Abolishing Corporate Income Tax!!

[Flyer]

@Chronos

Got a better one? Sure, you can say that your interpretation is a better yardstick, but then, I can say the same about my own interpretation, with just as much justification. And in my interpretation, most defense spending is unconstitutional, because it doesn’t provide for the common welfare like Congress is obligated to do, but that Social Security is just fine.

Sure–the plain text of the document itself. Works like a charm! (As long as you’re willing to assign normal dictionary definitions to the words, which a lot of liberals are not willing to do.)

@Flyer

Secondly, there are lots of other unconstitutional programs and departments – OSHA, the EPA, HUD, etc., etc. – basically, if a program, office, or department was created by FDR or a later president, there’s roughly a 90% chance that it’s unconstitutional. The only clear exception to that is the VA.

This thread has spurred me to do some research that I’ve been thinking about doing for some time. All figures are from the OMB, for the 2014 budget.

Take just four Cabinet departments–Education, HUD, HHS, and Labor. All of them are mostly if not entirely unconstitutional. But to be generous, let’s say that 30% of their aggregate activities are legitimate.

Their combined budget was $1,090.9 billion. Knock off 70%, or $763.6 billion. The corporate income tax brought in “only” $321 billion. So the savings achieved from those four departments not only replaces the revenue from the corporate income tax, but in addition, it would knock the deficit from $485 billion down to $42.4 billion!

[Nothar]

@dracoi

Double taxation is usually meant to specifically mean “federal income tax is paid twice on the same income.” It is not usually meant to refer to all taxes that might be paid. If it did then everything would be double/triple/quadruple taxed. State/city income tax, state/city excise taxes, estate tax (state and federal), sales tax and so on.

I don’t understand why you’re deliberately misinterpreting a phrase and then arguing that this misinterpretation means it’s wrong.

I agree. Double taxation has a very specific meaning - the exact same tax levied twice on the same money owned by the same person(s). The argument that the corporation is its own entity that pays its own tax kind of misses the forest for the trees. It assumes that no individual(s) owns the assets of the corporation, or that somehow the act of paying corporate taxes does not involve actual people. I deal with a lot of small businesses and have some C Corporations where there is only 1 shareholder/owner. Try to tell those people that by transferring their money into their wholly owned corporation that the money does not belong to them and the profits it generates does not belong to them, but to their corporation - they will laugh in your face!

Is the personal liability protection provided by a corporation perhaps causing this confusion? It is true that as long as a C Corporation abides by the rules, that its shareholder(s) are usually not personally liable for the taxes of the corporation, but this simply means that the IRS cannot come after personally owned assets of the shareholders, only corporate assets, to collect taxes owed. Those corporate assets still belong to person(s), however, as they will be distributed to the shareholders upon liquidation (after creditors again, of course). There have also been many cases where the IRS has been able to go after personal assets of the shareholders (“piercing the corporate veil”), so the personal liability protection is not always guaranteed either.