interesting explanation about corporate taxes

[Azazello1313]

by a right-wing shill who teaches at berkeley and worked for the clinton administration

[DMD]

She must be the only right-wing shill who teaches at UCB and/or worked for Clinton.

[Ursa Majoris]

Corporate taxes should be cut. And the loopholes should be plugged.

[Azazello1313]

She must be the only right-wing shill who teaches at UCB and/or worked for Clinton.

 

it's called "irony", dorey

 

 

[detlef]

Corporate taxes should be cut. And the loopholes should be plugged.

Exactly, most of the outrage is directed at companies who somehow manage to avoid paying any taxes at all despite massive profits. What difference does it make what the corporate tax rate if anyone with enough lawyers and accountants can avoid paying anything close to it.

[Ursa Majoris]

Exactly, most of the outrage is directed at companies who somehow manage to avoid paying any taxes at all despite massive profits. What difference does it make what the corporate tax rate if anyone with enough lawyers and accountants can avoid paying anything close to it.

I still can't wrap my head around a behemoth like GE not only paying zero taxes but getting billions back in credits. If this was poor people, Perch would have a conniption. Any discussion of corporate tax rates is completely worthless unless the loopholes are eliminated as well as credits.

[westvirginia]

I still can't wrap my head around a behemoth like GE not only paying zero taxes but getting billions back in credits. If this was poor people, Perch would have a conniption. Any discussion of corporate tax rates is completely worthless unless the loopholes are eliminated as well as credits.

 

 

Perhaps you'll FINALLY agree that the nominal rates mean nothing - the EFFECTIVE rates are everything?

[bpwallace49]

I still can't wrap my head around a behemoth like GE not only paying zero taxes but getting billions back in credits. If this was poor people, Perch would have a conniption. Any discussion of corporate tax rates is completely worthless unless the loopholes are eliminated as well as credits.

 

Couldnt a similar result be acheived by taxing capital gains/dividends at a higher rate?

 

Seriously asking . . . couldnt all the companies that are hoarding cash and paying out dividneds (which also tend to be a huge chunk of CEO compensation) be taxed a higher rate than the . . what is it now? 15%? Make that consistent with a tax bracket of say . .25% . .

[detlef]

I still can't wrap my head around a behemoth like GE not only paying zero taxes but getting billions back in credits. If this was poor people, Perch would have a conniption. Any discussion of corporate tax rates is completely worthless unless the loopholes are eliminated as well as credits.

I think that's the first time I've ever seen conniption spelled out.

[detlef]

Couldnt a similar result be acheived by taxing capital gains/dividends at a higher rate?

 

Seriously asking . . . couldnt all the companies that are hoarding cash and paying out dividneds (which also tend to be a huge chunk of CEO compensation) be taxed a higher rate than the . . what is it now? 15%? Make that consistent with a tax bracket of say . .25% . .

You mean so Warren Buffet would pay more in taxes than his secretary?

[Ursa Majoris]

Perhaps you'll FINALLY agree that the nominal rates mean nothing - the EFFECTIVE rates are everything?

The times I have raised the subject of nominal rates have been in response to right wing whining about how high taxes are. If they are meaningless, as you claim, then do not use them to back an argument that taxes are too high.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Ursa Majoris

[gbpfan1231]

I still can't wrap my head around a behemoth like GE not only paying zero taxes but getting billions back in credits. If this was poor people, Perch would have a conniption. Any discussion of corporate tax rates is completely worthless unless the loopholes are eliminated as well as credits.

Amen!!!

[Clubfoothead]

She seems to cite Ireland as proof she's right often.

[Savage Beatings]

Corporate taxes should be cut. And the loopholes should be plugged.

 

 

Yep, I agree with Paul Ryan too.

[bpwallace49]

You mean so Warren Buffet would pay more in taxes than his secretary?

 

Yeah . . like that.

 

It isnt just "closing loopholes". Unless raising capital gains taxes is a loophole that needs to be closed . . . . but I am pretty sure that isnt part of Ryans plan

[Ursa Majoris]

Yeah . . like that.

 

It isnt just "closing loopholes". Unless raising capital gains taxes is a loophole that needs to be closed . . . . but I am pretty sure that isnt part of Ryans plan

Capital gains should be taxed at income tax rates. It's income, isn't it?

[Perchoutofwater]

I still can't wrap my head around a behemoth like GE not only paying zero taxes but getting billions back in credits. If this was poor people, Perch would have a conniption. Any discussion of corporate tax rates is completely worthless unless the loopholes are eliminated as well as credits.

 

I think I brought up GE several months ago regarding subsidies, and was throwing a fit. I've long been a fan of lower taxes and fewer loopholes. The only people that profit from the loopholes are those large enough to hire a team of lawyers and cpa's to guide them through the maze that is our completely f'd up tax code. I'd like to see corporations and individuals taxed at the same rate, preferably a flat rate once a individual is over the poverty line, or a corporation is over $X in income per employee. I'd like to see all loopholes with the exception of charitable donations removed.

[Perchoutofwater]

Capital gains should be taxed at income tax rates. It's income, isn't it?

 

I think it should with possibly one exception. I'd like to see it not be taxed at all if the money is reinvested into companies that have been publicly traded less than five years, or open less than 10 years. I think this would provide additional capital for starting new businesses which would help to improve the economy. Obviously the requirements may need to be changed a bit by someone smarter than I am, but you get the drift of what my intentions are.

[detlef]

I think it should with possibly one exception. I'd like to see it not be taxed at all if the money is reinvested into companies that have been publicly traded less than five years, or open less than 10 years. I think this would provide additional capital for starting new businesses which would help to improve the economy. Obviously the requirements may need to be changed a bit by someone smarter than I am, but you get the drift of what my intentions are.

Why can't the value of that investment just stand on its own merits?

 

I think the fundamental issue I have with taxing income more than dividends is that it means money is more important than people.

 

I mean, I get your drift and, provided it could be phrased in a completely iron-clad manner to not allow anyone to start "new businesses" that are really actually off-shoots of existing businesses to get around it or some such... My issue is that I have no faith that someone wouldn't figure out a way to get around it. Thus, I'd just as soon as make it clean and tidy.

 

If this guy makes his money working a job and this guy makes his money providing seed capital for small businesses, I see both as vital elements in our economy and don't see why either one should be given preference over the other.

 

I know one thing, every time I've had to shake the tree for money, I've had to give a very sweet deal to the investors to make up for the fact that I'm a new guy and certainly not as stable as a blue-chip stock. Seems fair enough. I've never had to give up so much that the upside ceased to exist for me if things turn out well. Not sure why this shouldn't be good enough to get people to back new operations.

[westvirginia]

Capital gains should be taxed at income tax rates. It's income, isn't it?

 

 

Cap gains is the money that most often creates new investment, IIRC, and lowering cap gains rates does more to create new jobs than other (again, IIRC - weigie can correct me if I'm wrong). Also, if you increase cap gains taxes, you reduce the reward for some investments as well. I think now would still be a singularly bad time to do that. Then again, if you did something that streamlined the whole deal with lowering rates and simplifying things...

[Perchoutofwater]

Why can't the value of that investment just stand on its own merits?

 

I think the fundamental issue I have with taxing income more than dividends is that it means money is more important than people.

 

I mean, I get your drift and, provided it could be phrased in a completely iron-clad manner to not allow anyone to start "new businesses" that are really actually off-shoots of existing businesses to get around it or some such... My issue is that I have no faith that someone wouldn't figure out a way to get around it. Thus, I'd just as soon as make it clean and tidy.

 

If this guy makes his money working a job and this guy makes his money providing seed capital for small businesses, I see both as vital elements in our economy and don't see why either one should be given preference over the other.

 

I know one thing, every time I've had to shake the tree for money, I've had to give a very sweet deal to the investors to make up for the fact that I'm a new guy and certainly not as stable as a blue-chip stock. Seems fair enough. I've never had to give up so much that the upside ceased to exist for me if things turn out well. Not sure why this shouldn't be good enough to get people to back new operations.

 

First, I'm talking about capital gains, not dividends. I think dividends should be taxed at the same rate as income. Also in my example below I think that in order to avoid having to pay capital gains on the money it should have to be reinvested withing 30 days into a start up type company. The reason I like this idea so much is because this gives additional incentive to people to invest in new businesses, which in theory would provide more investors which should reduce the premium guys like you have to pay the investors. Each new business should provide new jobs which would result in a smaller available labor market, which should result in slightly higher wages for the average worker as well.

[detlef]

First, I'm talking about capital gains, not dividends. I think dividends should be taxed at the same rate as income. Also in my example below I think that in order to avoid having to pay capital gains on the money it should have to be reinvested withing 30 days into a start up type company. The reason I like this idea so much is because this gives additional incentive to people to invest in new businesses, which in theory would provide more investors which should reduce the premium guys like you have to pay the investors. Each new business should provide new jobs which would result in a smaller available labor market, which should result in slightly higher wages for the average worker as well.

Again, as long as this could be somehow bomb proof, I could certainly be on board. Even if I have philosophical issues with it.

[Ursa Majoris]

Cap gains is the money that most often creates new investment, IIRC, and lowering cap gains rates does more to create new jobs than other (again, IIRC - weigie can correct me if I'm wrong). Also, if you increase cap gains taxes, you reduce the reward for some investments as well. I think now would still be a singularly bad time to do that. Then again, if you did something that streamlined the whole deal with lowering rates and simplifying things...

A reduction in reward is not the same as elimination of reward so I don't think there would be quite the apocalyptic effect on investment as some would expect. I would definitely be on board with having a lower tax on any immediately reinvested income, though. I would still tax liquidated investments at the usual income rate because they are income.

[bpwallace49]

Cap gains is the money that most often creates new investment, IIRC, and lowering cap gains rates does more to create new jobs than other (again, IIRC - weigie can correct me if I'm wrong). Also, if you increase cap gains taxes, you reduce the reward for some investments as well. I think now would still be a singularly bad time to do that. Then again, if you did something that streamlined the whole deal with lowering rates and simplifying things...

 

Hmm . . I dont think that taking a capital gains tax from 15% to 25% would completely end all investment and somehow end all job creation . . .

 

The rate of return is still a helluva lot better than the current CD rates or letting it just sit around in a savings account.

[Perchoutofwater]

A reduction in reward is not the same as elimination of reward so I don't think there would be quite the apocalyptic effect on investment as some would expect. I would definitely be on board with having a lower tax on any immediately reinvested income, though. I would still tax liquidated investments at the usual income rate because they are income.

 

I tend to agree, depending on the definition of "immediately". I think you should be allowed about 30 days or so, that way if you think you have to get out of something right away you have a little time to study what you are going to reinvest in.