• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unique idea to reform business taxation

You want to give the government rights to profits?

Dividends really. I thought this was clear.

A right to profits? :roll: I hope to God you and your other Krugmanites minions never attain any political power.l (no offense).

Are you really so dense? The Treasury already has a right to profits under the current tax laws.

Don't bother replying - a) I won't read it and b) I already know what it will say (in essence).

Ahhh, you're continuing with the coward approach.
 
True, but it would more likely lead to innovation to devise an alternative to emission-based production.

Or push many companies across borders.

But to your point, yes, it could lead to some production being outsourced...but the thing is, that's already happening anyway.

Outsourcing is acceptable if it occurs due to comparative advantage, e.g. moving low-cost/low-skill manufacturing to countries with standards of living and wages at a fraction of our own.

We simply cannot compete with countries who are willing to not employ any kind of workplace/environmental protections, and whose citizens are a cheap -very cheap- and abundant source of labor.

We compete with technology, access to an educated populace, the largest consumer market, etc....

So we have to figure out another way to remain competitive in a global marketplace. I think a carbon tax achieves that by making the incentive to innovate more desirable and profitable.

I am not against a form of carbon taxation to push markets in the right direction, but i do not see how it makes U.S. production more competitive.
 
#shrug

That's what discussion is for, to determine it's merit.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

I was just asking your opinion. Do you think the idea has merit with Republicans?
 
We shouldn't be taxing income at all...we should be taxing waste. A carbon tax makes the most sense fiscally, and prioritizes the needs of the citizenry over the needs of the non-citizenry (corporations mostly).

That's just plain stupid. You're talking about putting many people out of work. I swear, that is the liberal meme, take jobs away from people so they can go on government benefits. By the way, we should tax government waste. We'd make a killing.
 
As of now, the U.S. has one of the highest top marginal corporate tax rate in the world. Given that foreign earnings represent almost half of all profits from the S&P 500, the Treasury misses out on a considerable amount of tax revenue due to the international restrictions of the tax code. To compound this dilemma, creative financing has allowed an avenue for U.S. multinationals to repatriate much of their earnings without paying taxes on the profits earned abroad. Tech giants like Apple and Microsoft currently issue corporate debt in U.S. markets to reduce domestic profits via interest expenses, transfer it to their foreign subsidiaries sitting on billions, which pay the interest expenses out of their foreign earnings. Since the interest rate on say Apple's corporate bonds (2.4%) is more less than a tenth of the effective tax rate on repatriation of foreign earnings (likely around 35%), it is a very profitable tax circumventing endeavor.

The new administration is talking about reforming the corporate tax code, and cutting the corporate rate to 15% in order to make repatriation of U.S. profits more tolerable. Still, it is technically unfavorable on a financial basis given differential between borrowing costs and a 15% tax rate. Perhaps it makes good publicity?

So i offer a solution (not my own) that, as far as i am aware, hasn't been discussed on this forum. Instead of taxing corporations, partnerships, multinationals, etc..., the government is granted preferred (non-voting) equity, which gives them rights to profits. The percentages need to be worked out as well as some of the details regarding no-dividend companies, whether the equity stake can be marketable, etc.... But the idea looks like a necessary leap towards the post-tax society i believe will inhabit the future.

Well now there's just abotu the dumbest idea I've seen in a long time. Why don't you just be honest about it and say the word?? C'mon, just say it out loud for everyone to hear... socialism.
 
Okay.. so you admit the US has the highest top marginal corporate tax rates in the world and JfC agreed with you, so that's a start. Treasury does miss out on tax revenue because of the corporate tax rate. We agree on the creative financing that takes place. We touched on it before in another topic. Not a big fan of it, but I absolutely understand why it's done and you clearly explain why it's done. All companies pay different rates on it's Corporate bonds. Apple has a Corporate bond (4.26%) that comes due in 2046.

Where I am gonna disagree is that I think we should take a different approach then giving Government preferred shares (non-voting) in a company.. what's the dividend on it? Government will always favor those Companies because it's their cash cow. To me that spells disaster in the realm of Conflict of Interest and sound economic policies. As an example.. why should the Fed ever raise interest rates? Then we also saw how the Auto bailout that Government forced them to pick and choose dealerships to close.

Rather my approach is lowering the marginal rate to 18 to 20%.. Why 18 to 20%? Well average in Europe is 18%. In Asia it's 20%. Then I'd add the step of if you make your lowest employee wage $10.10, you automatically down to 15%.


That's an interesting idea but I get sick and tired of people using the $10.10 figure, like $10.00 per hour is too low but $10.10 isn't.
 
Well now there's just abotu the dumbest idea I've seen in a long time. Why don't you just be honest about it and say the word?? C'mon, just say it out loud for everyone to hear... socialism.

It has nothing to do with socialism. Preferred equity is non-voting. Given that the U.S. already taxes profits at basically a 35% rate... such a policy would actually lead to more efficient and potential profit because firms will not have to invest so heavily on tax compliance and minimization strategies.
 
It has nothing to do with socialism. Preferred equity is non-voting. Given that the U.S. already taxes profits at basically a 35% rate... such a policy would actually lead to more efficient and potential profit because firms will not have to invest so heavily on tax compliance and minimization strategies.

Go ahead and write your book of fiction but don't expect to find it in the non-fiction section of the book store.
 
It has nothing to do with socialism. Preferred equity is non-voting. Given that the U.S. already taxes profits at basically a 35% rate... such a policy would actually lead to more efficient and potential profit because firms will not have to invest so heavily on tax compliance and minimization strategies.

Just drop corporate taxes altogether and be honest about who pays them. Corporate taxes are nothing more than a way to tax people without admitting that you're taxing them. A corporate tax is just another operating expense for a business and like all expenses, they get passed on to the consumer. If you tax a dairy, all the milk drinkers are the ones paying that tax, not the dairy. With or without the tax, it's bottom line is the same. Corporate taxes are a dishonest way of taxing the poorest of people, while being to use businesses as a convenient scapegoat for high prices and the whole "they're not paying their fair share" drama queen line. Businesses don't pay taxes, they just pass them through to the consumer and WE pay those taxes.
 
Just drop corporate taxes altogether and be honest about who pays them.

Here's an idea, lets just drop all taxes! The government can be funded entirely through the deficit.:unsure13:

Corporate taxes are nothing more than a way to tax people without admitting that you're taxing them.

Nope! They are a means of taxing the income earned by said corporations.

A corporate tax is just another operating expense for a business and like all expenses, they get passed on to the consumer.

Are you claiming that cost-plus pricing is the norm, and that the free-market is anything but free (meaning that supply and demand do not dictate price)?

If you tax a dairy, all the milk drinkers are the ones paying that tax, not the dairy. With or without the tax, it's bottom line is the same.

I don't think you understand how corporate taxes are levied.

Corporate taxes are a dishonest way of taxing the poorest of people, while being to use businesses as a convenient scapegoat for high prices and the whole "they're not paying their fair share" drama queen line. Businesses don't pay taxes, they just pass them through to the consumer and WE pay those taxes.

If this is your belief, then you must simultaneously believe that markets are not efficient.
 
Here's an idea, lets just drop all taxes! The government can be funded entirely through the deficit.:unsure13:



Nope! They are a means of taxing the income earned by said corporations.



Are you claiming that cost-plus pricing is the norm, and that the free-market is anything but free (meaning that supply and demand do not dictate price)?



I don't think you understand how corporate taxes are levied.



If this is your belief, then you must simultaneously believe that markets are not efficient.

Not one single statement you just made was even remotely accurate, informed or even honest....
 
In other words, you can't refute what he says so you just deflect.

He said nothing that warrants refutation. On the contrary, he refused to refute the post he decided to quote.
 
He said nothing that warrants refutation. On the contrary, he refused to refute the post he decided to quote.

He made some good points that apparently you must agree with.
 
He made some good points that apparently you must agree with.

He didn't make a single point other than a combative response. Similarly, you've chosen to ignore the topic and instead discuss the participants.
 
He didn't make a single point other than a combative response. Similarly, you've chosen to ignore the topic and instead discuss the participants.

I made several posts on your nonsense topic. I'm just pointing out your deflection of his points. But, I don't really blame you. You had nothing.
 
That's as powerful a response i am going to get from you.

You posted a string of garbage with no content. A couple of stupid strawmen, some avoidance and a big pile of passive aggressive insults. You didn't offer one single intelligent comment about what I said and now you think that my response isn't "powerful".
 
I made several posts on your nonsense topic. I'm just pointing out your deflection of his points. But, I don't really blame you. You had nothing.

Your participation in this thread has been to derail the discussion, by saying it isn't legal. From the get-go, i have said that this thread is intended to be a fruitful discussion. You've never had anything.
 
You posted a string of garbage with no content.

I refuted your premise that costs are passed onto consumers. In a competitive environment where price is dictated by supply and demand, taxes are eaten by the producers, or else they lose market share to their competitors. Are you arguing that cost-plus pricing is the norm in market economies? :lol:

A couple of stupid strawmen, some avoidance and a big pile of passive aggressive insults. You didn't offer one single intelligent comment about what I said and now you think that my response isn't "powerful".

A foot stomp lacking substance will continue to fail. This thread was meant to be a fruitful discussion, and your first response was to scream the S-word. Sorry, it won't cut it.
 
I refuted your premise that costs are passed onto consumers. In a competitive environment where price is dictated by supply and demand, taxes are eaten by the producers, or else they lose market share to their competitors. Are you arguing that cost-plus pricing is the norm in market economies? :lol:



A foot stomp lacking substance will continue to fail. This thread was meant to be a fruitful discussion, and your first response was to scream the S-word. Sorry, it won't cut it.

Funny, you spew bile and insults at any other threads that you are not ga ga about. But when you start one, you expect dignified responses. There is a term for that...hypocritical behavior.

As for a 'fruitful discussion' on your topic? Are you serious?

You want the government to have the RIGHT to take some undefined level/amount of PROFITS from American companies? It's completely absurd.
With all the staggering amount of regulations that companies now face, now you want them to face the prospect of the government just arbitrarily taking profits whenever they feel like it? How the bleep is a company supposed to plan for it's future with that hanging over it's heads? How the heck are they supposed to line up financing? Your idea is crazily invasive and ridiculously disruptive.
And what happens if the government does not believe that the company is being honest and is hiding profits? They will obviously audit it...which virtually shuts down the company. And if the IRS finds everything is okay...the company gets hurt for nothing.
You clearly have NO IDEA how to properly run a decent sized company PLUS you obviously are desperate for government clutches to dig even farther into the day-to-day workings of businesses.

I guess that is what chat forums are for (among other things)...people who have no idea WHATSOEVER about a subject can wax poetic about it like they invented the thing. And when people point out how wrong they are, they can hide their embarrassment under a return volley of juvenile insults.
 
Last edited:
That is the general meaning of the corporate tax reform idea presented. Sure, i provided a single instance for why it would be beneficial for a sovereign nation that allows capital mobility.

Then say that from the start.

You are under no obligation to participate in this thread. This is intended to be a fruitful discussion, and you're turning it into a combative endeavor.

If you were seeking a fruitful discussion then you would understand why I am asking questions. It's your idea and I am asking to gain more information on how you plan for this to work. If that's combative to you; you obviously can't defend it or you weren't seeking a fruitful discussion in the first place.

See what i'm saying? The combative tone is unnecessary. There wouldn't be a need to do-away with existing structures.

It's not combative. It's asking a damn question on how you would treat the other preferred stock holders. Does the Government have more "rights" and paid first or are preferred government shares and private preferred treated equally? Basically, is EBIT (and others) still followed? These are important questions. These aren't flippant questions.


I don't think this would be necessary, given that corporations have potential tax liability.

And that's fine.


There wouldn't be a need to do away with anything. The Federal government would be granted non-voting equity, say @ 7.5% in exchange for eliminating taxes on profits. Furthermore, if this position wouldn't be marketable, there wouldn't be a need to buy in.

This is not combative but rather to help you recognize flaws in your idea and how to recognize you are gonna need full corporate tax reform and corporate structure reform (among other things). There are different Corporation structures. There is S-Corp, C-Corp, LLCs or even a PLLC and each of them are treated differently and are very different. If you are gonna force preferred Government shares for tax collection, you are gonna have to reform corporate structure law. Your idea doesn't even address that Corporate Inversion will still take place. You are gonna have to reform when corporations pay taxes, meaning interest and debt payments can't be a write off.
 
Your participation in this thread has been to derail the discussion, by saying it isn't legal. From the get-go, i have said that this thread is intended to be a fruitful discussion. You've never had anything.

I have said from the beginning that this thread idea is based on liberal fantasy and not reality because it would be illegal and could never be legal, not even if Democrats regained power. The thread was derailed right from the OP due to lack of reality. But, this is America and people are allowed to dream and have fantasies. I have a fantasy about Miss Universe so my fantasy is way better than yours. Before that I had a fantasy that Trump would win and have a Republican House, Senate, and Supreme Court and would have the most power of any party since 1928. Oh wait, that's not a fantasy any more!
 
Last edited:
I was just asking your opinion. Do you think the idea has merit with Republicans?

I honestly don't know. I don't subscribe to the thought process that a person is a D, or a person is an R. I like to think that people can put aside the letter behind the name of the person that suggests an idea and judge the idea based on its merits (naïve, I know). That being said, and knowing what it is that you're asking, I would expect that republicans would generally dismiss the idea, and democrats would generally not hate the idea.

(As a side note, and in contrast to my wishful thinking ... in our local paper's reader-comments section, someone lamented he fact that political candidates didn't note on their mailings whether they were Republican or Democrat. Presumably so they could simply toss any ads that didn't have the correct letter following the name).

The idea intrigues me though, because really, gov't gets a share of profits already. Without having looked very deeply into it, I'm not sure what this idea would change, except to call it a dividend, instead of a tax.
 
I honestly don't know. I don't subscribe to the thought process that a person is a D, or a person is an R. I like to think that people can put aside the letter behind the name of the person that suggests an idea and judge the idea based on its merits (naïve, I know). That being said, and knowing what it is that you're asking, I would expect that republicans would generally dismiss the idea, and democrats would generally not hate the idea.

(As a side note, and in contrast to my wishful thinking ... in our local paper's reader-comments section, someone lamented he fact that political candidates didn't note on their mailings whether they were Republican or Democrat. Presumably so they could simply toss any ads that didn't have the correct letter following the name).

The idea intrigues me though, because really, gov't gets a share of profits already. Without having looked very deeply into it, I'm not sure what this idea would change, except to call it a dividend, instead of a tax.

No matter how much you want to deny it, people have philosophies, whether they actually want to call themselves Democrat or Republican or not. That's the trouble with you handful of guys here. You have liberal values and philosophies, particularly about economics, but you want to claim that you are non-partisan. I'm sure you believe that in your heads but it doesn't change the fact that Kush's OP idea is purely liberal and Republicans wouldn't be able to stop laughing at the idea of the government being part owner of large corporations. Therefore, his idea is nothing but a fantasy.
 
Back
Top Bottom