It’s a Myth That Corporate Tax Cuts Mean More Jobs

[Loren Pechtel]

You're an idiot.

Saying that doesn't make it so. You're still trying to defend a position you have no defense for.

The bolded part doesn't make any sense. You're investing $5,000 in a company with a potential return of $500. Knowing that the government is going to take 30% of your income in taxes, do you

a) Invest nothing, and get $0 in returns
b) Invest $5,000 and get $350 in returns

And you're here claiming that there is less incentive to make the $350 than there is to make $0? That makes sense to you?

You're neglecting risk.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Where does that come from? It would be a minority stake of non voting stock. No govt control.

Anyway, what's so terrible about govt owned and run companies? They're common in Asia.

The mega-rich come about because they're doing a lot better than average at running things. Take that away and you're destroying the value, not redirecting it to public use.

Maybe so, but no one is suggesting they lose control. I'll say it again because it apparently didn't go through the first time: a minority share of non-voting stock.

 

[Trausti]

Taxes are the last thing paid at the end of the year. Until then, the business has the money to invest in itself, reducing its profit and reducing its tax bill.

Well then, I guess if the government really wants corporations to invest it should tax profits at 100%. Or more.

Imagine how productive workers would be if their incomes were taxed at 100%! Wasn't that tried 160 years ago? Wonder why we stopped that.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The mega-rich come about because they're doing a lot better than average at running things. Take that away and you're destroying the value, not redirecting it to public use.

Maybe so, but no one is suggesting they lose control. I'll say it again because it apparently didn't go through the first time: a minority share of non-voting stock.

What purpose would it serve? Government already has great control over companies due to taxation, regulation, infrastructure control, and etc. What does the public gain with the government owning some shares? Minority shareholders have very little control of a company anyway.

Secondly, no way would I would Trump having any part of my company! He has enough crazy control as it is. In fact, I think that we need to limit the federal government power under Trump, not increase it!!!

 

[Trausti]

Secondly, no way would I would Trump having any part of my company! He has enough crazy control as it is. In fact, I think that we need to limit the federal government power under Trump, not increase it!!!

This should always be brought up when someone advocates for more government. Never assume that the "government" will be occupied by your preferred enforcers.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I agree that the article doesn't prove anything by concentrating on just AT&T. But it doesn't have to, the people who are proposing to cut the tax to increase jobs have to prove their assertion. They are proposing the change.

Why would a business be more likely to hire someone if the government was going to take more of the profit they would produce?

Why bother ever moving out of fast food for a higher paying job if they're just going to tax you more on your earnings? Oh yeah, because a large part of the money you earn, you still keep.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Maybe so, but no one is suggesting they lose control. I'll say it again because it apparently didn't go through the first time: a minority share of non-voting stock.

What purpose would it serve? Government already has great control over companies due to taxation, regulation, infrastructure control, and etc. What does the public gain with the government owning some shares? Minority shareholders have very little control of a company anyway.

Secondly, no way would I would Trump having any part of my company! He has enough crazy control as it is. In fact, I think that we need to limit the federal government power under Trump, not increase it!!!

It's not about control; it's about taxation.

 

[LordKiran]

Well then, I guess if the government really wants corporations to invest it should tax profits at 100%. Or more.

Imagine how productive workers would be if their incomes were taxed at 100%! Wasn't that tried 160 years ago? Wonder why we stopped that.

Nobody here suggested raising taxes that high, just so we're clear.

 

[dismal]

Imagine how productive workers would be if their incomes were taxed at 100%! Wasn't that tried 160 years ago? Wonder why we stopped that.

Nobody here suggested raising taxes that high, just so we're clear.

But why wouldn't we? It's not like corporate income taxes have any negative effect on anything, right?

 

[LordKiran]

Nobody here suggested raising taxes that high, just so we're clear.

But why wouldn't we? It's not like corporate income taxes have any negative effect on anything, right?

No more so than any other tax. Are you suggesting we just not have taxes now? Clearly if lower taxes leads to economic prosperity then no taxes should lead us to a golden age of splendor and wealth!



See how annoying it is when some schmuck tries to pin a position you did not make to your argument? That's you. That's what you sound like.

 

[dismal]

But why wouldn't we? It's not like corporate income taxes have any negative effect on anything, right?

No more so than any other tax. Are you suggesting we just not have taxes now? Clearly if lower taxes leads to economic prosperity then no taxes should lead us to a golden age of splendor and wealth!



See how annoying it is when some schmuck tries to pin a position you did not make to your argument? That's you. That's what you sound like.

Hmm, well this study disagrees.

https://www.oecd.org/tax/tax-policy/41000592.pdf

But trigger warning -- it appears to be the work of actual economists not idiot Internet forummers operating on wishful thinking.

It's weird how economists just seem to accept taxing profits results in less profit seeking activity as an unsurprising result though. They apparently haven't studied enough of our threads to know how the real world works.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Other than the point that no taxes mean more profit for shareholders, what other rationale if any is there for excusing corporations from taxes? It seems that the thread has evolved, or devolved, to 100% or nothing.

If wage earners were not taxed, they'd save more, consume more, and require less govt aid. Ergo, untaxed wage earners would be good for growth, and save the govt money.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Other than the point that no taxes mean more profit for shareholders, what other rationale if any is there for excusing corporations from taxes? It seems that the thread has evolved, or devolved, to 100% or nothing.

If wage earners were not taxed, they'd save more, consume more, and require less govt aid. Ergo, untaxed wage earners would be good for growth, and save the govt money.

The primary reasons to reduce or eliminate corporate taxes are the following:

1. Double taxation. It would be more efficient to increase the personal taxes on individuals to make up the difference. But eliminating corporate taxes would increase the amount distributed to owners.
2. Eliminate encouraging inefficiencies: creating incentives to lower corporate taxes (depreciation, sec 179, writeoffs, sec 8245, and etc.) can create inefficiencies, companies prematurely expanding before the management team is ready.
3. Eliminates incentives to relocate corporate HQs over seas.
4. Levels the playing field: smaller companies are at a disadvantage to larger companies. Larger companies can afford an army of attorney's and CPAs to help lower their taxes relative to smaller companies.
5. More efficiency: shift money currently paid to attorney's and CPA's to lower taxes to more productive work: increased RnD, increased expansion, better capital equipment, and etc.

 

[Horatio Parker]

So, in exchange for limited liability and freedom from taxes, what does the corporation owe the public interest? Sounds like the answer is nothing. Jobs for citizens is not enough, since the corporation needs workers.

Granted, the corporate income tax comes with a lot of problems. But without a viable alternative, it'll have to do. I suggested equity tax as a simpler and fairer alternative, but the reaction here isn't promising.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So, in exchange for limited liability and freedom from taxes, what does the corporation owe the public interest? Sounds like the answer is nothing. Jobs for citizens is not enough, since the corporation needs workers.

Granted, the corporate income tax comes with a lot of problems. But without a viable alternative, it'll have to do. I suggested equity tax as a simpler and fairer alternative, but the reaction here isn't promising.

Hard for me to think of many things more important than a job. My wife and I argue about this all the time, but my job pays for everything in our house. It also pays for my retirement someday, my healthcare, and everything else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The mega-rich come about because they're doing a lot better than average at running things. Take that away and you're destroying the value, not redirecting it to public use.

Maybe so, but no one is suggesting they lose control. I'll say it again because it apparently didn't go through the first time: a minority share of non-voting stock.

If you keep taking a little piece year after year in time you have taken control away from the owner.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe so, but no one is suggesting they lose control. I'll say it again because it apparently didn't go through the first time: a minority share of non-voting stock.

What purpose would it serve? Government already has great control over companies due to taxation, regulation, infrastructure control, and etc. What does the public gain with the government owning some shares? Minority shareholders have very little control of a company anyway.

Secondly, no way would I would Trump having any part of my company! He has enough crazy control as it is. In fact, I think that we need to limit the federal government power under Trump, not increase it!!!

The left is always about tearing down those above, not about building up the people.

 

[Horatio Parker]

So, in exchange for limited liability and freedom from taxes, what does the corporation owe the public interest? Sounds like the answer is nothing. Jobs for citizens is not enough, since the corporation needs workers.

Granted, the corporate income tax comes with a lot of problems. But without a viable alternative, it'll have to do. I suggested equity tax as a simpler and fairer alternative, but the reaction here isn't promising.

Hard for me to think of many things more important than a job. My wife and I argue about this all the time, but my job pays for everything in our house. It also pays for my retirement someday, my healthcare, and everything else.

I'd say society and the rule of law have something to do with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe so, but no one is suggesting they lose control. I'll say it again because it apparently didn't go through the first time: a minority share of non-voting stock.

If you keep taking a little piece year after year in time you have taken control away from the owner.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Other than the point that no taxes mean more profit for shareholders, what other rationale if any is there for excusing corporations from taxes? It seems that the thread has evolved, or devolved, to 100% or nothing.

If wage earners were not taxed, they'd save more, consume more, and require less govt aid. Ergo, untaxed wage earners would be good for growth, and save the govt money.

Reality: Corporate taxes generally show up as higher prices. This makes them a regressive tax and thus a bad thing.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Other than the point that no taxes mean more profit for shareholders, what other rationale if any is there for excusing corporations from taxes? It seems that the thread has evolved, or devolved, to 100% or nothing.

If wage earners were not taxed, they'd save more, consume more, and require less govt aid. Ergo, untaxed wage earners would be good for growth, and save the govt money.

Reality: Corporate taxes generally show up as higher prices. This makes them a regressive tax and thus a bad thing.

Reality: there's no such thing as a free lunch.

I've offered an alternative, you just want handouts.