*respectfully.
I think Ogion is an attorney and Capt Brad likes low taxes.

If a company paid no taxes it would still need accountants. I'm not sure what accountants know about erectile dysfunction in any case. Other than possibly suffering from it.

Yeah, but the accountants wouldn't have to know as much about tax avoidance. Instead of going to school for an accounting degree, they could learn about something more useful to society, like engineering or medicine.

If it's offset by a higher capital gains tax, I think it could be a net positive

Well, and a higher personal income tax too, because most businesses are sole proprietorships

Speechless... just speechless.

I like Goldie's idea quite a bit.

But most sole proprietorships have "pass-through" income and don't pay corporate taxes.

In general, corporate taxes are a worldwide "race to the bottom". Corporations can be moved around as easily as paper, but Americans tend to want to continue to live in America so personal income taxes seems like the way to go.

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-to-repeal-the-tax-loophole-that-allows-companies-to-hide-their-profits-in-offshore-accounts/

Good article, Jeff. It says that we could repeal the exemption/"expense" that allows companies to "offshore" their profits to foreign subsidiaries. Unfort, such a repeal would apply only to future profits. Regardless, the underlying problem would still persist -- Corporations tax-shopping countries in search of the lowest rates.

To what extent do they really do that though? I'm curious to know. IBM or GE isn't going to pick up and go headquarter in another country

Corporate "inversions" goldfinger. Corporate inversions:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-9

Exchange stock with a small firm overseas and declare them the controlling owner, instead of the huge domestic company.

"To what extent do they really do that though? I'm curious to know. IBM or GE isn't going to pick up and go headquarter in another country"

Everybody does it. Ever hear of a $200 billion company called Pfizer? They just tried moving to Ireland until the U.S. government strong-armed them into staying here. Our corporate tax rate is outrageously high.

@Manwe, you need to look at the link in the OP. The rate might be high, nominally, but somewhere along the way, the companies aren't really paying it.

"@Manwe, you need to look at the link in the OP. The rate might be high, nominally, but somewhere along the way, the companies aren't really paying it."

They are. You've just misinterpreted the data.

Corporate tax rates making up only 11% of federal tax revenues is completely unrelated to the tax rate that corporations pay. They probably pay, on average, somewhere between 20%-30% in taxes on their profits, then those same profits are taxed when paid out as dividends at the personal income tax rate (13.5% on average) for a grand total of about 33.5%-43.5%.

The reason corporate taxes make up about 11% of the federal tax revenues is because corporations make a lot less money than you or me. Wages and Salaries paid to employees is many times the size of corporate profits. Naturally, unless the personal income tax was extremely small, and the corporate tax rate extremely large, tax revenue from individuals will always be higher than tax revenue from corporations.

Manwe, let's be real here. Corporate tax rates are nothing close to the actual tax rates. Apple, for example, pays next to nothing

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/30/technology/apple-tax-ruling-numbers/

And the wages and salaries paid versus taxes paid neglects a historical view. In 1960, corporate tax accounted for 30% of the federal budget. That has declined by two thirds, despite wages and salaries increasing at a smaller rate than profits.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-rates/

Then how about we vote for the party that wants to simplify the tax code?

Hehe, to simplify the tax code essentially by eliminating the top tax bracket doesn't really solve the problem, unless the problem is that poor people keep on living.

1. eliminating the top bracket has never been proposed ever

2. supply side economists have wanted lower tax rates on top brackets, but that hasn't been proposed in decades and many conservatives now admit is just as immoral as a progressive tax rate (not talking economic stability, only morality)

3. the top brackets pay for more of the federal budget than anyone else, and nationalized programs that help poor people.

simplifying ACTUALLY means close loopholes. i still want people paying the full entirety of the taxes they owe

The rich hire people to keep them that way by taking advantage of the tax code no matter how many loopholes get closed. The also pay to get new loopholes added just for them.

That's why the Laffer Curve was a joke. It assumed that if you lowered taxes people would stop trying to minimize their taxes.

you want to help poor people? don't give them handouts, give them a job

Establish a nationwide Underwood-style America Works program, you say?

@Randomizer

i'm sorry but i disagree. i 100% believe we can close loopholes and simplify the code

"Corporate tax rates are nothing close to the actual tax rates."

True, crony capitalism is very alive and loopholes and deductions abound.

"Apple, for example, pays next to nothing"

False, Apple paid 25.16% in 2012, 26.15% in 2013, 26.13% in 2014, 26.37% in 2015, and 25.56% in 2016.

"And the wages and salaries paid versus taxes paid neglects a historical view. In 1960, corporate tax accounted for 30% of the federal budget. That has declined by two thirds, despite wages and salaries increasing at a smaller rate than profits."

Again, it is clear to make a distinction between the corporate tax rate and the percentage of total tax revenues that come from corporate taxes. They are in no way related! The reason that corporate tax rates made up a larger percentage of total tax revenues in 1960 is that the payroll tax was a much less important tax in those days. Social security and Medicare expenses have skyrocketed in recent decades and the programs are nothing like what they were in 1960. As Payroll taxes grew, they necessarily caused all other revenue sources to shrink as a percentage of total tax revenue. The corporate tax rate could theoretically be 80% but only make up 5% of total tax revenues, or it could be 5% but make up 80% of total tax revenues. It all just depends on what else is going into the numerator of that equation.

The simple fact is that the government collected 16 times as much money through the corporate income tax in 2015 than it did in 1960. Corporations are paying taxes.

"Then how about we vote for the party that wants to simplify the tax code?"

The Libertarian party? Because most people are too busy casting their votes for two corrupt parties that are both bought and paid for by special interests.

What needs to be done is that:

1.All loopholes need to be closed
2.All deductions need to be removed
3.All tax credits need to be removed
4.The progressive system needs to be changed to a flat rate system set at 25% or so to increase reliability, transparency, fairness, and the general competitiveness of doing business in the U.S.

But that would just be too simple and the corrupt politicians couldn't give kickbacks to their friends who keep funding their campaigns every election cycle.

In what universe is 35% low plus 15/20% on a dividend? This is foolishness.

I do hate it when people don't know when they're wrong.

Yes, Apple pays next to nothing on a large portion of its revenues. Look at all the foreign revenues that are funneled through Ireland at next to no cost (which is what that article was about). And the numbers I found for Apple's total tax were a tad lower, 22%-24% or so. In fact, average effective US corporate tax rate is around 21.9%, which is just above that of France and Germany, and not far off the global average of 17.4% (Source:http://www.actontaxreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/International-Comparison-of-Effective-Corporate-Tax-Rates_FINAL_20160926.pdf. And no, I'm not cherry-picking that data. I'm using the best available. The rest of the figures are for stated rates or non-adjusted rates)

Now, as for payroll taxes and such, you have a point - but are still wrong.
(Source: http://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/tax-database.htm#C_CorporateCaptial)

Comparing 1965 to 2015, total tax revenues went from $167,022 million to $4,754,120 million - an increase of 2,746%. Corporate taxes went from $27,390 million to $395,888 million - an increase of 1,345%. During that time period the statutory tax rate decreased from 46% (or more....could only go back as far as 1981) down to 35%. The corporate tax as a share of total revenues decreased from 16% to 8%. So where was this increase in tax revenue mainly placed? On workers.

Average hourly wage in the US for regular workers increased from $2.50 an hour to $21 an hour over the same timeframe - an increase of 740% (Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHETPI). But their share of total gross domestic income has been decreasing, from 49% to 43% (Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W270RE1A156NBEA) What's driving this? Higher income tax burdens.

Let's compare some numbers. As I stated, salaries increased 740%. Total tax revenues increased 2,746% and corporate tax revenues increased 1,345%. Individual taxes increased 3,564%, from $52,894 million in 1965 to $1,938,111 today. Personal tax has risen from 31% of the budget to 40%. You are correct that social security has increased - 4,973% from $22,192 million to $1,125,923 million, in fact! But the burden for this increase is larger on the employee (5,807% increase) than on the employer (4,317% increase). Capital gains has seen the largest increase over this timeframe, 6,901%, but is still laughably small at $174,550 million.

Now lets compare to Ireland, home of the lowest tax rate in Europe. Let's see where it got them. 1965 - Irish tax base of a whopping $317 million. Corporate tax of $29 million, 9% of total. After they invented themselves into a tax haven, tax base of $60,356 million (growth of 778%), corporate tax revenue of $6,873 million (growth of 993%), 11% of total revenues.

To me, that's not impressive. The growth rates are much, much lower than that of the United States. The percentage of total revenues isn't much different from the United States. Ireland needs these rates because without them, they don't have jobs, and jobs is what they care about. US has no such need, really, because this fear of inversions is completely overblown.

The total number of corporate inversion in the past 35 years is??? 50. Overwhelmingly in pharma and finance - the two squeakiest clean of industries in the country, as far as ethics goes. (Full list here: https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/tax-inversion). Rules can be put in place to stop these easily enough, and most keep their employees in the US anyways, so the loss is only of the corporate tax, not all the other benefits. (Also, TIL Tim Hortons is owned by Burger King, and was originally a US company)

So, in sum, corporations are not paying enough. Their profits are growing faster than wages are growing, while they're pushing the tax burden for the country off themselves and onto workers in various ways. Either jack up the corporate rate or jack up the capital gains rate, but something has to be done.