12:20 PM, Grape wrote:
At 3/12/2011 3:31:56 AM, JimProfit1 wrote:
Taxes are always good.

So if someone decided to levy a 100% income and capital gains tax on you and you only, that would still be fine?

Don't take Jim seriously. Best to ignore him.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 5:46:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Your analysis falls short. You recognize that most uses of money help the economy.

However, for one reason or another, you seem to think that money given to rich people (assuming the high-end employees and shareholders are indeed "rich") doesn't. Well, what do they do with their money?

Money is no good if never spend it, after all. So they spend it too. Perhaps they invest it (which helps the economy just the same as if the corporation invests it), perhaps they spend it on "luxury", i.e. to raise their standard of living. That money then goes to the producers of that "luxury" and voilà, it's back in the economic circle. (Or, of course, they save the money for a rainy day, but that helps the economy the same way it does when the corporation does)

Or, perhaps, they give it to charity if they feel like it. That may help the economy or not, but it certainly isn't evil.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 7:43:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 5:46:02 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
Your analysis falls short. You recognize that most uses of money help the economy.

However, for one reason or another, you seem to think that money given to rich people (assuming the high-end employees and shareholders are indeed "rich") doesn't. Well, what do they do with their money?

Money is no good if never spend it, after all. So they spend it too. Perhaps they invest it (which helps the economy just the same as if the corporation invests it), perhaps they spend it on "luxury", i.e. to raise their standard of living. That money then goes to the producers of that "luxury" and voilà, it's back in the economic circle. (Or, of course, they save the money for a rainy day, but that helps the economy the same way it does when the corporation does)

Or, perhaps, they give it to charity if they feel like it. That may help the economy or not, but it certainly isn't evil.
The moral label of "evil" in this case means that it increases the wealth divide. That corporate top dog is "evil" because he's simply richer. Many socialists(I don't know about OreEle) think that making rich people richer is inherently immoral.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 4:58:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 7:43:44 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
The moral label of "evil" in this case means that it increases the wealth divide. That corporate top dog is "evil" because he's simply richer. Many socialists(I don't know about OreEle) think that making rich people richer is inherently immoral.

But that's a different issue. When I said "evil", I was specifically saying that giving to charity isn't evil whether or not it "helps the economy". I think he would agree with that at the least ;)

As for the rest, I was simply arguing that his analysis was based on what "helps the economy", and therefore his conclusion was wrong, because the things he excluded help the economy too. No mention of morality either way there :)
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 10:26:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 12:23:16 AM, juvanya wrote:
Oh and corporate taxes should be 0, but corporations should not get state sanction either.

Just where do you think corporations came from? They were chartered by monarchs!

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Read and learn. Go ahead.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 10:28:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 10:26:18 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 3/6/2011 12:23:16 AM, juvanya wrote:
Oh and corporate taxes should be 0, but corporations should not get state sanction either.

Just where do you think corporations came from? They were chartered by monarchs!

George Washington came from a particular mother and a particular father.

Therefore, all later humans came not just from a particular mother and a particular father, but THAT particular mother and THAT particular father.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2011 10:29:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

("The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Pierce, published 1911)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 5:38:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/28/2011 10:29:23 PM, PervRat wrote:
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit with responsibility to the demands of the huddled mass consumers.

("The Reality Dictionary" by Grey, published 1911)

I agree with this.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 4:31:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 5:38:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/28/2011 10:29:23 PM, PervRat wrote:
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit with the responsibility to provide profit for the stockholders.

("The Reality Dictionary" by Grey, published 1911, ammended by Thad, The Rad 1877)


I agree with this.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:26:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
liberals say that if we tax them less, they'll just give it as bonuses to their rich owners
I didn't realize this hadn't been remarked upon. If untaxed corporations give out dividends to their owners, those get... taxed. ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2011 10:44:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 5:46:02 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
Your analysis falls short. You recognize that most uses of money help the economy.

However, for one reason or another, you seem to think that money given to rich people (assuming the high-end employees and shareholders are indeed "rich") doesn't. Well, what do they do with their money?

Money is no good if never spend it, after all. So they spend it too. Perhaps they invest it (which helps the economy just the same as if the corporation invests it), perhaps they spend it on "luxury", i.e. to raise their standard of living. That money then goes to the producers of that "luxury" and voilà, it's back in the economic circle. (Or, of course, they save the money for a rainy day, but that helps the economy the same way it does when the corporation does)

Or, perhaps, they give it to charity if they feel like it. That may help the economy or not, but it certainly isn't evil.

one of my favorite examples.

Investing helps raise supply (by providing money to companies to produce), it does not help raise demand (accept the demand of ingredients needed to make the product, but if the overall demand of the product is not raised, than that doesn't matter).

Lets look at the same amount of money, $10,000,000, in three different situations.

A) 1 person making $10,000,000 a year
B) 100 people making $100,000 a year
C) 1,000 people making $10,000 a year

Which situation creates the most demand for various products? In case B, those 100 people are all likely to have a car (many will have 2, if they have a family). Case A will not likely be creating demand for 100+ cars, that person may have a fleet of cars, but unlikely as many as situation B. Instead, they'll likely have fewer, higher-end cars. In case C, most of them will likely have used cars or be riding the bus, and so little demand for that product is created.

B) will be providing more demand for resturaunts, and simply luxuries (nice TVs, nice computers, recliners, messages, homes, and what nots). A) will be providing more demand for extravagent luxuries (yachts, planes, mansions, and such). C) will be providing more demand for basic needs (discount foods, cheap apartments, goodwill, and stuff).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 4:17:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/1/2011 10:44:15 AM, OreEle wrote:
Investing helps raise supply (by providing money to companies to produce), it does not help raise demand (accept the demand of ingredients needed to make the product, but if the overall demand of the product is not raised, than that doesn't matter).
What company thinks it's a good idea to produce stuff that nobody will buy (since "demand" doesn't rise)?

Lets look at the same amount of money, $10,000,000, in three different situations.

A) 1 person making $10,000,000 a year
B) 100 people making $100,000 a year
C) 1,000 people making $10,000 a year

Which situation creates the most demand for various products? In case B, those 100 people are all likely to have a car (many will have 2, if they have a family). Case A will not likely be creating demand for 100+ cars, that person may have a fleet of cars, but unlikely as many as situation B. Instead, they'll likely have fewer, higher-end cars. In case C, most of them will likely have used cars or be riding the bus, and so little demand for that product is created.

B) will be providing more demand for resturaunts, and simply luxuries (nice TVs, nice computers, recliners, messages, homes, and what nots). A) will be providing more demand for extravagent luxuries (yachts, planes, mansions, and such). C) will be providing more demand for basic needs (discount foods, cheap apartments, goodwill, and stuff).
Ah, but now we're arguing in terms of "what will benefit the economy most". If that's the standard, then you have to revisit your original post, since there you were judging by what helps the economy period.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)