Need DU help. Why SHOULDN'T corporations pay taxes?

[CTyankee]

Any taxes.

We're hearing from repukes that corps should not pay taxes, but if they use public services why shouldn't they pay for them?

It seems to me that the fire dept., police dept, public works dept. all service corporations. So I don't get the argument for them NOT to pay. AT the federal level, they are protected by our military and represented in Congress. So what's the argument here?

Scratching head...need to rebut the butthead rethugs...

[MajorChode]

1. I say fine, let them stop paying taxes

However, dividends and capital gains will now be taxed at the same rate as wage income, to include FICA and Medicare.

It would be completely fair, but someone I don't think the GOP is going to buy off of that one as their goal is for the rich to pay zero taxes even though they already pay much less as a function of income.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. ...and roads, water and electricity will not be hooked up.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. ...hospitals, fire stations and police will not respond.

[Fire1]

9. Huh??????

[MajorChode]

20. Do you not think this would increase revenue and decrease the corporate tax dodge?

Corporations are wholly owned by shareholders. Tax the shareholders and you tax the corporation.

Not only that, but you end the tax loopholes for corporate executives that take most of their earnings in the form of shares which are not subject to the top marginal rate.

[Fire1]

21. Last sentence not quite clear.

[MajorChode]

26. Those that derive most of their income from equity, pay less taxes as a function of income

In fact, they pay far less taxes, and the ultra rich in America derive most of their income from equity earnings.

If 100% of your income is derived from stocks, your top tax rate is 15%. Furthermore you pay zero SS and Medicare. Compare this to a family that makes $75K. Their top marginal rate is 25% and they pay 6.2% FICA and 1.45% Medicare on every dollar they make.

[Fire1]

27. Agree but doesn't he intend to increase the capital gains tax?

I seem to recall hearing that during his campaign or as president elect.

[MajorChode]

28. I think he should go farther than raising it

I think capital gains and dividends should be taxed at the same rate as wage income, including SS and Medicare.

In order to do this, the corporate tax should be abolished to prevent double taxation, however the net result will be much more revenue and less evasion of taxes by the rich.

[Warpy]

2. They sold people who don't know how to think

a really silly line of reasoning, that corporations will raise their prices to pay their taxes.

What's wrong with that is that only the net is taxed, not the cost of doing business. Raising their prices to compensate for tax on the net would only raise their taxes on next year's net, and so forth.

Corporations have made the law to suit themselves and exempt themselves from paying for the services they get. As you pointed out, that's a military that's being used more and more as hired muscle to protect the multinational corporations.

Ask your butthead buddies how those high executive salaries are benefiting them. Ask them how the low wages and high taxes on working people are working out for them.

Then tie those two things together with low taxes on corporate net profit.

[DiverDave]

3. And what would they do with the money saved?

Just give the top guys a raise.
I swear to god these people are beyond stupid.

Corporations get to give money to political campaigns, it's a "free speech" issue

Bullshit, they want to make US pay for everything so they can get obscene salarys.

And then ask the repukes if THEY want to get taxed higher to offset the company's not paying...glassy eyed stare is what you'll get.

They think all the services are free?


Man, some people really shouldn't be allowed to breed.

[Auggie]

4. Defense spending ensures free enterprise

Any person or thing that profits from that spending should pay tax.

[leftstreet]

5. The corporations give us our jobs, so we must support them

Just in case:

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Oregone]

7. Any taxable corporation should ONLY pay taxes on profits

Corporations included. If they have no profits, they should therefore have no taxes.

Maybe thats irrelevant to this line of questioning. Regardless, I have no problem if a multi-billion dollar business pays no taxes (as long as they don't cheat). Sometimes this is a great indication that they are managing their company properly, in the interest of their workers and future (but sometimes it could mean they have a good accountant).

BTW, Ive never, ever heard any argument suggesting corporations should pay no taxes at all (despite profit level). Maybe Im a bit lost before this thread starts. Normally the Republican argument is simply for "less taxes"

[pansypoo53219]

22. they will ALL show

that they 'didn't' make any profits. no, tax em all.

[Oregone]

23. So...eh, how the hell do you tax corps if you aren't taxing profit?

Lets say a corporation (of lemonade stand entrepreneurs) grosses $10000 in sales a year. Lets say they also paid $5000 dollars in wages to their employees (themselves) and bought $5000 dollars of supplies. They have $0 dollars at the end of the year. As individuals, they report the $5000 dollars of income and pay taxes on it. But as for the corporation, how exactly are you going to calculate their tax due wen they made no money, and how exactly are they going to pay it?!?

Who the hell cares if a corporation says they make no profit? Sometimes that happens when they pay their workers well and reinvest back into the corporation. That is a "good" thing, not a bad thing. And at the end of the day, as long as the wealth of the workers grow (which is taxable), whats the problem?

Yes, fancy corporations have good accountants and they skirt laws or use loopholes. But you cannot arbitrarily tax beyond "profit" in any sensible way. Instead, investigate the companies.

[unpossibles]

24. but they already rig that game to show losses

I get your point, but there are lots of loopholes too, it seems.

[Oregone]

25. Close loopholes and audit suspicious companies.

But what the hell else are you going to do, really?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Schools, health care, military, and many, many others also provide services to corps.

There is literally no good reason why they shouldn't pay taxes.

[havocmom]

16. Lately, most public policies are geard to enrich corporations

Foreign policy is geared to enrich corporations. The US military enforces policies that enrich corporations and that still wasn't enough; corporations wanted much US military activity privatized so they could be more DIRECTLY enriched. To hell with policies, start a war and privatize much of it so corporations get DOD $$ directly.

It is fascism and we are taking our beloved country back from the clutches of corporations who are basically nationless.

[Political Heretic]

11. Because that money is already taxed.

Through income taxes.

[sam sarrha]

12. what....? you gotta splain that one Lucy...

[Political Heretic]

15. Hey don't ask me - that was my best attempt at being a Conservative

:)

[izquierdista]

13. Fine, don't tax corporations at all

Corporations are just articles filed with the Secretary of State. People are the ones who pay taxes. And rich people (even if they do own 6 or 8 corporations) are the ones that should be taxed. And while you are simplifying things, don't tax the rich on their income, which can be defined in many slippery ways; tax them on their total net worth. If Forbes can list people by their net worth, the IRS can move a decimal point and send them a bill for 10% of it.

[Oregone]

30. But its important to note...

When a corporation profits, it can distribute profits to shareholders in the form of dividends (or otherwise, stock values can go up). And unfortunately, this is only taxed at 15% on the individual's side. So if you don't tax the original profit on the corporations side, people will be running to the bank even more.

Well, the way to fix this of course is to just consider capital gains as earned income. But currently, its a big cluster, and at least taxing the profit (thereby double-taxing the same money) discourages shareholders from cashing out of companies completely and using them as personal ATMs.

[Joanne98]

14. Because the Supreme Court declared them PERSONS and PERSONS have to pay taxes.

If they don't like it, they can try to get the ruling changed!

[HughBeaumont]

17. Here's an article that kills their position dead.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/07/5075

To see what's wrong with this idea, it's easiest to start with criteria that ought to disqualify a person from claiming to be "entirely self-made." After we've applied these criteria, we can see who's left in the pool. So, then, let us scratch from the list of the self-made anyone whose accumulation of wealth has been aided by any of the following:

* Laws concerning property or contracts, and the public agencies that enforce such laws
* Public schools or employees educated in public schools
* Employees or customers who rely on public transportation
* Roads, bridges, airports, sewers, water treatment plants, harbors, or other utilities built and maintained at public expense
* Mail systems built and operated at public expense
* Public hospitals and government-licensed physicians
* Health and safety regulations created and enforced at public expense
* Police and fire protection provided at public expense
* Public libraries and parks
* Any public amenities that add value to commercial or residential real estate
* Government contracts
* Government-provided business incentives
* Regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission, that sustain trust in the stock market
* The Internet
* A form of currency legitimated and backed by a stable government
* Social welfare programs that keep the poor from rebelling
* The U.S. military

If we use these criteria to determine who can legitimately claim to be "entirely self-made," the Forbes number drops dramatically. It's not 270 out of 400. In fact, it's precisely zero.

If not for the legal and political arrangements that we create and maintain as a society -- with contributions from us all, costs to us all, and benefits to us all -- and if not for what we call "the public infrastructure," nobody could accumulate wealth. In short, there can be no private wealth without common wealth.

[Ernesto]

18. 'cause st ronnie said so............... NT

[Spike89]

19. Makes sense, if, and only if

we pull the rug out from the entire corporation-is-a-legal-entity crap. It is not an entity, it is nothing but a legal construct and should not be allowed the protections and rights of the consititution. If that goes back to mid 1800s law, then I have no problem with the corporation itself paying no taxes. Of course, they would lose any and all tax breaks for investors too. Basically, if all money paid out by the corporation was taxed at a progressive rate (sure, pay the CEO $6 million a year, but he has to pay 50+% tax rate, pay dividends too, but they get taxed on the rate of the earner).

This would make corporations much more efficient tax producers and free them to behave less antisocially. IF all this was done, then it makes no sense to tax the corporation, as ALL of its earnings are already being taxed through its "spending". The corporation isn't "using" public assets (the corporation doesn't use the roads, its employees and stockholders do, and they are paying their fair share of taxes).

This all breaks down when you start in with multinationals though. A corporation could easily set up here, pay executives and employees in other countries and basically break the system (no one in that scenario pays for the roads, schools, military, etc.)

Come up with a solution to the multinational and maybe mno taxes for corporations makes some sense. However, removing the "personhood" and tax benefits from investors will never happen and without those at the minimum, it becomes a stupid idea.

[Canuckistanian]

29. And as a "person", corporations use MORE gov't services propotionally

Therefore they should be taxed more according to their usage of gov't services, not what the Tax Code says.