Bush wants to cut taxes again -- on corporations

The idea is to make U.S. corporations more globally competitive. Story [url=]here:

Across-the-board corporate tax cuts – good idea?

What do you think?

OP’s link is broken.

I seriously doubt that this congress will pass more tax-cuts, so I suspect that this is more a political tactic then an honest policy initiative, especially as so many of the likely 2008 prez candidates are current congress-critters who will be expected to vote on this.

Yes, absolutely.

I know that there are prolific posters here for whom it is a tenet of faith that corporations are evil, and view this as some sort of “corporate welfare.” No one here has asserted that argument, so I won’t spend time attacking a strawman. In general, cutting corporate taxes in this way WILL make us more globally competitive, and that’s a good thing.

Look, it’s Brainglutton, and AFAIK, he’s pretty much against tax cuts, corporations, and Bush generally.

Anyway, yes, it’s not a bad idea, and it will help, especially if you are worried about jobs going overseas, thoug I personally am not (and I should know, having been outsourced once). While theroretically, it’s most efficient to tax any universal portion of the economy once*, corporations and busineses do not usually manage to be universal. People also work for government services, themselves, their neighbors, private business, etc. So taxing corps extra just imposes the tax on investors, who are increasingly the rest of us.

Taxing corporations hurts one particular business sector, making others (private business) more attractive. This probably does hurt American economic performance overseas.

Taxing consumption (sales tax) is one way, and it’s not bad. It can be useful as long as you don’t tax movable goods. Taxing yachts, for example is idiocy because people can just buy them overseas. Sometimes cars, too.

Most states go with taxing personal income, but as they can’t seem to resist jacking up taxes to suit the greedy beedy little eyes of piggy politicians, I recommend flat taxing or consumption taxing, with certain limitations (minimum income, restrictions on “company” cars and homes).

*Taxing non-universal portions of the economy tends to create erratic tax overlap zones, zones which might be good for everyone to be using and procuding goods and services but suck for those in them.

Not to mention that the OP (if you can call a title, 2 sentences and a quote an “OP”) seems to have missed a key component which was right in the first sentence of his quote:

No doubt that would constitute a net tax increase for some corporations. Given the budget mess we’re in, I’m not as warm towards tax cuts as I usually would be. But if the math works on out this, I say go for it. I like my tax laws simple, and clean-- no specially deductions for this or extra taxes for that.

How do you know? He’s not suggesting simply cutting corporate taxes, he wants to remove some targeted corporate tax breaks and then use that money to fund a general drop in Corporate taxes. Is a smaller general corporate tax rate better for attracting business then targeted ones? I have no idea, but it’s hardly obvious that that is the case.

Indeed, my WAG is that the opposite is true. Targeted taxbreaks can be used to attract businesses that might otherwise be tempted to move overseas while making up for that loss in revenue by taxing corporations that for whatever reason are unlikely to move overseas at a higher rate then they would be otherwise.

I’ll go Bush one better: eliminate all taxes on corporations and finance the government strictly on a national sales tax. Now corporations would make decisions based on what makes money, not what makes a tax break. No more incentive to go offshore. No more need to buy congressional influence. Let’s face it, ultimately all taxes are borne by consumers anyway so let’s be honest about it and tax consumption only.

Try it now.

Nah, this isn’t really corporate welfare IMO. That’s more like when they just give them a wheel barrow full of cash or really interesting “regulations.” These cuts would be more like a playful reach around.

As for the proposed cuts, hey, sure – as long as it’s met with a parallel, equal cut in federal spending. That won’t happen, but as I learned several months ago, it doesn’t matter what the U.S. debt is anyway, apparently rendering moot entire swathes of political discussion in the process. Go hog wild.

I would have to know a lot more about:

  1. The role their existing (U.S.) tax burden plays in American corporations’ global competitiveness;

  2. The short-term effects on 2. of replacing existing targeted tax breaks with an across-the-board rate cut;

  3. The short-term effect of such a cut on overall federal revenue;

  4. The long-term effect on federal revenue, after the cuts have or have not their desired economic effects, changing the corporations’ taxable profits (a question which would be much more controversial and possibly imponderable).

I’d be for this as well if we could eliminate personal income taxes at the same time. What I don’t want is a VAT slapped onto existing taxes, and I’d be skeptical about even offsetting the one in favor of the other - that leaves too much incentive for one or the other tax to be raised in the future.

Consumption taxes make the most economic sense, and they can easily be made more progressive by income based refunds or taxing some goods at lower rates.

Would you also eliminate personal income tax?

Of course, a national sales (or, as some propose, a “value added tax” – not quite the same thing) would require a constitutional amendment, as the national income tax did.

Would that be politically possible?

Yes, I’d can the personal income tax too. Have a national sales tax with the provision that the government cuts everyone a check based on whatever is appropriate for someone to buy the essentials as a function of family size. No more campaign promises to cut taxes, no more bragging about how your tax policy has performed, no more lobbying for special deductions or tax breaks. With no lobbyists to get in the way, Congress begins to serve the people again.

I don’t know that we’ve ever agreed on anything. Perhaps I should rethink my response. :wink:

Road apples in bromide sauce. Zero specificity, merely the airy promise that it will make corporations “more competitive”. Sez who? My dog could fart a more intelligent proposal, seeing as we have already pissed away 1.7 Godzillabucks on an asinine foreign military adventure (you may have heard…), our people need health insurance, and the President’s firm stance against human-animal hybrid research remains unfunded.

Humor me, because I’m a green horn when it comes to this topic, but I’d appreciate if you answered this question: assuming the above happened, how would you expect the revenues of the government to be changed? From what I can find, it seems that the U.S. government currently collects about a trillion a year via persona income taxes and another 200 billion from corporations. So take that away and replace it with…how much, do you think?

That’s the rub. Tax cuts these days are never simple and clean - to the point that they’re often not tax cuts.

Tax cuts are an excellent idea in principle. I’ll support almost any real tax cut you put on a ballot. (Granted, I’m not American, but I’ll support tax cuts here too.)

I believe I would switch positions if I were you. Just think- who do all the single-issue “cut my taxes” voters vote for? Republicans. Now, all of a sudden, that issue is entirely off the table. Maybe they all stay in the GOP camp. But I suspect many will start to look at other issues and just maybe a permanent Democratic majority would be the result.