Taxes and greener pastures..

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1 - 66 of total 66 in this topic
clinker

Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 30, 2016 - 06:51am PT
One of my climbing partners talks a lot about the low rate of tax on we have on corporations in the US. He owns and runs a small company.

The EU is calling out individual countries tax bargaining practices.

A small bite out of Apple.

EU hits Apple with $14.6 billion tax bill
by Ivana Kottasova @ivanakottasova
August 30, 2016: 9:04 AM ET


Tech giants hold $500 billion in cash
Ireland must recover up to 13 billion euros ($14.6 billion) in unpaid taxes from Apple, Europe's top regulator ruled on Tuesday.
The tax ruling is by far the biggest the European Union has ever made regarding a single company, and it could spark a huge transatlantic row over how Europe treats big U.S. companies.
Apple shares fell almost 3% in premarket trading. The company will appeal the decision. It said the ruling upended the international tax system and would damage jobs and investment in Europe.
The European Commission, the EU's de-facto government, said the Irish government had granted illegal state aid to Apple (AAPL, Tech30) by helping the tech giant to artificially lower its tax bill for more than 20 years.
apple ireland tax reaction
Apple reacts to the EU commission hitting it with a 14.5 billion tax bill
"Member States cannot give tax benefits to selected companies -- this is illegal under EU state aid rules," said Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, Europe's top antitrust official.
Apple paid tax at 1%, or less, on profits attributed to its subsidiaries in Ireland, well below the 35% top rate in the United States and even well below Ireland's 12.5% rate.
That prompted complaints by both European and U.S. lawmakers, who argued the deal gave Apple an unfair advantage in exchange for creating jobs in Ireland. CEO Tim Cook was even called to testify on Apple's tax deal before a Senate committee in 2013.
The bill for tax benefits, plus interest, covers 2003 to 2014. Apple has more than $231 billion in cash on its balance sheet to cushion the blow.
Cook said on Tuesday the ruling has "no basis in fact or in law," calling it "obvious targeting of Apple."
eu apple
He also said Apple has helped create and sustain more than 1.5 million jobs across Europe and stressed the company follows the law and pays all the taxes it owes.
"The European Commission has launched an effort to rewrite Apple's history in Europe, ignore Ireland's tax laws and upend the international tax system in the process," he wrote.
Ireland said it will appeal the decision, saying Apple paid what it owed. The country has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe, which makes it an attractive place to invest for global companies.
The Irish government is afraid companies would be less likely to invest in Ireland if its tax regime changes, which could cost the country thousands of jobs.
Related: U.S. warns EU: Don't hit Apple with a massive tax bill
Apple is not the only American company that has recently found itself under scrutiny over its European tax affairs.
The European Commission ordered Starbucks and Fiat Chrysler to repay millions in taxes last October.
Starbucks (SBUX) has to pay back up to 30 million euros it saved thanks to a sweetheart tax deal with the Netherlands. Fiat Chrysler (FCAM) was ordered to repay a similar amount after a similar deal with Luxembourg.
Both companies have appealed the decisions.
Related: France going 'all the way' to collect tax from Google, McDonald's
The EU is also probing the tax arrangements of Amazon (AMZN, Tech30) and McDonald's (MCD). Google (GOOGL, Tech30) is under investigation over its taxes in France and a couple of other European countries.
The ruling against Apple's tax deal comes despite a stern warning from the U.S. last week. The Treasury Department urged the European Commission to stop its tax crackdown on American companies, saying it would consider "potential responses" if Brussels doesn't change course.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Aug 30, 2016 - 07:30am PT
Tell yer climbing partner to quit reading The Daily Worker. European corporations, firmly
ensconced in their socialist paradise, pay much lower taxes than US corporations.

France 15-33%
Germany 29.65%
Italy 27.5%
Netherlands 25%
Switzerland 18%
Sweden 22%
Liechtenstein 12.5%
UK 20%
USA 35% + 0-12% state/local
Lorenzo

Trad climber
Portland Oregon
Aug 30, 2016 - 08:06am PT
2011 effective tax rate after loophole deductions. 12%. In 2011

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax_in_the_United_States



Making the USA as much a corporate tax haven as Lichtenstein.

Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013.
General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012.
288 big and profitable Fortune 500 corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% from 2008 to 2012.

And the largest corporation on the planet, Apple, paid 8.2% in effective tax rate in 2013.
The socialist worker's rag I got that last number from was the Bloomberg report.

And today's news from where Apple hides it profits, Ireland, is that the EU Force them to pay 14.5 billion in back taxes for all the years Apple has been in Ireland and sent profits to Bermuda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/technology/apple-tax-eu-ireland.html
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2013/10/15/14211/890

In the story
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Aug 30, 2016 - 08:33am PT
Lorenzo writes:

"2011 effective tax rate after loophole deductions. 12%. In 2011"



How about a compromise?

Cut the tax rate to 12%, and shitcan all the deductions.

Tax deductions exist only as a government tool to pressure people into doing things that they otherwise wouldn't.
Lorenzo

Trad climber
Portland Oregon
Aug 30, 2016 - 08:36am PT
Well, OK, if you can talk Apple in adding half again what it pays with deductions.

And GE, Boeing, and Verison paid nothing, so I doubt you'll convince them.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 30, 2016 - 11:02am PT
Corporate income taxes have an inherent unfairness because we do not know what individuals pay them. Econometricians demonstrated this long ago, starting with Arnold Zellner, in "The Corporate Income Tax In The Long Run: A Comment" Journal of Political Economy 66, No. 5 (October 1958), pp. 444-446. Zellner demonstrated, and many have later confirmed, that we have too many dependent variables and too few independent variables to use econometrics to measure who pays corporate income tax.

I realize I use this example often, but tell me who pays Chevron's corporate income tax, as an example? Is it its shareholders, its executives, its workers, its vendors, its customers or someone else? If you know, how do you know? Sorry, but I don't believe visionaries unless they can successfully predict the winning Lotto numbers.

If we don't know who pays a tax, we cannot know its fairness or unfairness. This, of course, is why those who favor big government love corporate income taxes and similar levies. Someone pays, but few of them know how much, if any, they pay. That way there's less resistance to higher taxes than levies with direct, measurable impact such as sales or income taxes. Those who spend their lives to spend our money have more money to spend when they can hide the identity of the payers.

Another trouble I have with "average actual corporate tax rates" is the method of calcuation. The professional corporation of which I was a member paid almost no income tax, because we paid almost all of our income as salaries. This kept us well below the higher marginal rates.

Moreover, as mentioned by Chaz, above, just who, exactly, created those "loopholes?" Isn't that the government with its thumb on the scales? Any alleged "loophole" that is not, in fact, necessary to calculate income (as opposed to gross receipt) constitutes a governmetn intervention creating "crony capitalists," Conservatives want those interventions eliminated, but liberals want to direct private activity toward the activities they want, rather than those buyers want.

No matter how you slice it, U.S. marginal corporate income tax rates far exceed those of most of the rest of the industrialized world, totally aside from their unknown incidence.

John
Lorenzo

Trad climber
Portland Oregon
Aug 30, 2016 - 11:06am PT
If we don't know who pays a tax, we cannot know its fairness or unfairness.

No matter how you slice it, U.S. marginal corporate income tax rates far exceed those of most of the rest of the industrialized world, totally aside from their unknown incidence.


You make no sense.
NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Aug 30, 2016 - 11:32am PT
John, I'm open to your ideas on lots of stuff, especially economics where you have a background. But I can only rationalize your response if you are paid by corporations to come up with an excuse to defend their practices. I see zero meat in your argument.


What is the relevance of who owns the corporations in terms of taxation? Whoever they are, they make a profit (or loss) and should be subject to taxation on the income, just as if they were working with physical labor to earn the money (I'm perilously close to the issue of taxation on passive vs active investment income, but let's not fall into that side discussion that doesn't change the merits of this discussion). I'm sure owners of corporations (shareholders) are quick to declare losses and take deductions it the corporation loses money. No reason I can see to obfuscate it with murkiness of what individuals benefit or suffer from it. Anyone who can invest in a corporation, which exists with the primary motive of making a profit, can afford to pay the taxes associated with the income.

When you reduce corporate taxation, you reduce the tax liability of rich people who can afford to own stock. Further, you create a system that rewards passive income and discourages people from performing real work and creating something of value- the government takes more from people creating things than from the investment leaches of society. It's a way for the rich people to stay rich while the people with ideas and hard work claw away creating value trying to get into that rich class that keeps getting richer even without doing anything except parking the wealth that their ancestors created.

Reducing corporate taxes creates a giant loophole that only benefits the people who least need government assistance.

The ONLY counter-argument that I see against extreme tax rates for corporations, is the issue of global competitiveness. If we have too much taxes, then companies will shift their operations to other countries. So our challenge should be to discourage countries with low corporate taxes, use our military might and negotiations power against that! Not pandering in a downward spiral of giving away our national resources and collective wealth of our citizens to corporations that ultimately have no allegiance to anything except profits.

zBrown

Ice climber
Aug 30, 2016 - 11:48am PT
Moreover, as mentioned by Chaz, above, just who, exactly, created those "loopholes?"

The corporate attorneys who dictated to the Congress what to pass (actually they wrote it for them).
Escopeta

Trad climber
Idaho
Aug 30, 2016 - 11:48am PT
Starting any argument from the premise that its the government's role to collect taxes and we are just here to argue about the rates immediately marks you.

Statists gonna state.....
StahlBro

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Aug 30, 2016 - 12:28pm PT
Might be the dumbest troll-bot ever created
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 30, 2016 - 02:11pm PT
Corporations are people, remember? Have you been drinking?

DMT

Corporations are people acting in concert. Conservatives understand this. Leftists pretend corporations are simply separate metaphysical entities, and therefore have no rights. They also view that metaphysical entity as a taxpayer. That's like saying an apartment building pays property tax. Its owners pay the tax, but they doubtless collect at least some of that tax in rental income. Conservatives understand what corporations really are. Corporations apparently still baffle the left.

The corporate income tax is ultimately an excise tax on the corporate organization. To the extent corporate organization is the most feasible way to organize a business association with huge capital requirements (e.g. oil companies), all such associations will pay that excise tax. Investors look to return on investment. Since the corporate income tax reduces that return before an investor gets his or her money, that tax is no different from any other cost, a portion of which gets passed on to those who sell to (i.e. workers, who sell labor or vendors who sell other goods and services) or buy from the corporation.

We can figure out the incidence of an excise tax on, e.g. utility service, rubber goods, etc. pretty easily. But what's the incidence of an excise tax on corporate organization if so much of what we use in our daily lives comes from corporations?

If you think you pay no corporate income tax, but buy products produced by corporations, work for a corporation, sell to a corporation, or own stock in a corporation (either directly or indirectly, through participation in a retirement plan, e.g.), you're kidding yourself. If you think you know how much you pay, you're also kidding yourself. The only honest answer to the question "How much corporate income tax do I pay?" is "I don't know." And you don't, either. So how can you talk about a corporation's "fair share" when you don't even know who's paying how much?

What is the relevance of who owns the corporations in terms of taxation? Whoever they are, they make a profit (or loss) and should be subject to taxation on the income, just as if they were working with physical labor to earn the money

That's a good idea, but we don't do that now. If a corporation pays a dividend, it's taxed both at the corporate level, and again at the individual level. When one combines the corporate rates with individual rates, dividend income would seem taxed at a much higher rate than labor income.

If I could start a tax system from scratch, I would only tax individual incomes for redistributive and unallocable expenses, and have user fees where we can identify the beneficiary of government expenses. Unfortunately, it's too late to do that. There's a saying in tax policy that "old taxes are good taxes," meaning that the distortions caused by the tax have worked their way through the economic system. Changing the game will lead to new distortions that need to be factored in.

John
John M

climber
Aug 30, 2016 - 02:18pm PT
hey also view that metaphysical entity as a taxpayer.

You can sue the corporation, but you can not sue the people who are the corporation. With that, people can hide behind corporations. Taking money out of the corporation and then saying the individual stock owners are not responsible for the problems/debts of the corporation.

If corporations are separate, and have the rights of a person, then they should be taxed like a person.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 30, 2016 - 02:23pm PT
Corporations aren't unique in limiting liability. Limited partnerships, LLC's and for certain professions, LLP's do the same. Partnership taxation allocates all income and losses to individual partners. Corporations do not, in part because the enormous size of the shareholder class in large public corporations would be a bookkeeping and taxation nightmare.

Individaul stockholders pay individual income when they receive money for their status as stockholders, either through dividends (which have an extremely high effective tax rate) or when they sell their stock (which have a lower tax rate, which is a different discussion). Again, who, exactly, is paying that corporate income tax, and how do you know? If you don't know, how is a higher or lower rate fair or unfair?

John
John M

climber
Aug 30, 2016 - 02:28pm PT
no offense taken Dingus..

And John, I do sort of see where you are coming from. Use fees instead of taxes on corporations. That would in one sense level the field and not penalize successful corporations. You pay to play. I believe that is in essence what you are saying.

My problem with that then is the capital gains tax.
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
Nothing creative to say
Aug 30, 2016 - 05:13pm PT
Corporations apparently still baffle the left.

Not sure they baffle the left as much as they are baffled by the different rates of taxation of capital gains vs. ordinary income.

But Nuts point about foreign competitiveness is well taken as a downward pressure on the taxation rate we're politically willing to accept.



Jon Beck

Trad climber
Oceanside
Aug 30, 2016 - 05:29pm PT
If the EU prevails against Ireland the world will be faced with a situation where mega-corporations will not have any tax havens and will be forced to pay their fair share. Oh the horror.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Aug 30, 2016 - 05:30pm PT
i feel bad for the corporashunsiz

they should contribute less because dey employz so menny.
mtnyoung

Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
Aug 30, 2016 - 05:58pm PT
John E said:


"Corporations are people acting in concert. Conservatives understand this. Leftists pretend corporations are simply separate metaphysical entities, and therefore have no rights. They also view that metaphysical entity as a taxpayer."


In fairness, I think my political views are a little left of yours John. But I often read your stuff (which is usually both respectful and well thought out).

But, oh man, I think you're way, way off on this one.

Corporations are certainly more than people acting in concert - that's totally simplistic. They're a blend of people acting in concert and entities with an exisitence of their own.

John M pointed out a part of this truth when he said:


"You can sue the corporation, but you can not sue the people who are the corporation. With that, people can hide behind corporations. Taking money out of the corporation and then saying the individual stock owners are not responsible for the problems/debts of the corporation."


John M's points aren't just valid, they illustrate one of the most basic reasons for corporations to exist (I know you know your economic history).

As another example, what about Citizens United? Corporations (apparently) are considered entities (not just people acting in concert) to the point where that they've got their own separate First Amendment rights (although that's horseshit and they shouldn't).


zBrown

Ice climber
Aug 30, 2016 - 06:04pm PT
Corporations do not, in part because the enormous size of the shareholder class in large public corporations would be a bookkeeping and taxation nightmare.

Do the math.



May be time to upgrade some of those corporate computers.


Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Aug 30, 2016 - 06:15pm PT
Corporations aren't unique in limiting liability. Limited partnerships, LLC's and for certain professions, LLP's do the same. Partnership taxation allocates all income and losses to individual partners. Corporations do not, in part because the enormous size of the shareholder class in large public corporations would be a bookkeeping and taxation nightmare...

S corporations do, C corporations do not.

Curt
Jorroh

climber
Aug 30, 2016 - 07:08pm PT
Who pays corporate taxes?...doesn't matter.

What we know is that apple is enjoying all the benefits of public investment that everybody else in Ireland is paying for through their taxes. Apple is using their leverage as a powerful corporation to carve out a tax exemption that is not available to the citizens of Ireland.
Apple, like everybody else should pay their share, and if that is a cost to users of apple products, apple workers, apple executives apple shareholders or anyone else..that seems fair to me.
Escopeta

Trad climber
Idaho
Aug 30, 2016 - 07:24pm PT
Pay their fair share of what?

My god the brainwashed masses with their hand out.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
Aug 30, 2016 - 07:51pm PT
Taxes you dumb ass...
Jorroh

climber
Aug 30, 2016 - 08:09pm PT
Holy Sh#t,
The rationale for this sort of corporate welfare is always, jobs, jobs jobs.

22000 apple employees in Europe, 13B euros ($15b)=approx $700,000 per job...maybe my maths is wrong?

I think the interesting question would be who pays the cost of the taxes among the apple stakeholders versus who benefited from the tax subsidy among the apple stakeholders.
I'm guessing that the executive share is drastically different for each scenario, but other than that I've no idea.
Al Barkamps

Social climber
Red Stick
Aug 30, 2016 - 08:33pm PT
Corporate taxes are a stupid idea intended to make up for the fact that the %1 don't pay their fair share of taxes. Simplify the code, enforce it, and throw cheats and tax dodgers into the same prisons they put violent offenders.

Problem solved.
Escopeta

Trad climber
Idaho
Aug 31, 2016 - 07:12am PT
Corporate taxes are a stupid idea intended to make up for the fact that the %1 don't pay their fair share of taxes. Simplify the code, enforce it, and throw cheats and tax dodgers into the same prisons they put violent offenders.

Problem solved.

Never gonna happen. Taxes, tax revenue and the tax code is the single biggest power lever our elected officials have in their toolbox. The more complicated it is, the better as far as they are concerned.

And with Statist retards clamoring for even more obfuscation, legislation and pandering via taxes and "penalties" it doesn't look to be changing anytime soon regardless of who wins the Special Olympics election in November.

Workers of the world unite!
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Aug 31, 2016 - 08:05am PT
Swiss corporations pay a top rate of 18% and Swiss citizens pay a top personal rate of
13.2%! Now, the last I checked, which was a couple weeks ago, the Swiss are living
pretty large. It kinda makes me think most of the rest of the world has it all wrong. Oh, and
their VAT rate is about 1/3 of their neighbors' also. Things are not exactly cheap there but
they're not that bad. In fact, I stayed in some pretty damn nice joints for less than a crappy
Holiday Inn or Hampton Inn costs here.
10b4me

Mountain climber
Retired
Aug 31, 2016 - 08:10am PT
Corporations are people acting in concert. Conservatives understand this. Leftists pretend corporations are simply separate metaphysical entities, and therefore have no rights. They also view that metaphysical entity as a taxpayer. That's like saying an apartment building pays property tax. Its owners pay the tax, but they doubtless collect at least some of that tax in rental income. Conservatives understand what corporations really are. Corporations apparently still baffle the left.


John, I can form an LLC today. I am not a people. I am a single person.
Escopeta

Trad climber
Idaho
Aug 31, 2016 - 08:16am PT
Let's not get carried away. Comparing tax rates of other nation-states and assessing quality of life based solely on that is like picking your climbing routes based only on what pro you have on your rack. Its a self fulfilling prophecy.

In any case, if we continue to approach the discussion from the perspective of how can we maximize the revenue that government collects versus what's the minimum amount they need to provide some basic collective needs then tax rates and revenues will only go one way (as we have seen in stunning plain view).

And we really don't need to argue about where that is leading us to regardless of what the Statists would like us to believe.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Aug 31, 2016 - 08:37am PT
John, I can form an LLC today. I am not a people. I am a single person.

Well, LLC's don't pay taxes.

Curt
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Aug 31, 2016 - 08:48am PT
I''ll zealously applaud anyone's attempt, successful or not, to circumvent U.S. federal taxes.

There is no "moral" obligation to pay some mysterious fair share even though you've been programmed to believe there is.

In fact, it's the only way to starve the beast.
HermitMaster

Social climber
my abode
Aug 31, 2016 - 11:04am PT
10b4me

Mountain climber
Retired
Aug 31, 2016 - 11:25am PT
Corporation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law. Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration.

Corporations come in many different types but are usually divided by the law of the jurisdiction where they are chartered into two kinds: by whether or not they can issue stock, or by whether or not they are for profit.

Where local law distinguishes corporations by ability to issue stock, corporations allowed to do so are referred to as "stock corporations", ownership of the corporation is through stock, and owners of stock are referred to as "stockholders." Corporations not allowed to issue stock are referred to as "non-stock" corporations, those who are considered the owners of the corporation are those who have obtained membership in the corporation, and are referred to as a "member" of the corporation.

Corporations chartered in regions where they are distinguished by whether they are allowed to be for profit or not are referred to as "for profit" and "not-for-profit" corporations, respectively.

There is some overlap between stock/non-stock and for profit/not-for-profit in that not-for-profit corporations are always non-stock as well. A for profit corporation is almost always a stock corporation, but some for profit corporations may choose to be non-stock. To simplify the explanation, whenever "stockholder" is used in the rest of this article to refer to a stock corporation, it is presumed to mean the same as "member" for a non-profit corporation or for profit, non-stock corporation.

Registered corporations have legal personality and are owned by shareholders[1][2] whose liability is limited to their investment. Shareholders do not typically actively manage a corporation; shareholders instead elect or appoint a board of directors to control the corporation in a fiduciary capacity.

In American English the word corporation is most often used to describe large business corporations.[3] In British English and in the Commonwealth countries, the term company is more widely used to describe the same sort of entity while the word corporation encompasses all incorporated entities. In American English, the word company can include entities such as partnerships that would not be referred to as companies in British English as they are not a separate legal entity.

Despite not being individual human beings, corporations, as far as the law is concerned, are legal persons, and have many of the same rights and responsibilities as natural persons do. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[4][5] and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.[6] Corporations can be "dissolved" either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate failure, when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order,[7] but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud and manslaughter. However corporations are not considered living entities in the way that humans are.
Al Barkamps

Social climber
Red Stick
Aug 31, 2016 - 11:35am PT
A corporation is an organism. Like a bacterium.

It's designed to do three things: eat resources, sh#t waste, and, every 3 months, spawn a profit. Despite the few similarities to humans, they shouldn't be accorded similar rights.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Aug 31, 2016 - 11:45am PT
Don't you work for one, DMT?
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Aug 31, 2016 - 12:31pm PT
Doesn't it bug you that you pay a higher tax rate than yer corporate 'entity' does? It bugs the
sh!t outta me that I pay a higher rate than Locker's friend, Crack Annie. I've always kept my
legs together, I don't do drugs, and I don't show up at the ER on the public's nickel. I also
stimulate the economy more than my fair share yet I'm penalized for not being a loser.

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M GONNA KEEP TAKIN' IT! Actually, if I didn't like road trippin'
around the West so much I prolly would move to Switzerland, or maybe the British Virgin
Islands where there is ZERO income tax. That place ain't exactly goin' to the dogs either.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 31, 2016 - 01:06pm PT
S corporations do [pass income and losses to shareholders for tax treatment], C corporations do not.

Which is why corporations electing taxation under Subchapter S may have a maximum of 100 shareholders.

John M, your characterization of what I say is close enough. I don't know if this will futher clarify or further confuse, but I object to corporate income taxation because income taxation serves only one purpose: to redistribute from the more well-off to the less well-off. That concept makes sense only on an individual level.

We wouldn't say that an apartment building with deluxe apartments should take some of its niceties and give them to apartment buildings with fewer niceties. Neither would we say that a 160-acre ranch should give some of its acreage to a 40-acre ranch. Rather, we take from individuals with more and give to those with less who, we believe, merit assistance. Since we cannot determine the individuals from which we are taking the corporate income tax, we should get revenues from corporations in a different format, namely user fees.

Thus, to the extent a corporation benefits from services offered by society, charge it a fee for those services. That way a corporation doesn't get goods or services for free when an individual must pay for the same services. I submit that corporate income makes a poor proxy for how many goods and services a particular corporation uses. When GM was losing its shirt, and therefore had negative income, it was still using massive amounts of governmental goods and services, for example.

My parting shot, on a slightly different angle,is this: the EU tax bullying will not make tax havens disappear. It will fuel more Brexit-type decisions to go it alone. The ability to tax, and how much, goes to the heart of national sovereignty, and few countries will part with that power willingly.

John

Edit:

I just don't buy the argument that corps should not pay taxes 'because it's not clear who is paying the tax'.

I'm not saying corporations should not be taxed. I'm saying they should not be taxed based on their income, but based on their use of governmental resources and "public goods" (as economists define the term, meaning a good without the ability to exclude non-payors, such as, for example, clean air).
zBrown

Ice climber
Aug 31, 2016 - 08:34pm PT
If you don't pay your taxes you can 't have your Pentagon pudding

Manifest (not the kind on the slave ships) Destiny.
Ricky D

Trad climber
Sierra Westside
Aug 31, 2016 - 08:42pm PT
Are we nearing the time when the guillotines need to be rolled out into the town square?

"Let them eat cake."

"Yeah bitch - we got your cake right here."

Admittedly it will screw things up for a generation or so - might even cause people to look up from their cellphone for a minute - but it does reset the equity clock a bit!
zBrown

Ice climber
Aug 31, 2016 - 08:50pm PT
Econ 1984 - The Purpose of Taxation on the Animal Farm

The main, if not sole purpose of taxes is to transfer wealth to the Pentagon to preserve the illicit gains of government cronies (e.g. Cheney and Walt Disney et alia).
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 31, 2016 - 08:55pm PT
Everybody just agree that we should have a 15% flat corp tax? Maybe 12%

But let's go 15%. Can't we all agree that's fair?

35% is economic insanity.

Same as the Federal Income Tax, just make it flat - NO DEDUCTIONS. It can even have 3 tiers of rates, just make em FLAT!!!
zBrown

Ice climber
Aug 31, 2016 - 09:00pm PT
Get yourself some history books bluering

Then read them
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 31, 2016 - 09:02pm PT
Have 'em, read 'em. Have no f*#king idea what yer talking about.....

Care to share? Or just be stupid and obscure?
zBrown

Ice climber
Aug 31, 2016 - 09:14pm PT
Hint

Look up historical tax rates



Then compare what you find with economic indicators

Then provide a definition of what the hell Econ insanity is

Finally compare with internet insanity

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 31, 2016 - 09:46pm PT
Hint

Look up historical tax rates



Then compare what you find with economic indicators

Then provide a definition of what the hell Econ insanity is

Finally compare with internet insanity

A government collecting more than 30% of any private entity is absurd. They MAY BE entitled to 10-15%.
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Aug 31, 2016 - 10:55pm PT
http://mercatus.org/publication/tax-rates-vs-tax-revenues

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 31, 2016 - 11:07pm PT
Jim, I'll have to use that one the next time I teach macro. And Kris, you should know by now that facts have no persuasive power in this thread.

John
Escopeta

Trad climber
Idaho
Sep 1, 2016 - 06:05am PT
^^^ Since most of these retards don't know the difference between Debt and Deficit, Kris would have to post an hour long YouTube video explaining the study and graphs before they even understood it.

clinker

Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 1, 2016 - 06:55am PT
Apple may finally be bringing some of its enormous offshore cash pile back home.
Just days after the EU hit Apple with a $14.6 billion tax bill, CEO Tim Cook said he expects to transfer billions of dollars in profit to the United States next year.
"We provisioned several billion dollars for the U.S. for payment for as soon as we repatriate it, and right now I would forecast that repatriation to occur next year," Cook said in an interview with Irish broadcaster RTE news.
U.S. companies are supposed to pay federal taxes on their global profits, but the tax on money made overseas is only due when it's brought back to the U.S.
Cook said last year that he would "love to" repatriate Apple's foreign profits but that he can't because "it would cost me 40%." That refers to the combined U.S. federal and state tax rate Apple would likely owe.
Oxfam America estimated in April that Apple (AAPL, Tech30) was holding $181 billion offshore, and that the company's effective tax rate was 25.9% between 2008 and 2014.
Apple says it paid $400 million in taxes in Ireland in 2014, and another $400 million to the U.S.
"In 2014, our worldwide income tax rate was 26.1%...I personally think that's a reasonable level," Cook told RTE.
Related: How Apple paid just 0.005% tax
European officials said Tuesday that Ireland must recover 13 billion euros, plus interest, in unpaid tax from Apple.
The European Commission, which administer EU law, said that the Irish government had granted illegal state aid to Apple by helping it to artificially lower its tax bill for more than 20 years.
The corporate giant paid just $50 in tax for every million it made selling iPhones and iPads to most of the world outside America, the EU claimed, equal to a tax rate of just 0.005% in 2014.
"It's a false number," Cook said. "I have no idea where the number came from. It's not true."
Apple has said it will appeal the EU ruling, and expects to win. Ireland is also expected to appeal, although the government postponed a decision on Wednesday.
Despite the turmoil, the company said it remains committed to its operations in Ireland.
"We've got a long term romance together," says Cook. "It's a 37-year marriage. Like any marriage you go through pothole here or there but we stuck together because we always felt so close to the community and the people there."

Apple is sharing the love?
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Sep 1, 2016 - 09:05am PT
Which is why corporations electing taxation under Subchapter S may have a maximum of 100 shareholders.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion, unless you're hinting (as I was) that perhaps we should limit this discussion to C-corps only.

Curt
Jorroh

climber
Sep 1, 2016 - 10:11am PT
"we should get revenues from corporations in a different format, namely user fees".

Doesn't sound very workable. Flat or based on an assessment of use of public goods and services, externalities etc?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Sep 1, 2016 - 10:15am PT
No, Tax deductions exist for political reasons, especially in the Corporate Tax Code.

We largely agree there, if by "tax deductions," you mean deductions allowable by the Internal Revenue Code that differ from GAAP. And you bet the corporations that benefit from those deductions lobbied for them -- and the "public servants" that enacted and enforced them did so to gain support for themselves, at the expense of the general public.

That's why conservatives oppose them. They - as any other subsidy - create crony capitalists.

John
Jorroh

climber
Sep 1, 2016 - 10:20am PT
"That's why conservatives oppose them."

They don't, republicans are enthusiastic participants in this process. Judging from the huge monetary advantage that republicans have over democrats in this regard, they are in fact far more committed to the process than democrats.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Sep 1, 2016 - 10:27am PT
"we should get revenues from corporations in a different format, namely user fees".

Doesn't sound very workable. Flat or based on an assessment of use of public goods and services, externalities etc?

Why do we charge corporations by their income, while we charge nothing to partnerships or LLC's. We only charge their owners. Why should we charge both corporations and their owners, but only owners for every other type of business organization?

User fees for externalities have been around in the form of effluent charges for pollution since at least the early 1960's, and they work. (See, e.g., the history of the Ruhr in Germany). We don't charge businesses for most services based on their income, but based on their use. In California, for example, the State worker's compensation insurance fund charges number and types of employees, etc., not by the income of the employer. Municipal water, sewer, trash, utilities, etc., don't get charged to businesses or individuals by income, but by use.

We obviously need a proxy for police, fire, national defense, etc., but I submit that something in the nature of a property tax (which businesses already pay for both personal and real property at the local level) would be a much better proxy than corporate income, and would cost no more to compute since businesses already report the necessary data.

Again, the issue is whether corporate income is an appropriate way to tax, and I think the burden is on its supporters to show why it beats other options I've already provided.

John

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Sep 1, 2016 - 10:32am PT
Judging from the huge monetary advantage that republicans have over democrats in this regard, they are in fact far more committed to the process than democrats.

Care to explain your reasoning? First, to what "huge monetary advatage" do you refer? I keep getting bombarded with news that, e.g., Clinton's campaign donations far exceed every other candidate's, and that Pelosi's Democrats' Congressional campaign fund exceeds that of the Republicans?

Are you saying that the only reason anyone donates to a political party is to receive favors at the expense of the general public? If so, I, and many others, resent that. Is it not at least as likely that people would donate to prevent some demagogue (and each of the two major parties seems to be enthralled with one this year) from causing damage to our country? If someone proposes something stupid (e.g., a wall on our southern border or protectionist trade policies), should those who know the proposal's stupidity keep silent?

I'm obviously missing something here.

John
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Sep 1, 2016 - 12:10pm PT
John, yer only missing a lobotomy. Get one and you'll understand.
zBrown

Ice climber
Sep 1, 2016 - 12:16pm PT
Speaking of balls, I hope no one getz blue balls over this graph.

Thanks to kSolem.


From Broadway to the Milky Way
That’s a lot of territory indeed
And a man’s gonna do what he has to do
When he’s got a hungry mouth to feed
-George Orwell


NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Sep 1, 2016 - 01:53pm PT
John, I'm not an accountant but is it true that Parterships are taxed on all income in the tax year whether or not the money is distributed as dividends to the partners or kept for reinvestment for future expansion?

I've had a few S Corporations that are effectively taxed like partnerships, but maintain the corporate structure and personal shield for liability.

I would be open to the idea of eliminating the separate corporate income tax if we tax all shareholders pro-rata for their share of the income in the year it is incurred and without consideration for whether or not it was actually distributed as a dividend. A few challenges I would foresee:
1. Different classes of stock with voting rights, liquidation preference, etc... how does this relate to the amount that should be allocated to different stock classes? Could it be as simple as allocating the tax burden in the same way that dividends would be distributed?
2. Taxation would need to be based on more than just dividends... it would need to be on retained earnings allocated for future growth and contingencies and whatever, or there would be a loophole to just hoard all the cash and never pay dividends to avoid taxes. Then stock value would grow based on the cash pile sitting in the corporation and people would trade based on expected stock price growth rather than getting dividends. This works for start-ups but would be bad for large mature companies. It would encourage companies to misrepresent growth in future earnings, to merge with each other to get bigger marketshare and cross into each other's adjacent markets, pushing us toward fewer and bigger monopolies that further challenge our democracy with super-PACS and lobbyists etc.


So John, I say the burden is on you to show why corporations should not be taxed, and how your alternative solution would create a sustainable balance in power between the interests of our citizens and a reasonable business climate that favors risk taking, innovation, and creation of value.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Sep 1, 2016 - 02:25pm PT
John, I'm not an accountant but is it true that Parterships are taxed on all income in the tax year whether or not the money is distributed as dividends to the partners or kept for reinvestment for future expansion?

You are essentially correct, Scott, and I think you raise some valid points in that regard. Partnerships and S corproations are, for tax purposes, pass-through organizations. Whatever taxable income partnerships, S corps, and most LLC's recognize they allocate to the individual members, who bear the tax consequences individually. C corporation common stockholders, in contrast, only recognize ordinary income if they receive a dividend, or capital gain or loss if the sell stock.

I'm in the middle of a project at work at the moment, but I agree that your answer calls for a response. I will get to that as soon as I can.

John
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Sep 1, 2016 - 02:25pm PT

35% is economic insanity.

Same as the Federal Income Tax, just make it flat - NO DEDUCTIONS. It can even have 3 tiers of rates, just make em FLAT!!!

I'm not opposed to getting rid of tax breaks and using them to reduce the top line rate, but...

NO DEDUCTIONS! Yea, right. So if a owner has a million dollars in gross revenue he gets a flax tax on all of that? No deductions for the wages he pays to employees? Oh, you mean no deductions after the tax accountants have figured out expenses and came up with a magic number for profit? So if Apple says all of its patents are owned by an entity in Ireland and, whadya' know, all of its profits end up in Ireland and on and on and on...
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Sep 1, 2016 - 02:31pm PT
August, you're onto an important issue here. What do we mean by a deduction? I'd said earlier that anything that differs from GAAP isn't really a deduction, but that's too simplistic. For example, cash accounting for farmers differs from GAAP, but makes sense from a tax standpoint for individuals, since they need cash to pay the tax. A better statement would have been that a duduction should be what is necessary to differentiate between income and gross receipts, but I suspect I need to refine that too.

In addition, this isn't your issue, but the idea of a three-tier flat tax is an oxymoron.

As I told Scott, above, though, I need to get back to my project, so I may say more later.

John
Jorroh

climber
Sep 1, 2016 - 02:46pm PT
"Are you saying that the only reason anyone donates to a political party is to receive favors at the expense of the general public"

No. No idea how you got from A to B on that one.

Corporations on the other hand... yes, anything else would be a betrayal of their obligations to their owners....oh wait... thanks to republican lawmakers, executives don't even have to disclose those "donations" to their owners.

TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 1, 2016 - 05:13pm PT
Are you saying that the only reason anyone donates to a political party is to receive favors at the expense of the general public?

We're not talking about personal donations. Any for-profit corporation that donates money to a political party is doing so in the expectation of receiving a financial benefit greater than their donation, otherwise it would be a negligent activity. Whether those favors are seen to be at the expense of the general public, or as providing a benefit to the general public is the job of an army of lobbyists.

TE
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Sep 1, 2016 - 11:39pm PT
man, you guise are talking chopping rates? I be talkin' choppin' heads.

-STRPC&MSoc
Jorroh

climber
Sep 3, 2016 - 04:58pm PT
Who pays corporate taxes?

In trying to think about this for just Apple.. I'm guessing, the particular taxes that they pay should'nt make that much difference to their particular supply/demand equation when it comes to products and product pricing...seems that with certain tech companies like Apple there is quite a large disconnect between cost of manufacture, design etc and price of final product.

So I'm guessing most of the impact is within the company itself in the form of changes in profit and compensation. Probably not lower level employees, but higher level employees/executives (less after tax profit=lower bonuses maybe?), certainly shareholders though...lower E..means lower P.

any other ideas?

Messages 1 - 66 of total 66 in this topic
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta