No US Corp Tax for Mr. Big: Your 2 Cents?

While it’s certainly true that corporate taxes have an effect on individuals, playing some absolutist shell game to claim “corporations don’t pay taxes” is absurd.

By the same logic, I could argue that I don’t pay taxes. I mean, I do, but after all if I didn’t pay taxes, then all that money would be transferred through me to the things I spend money on or the financial institutions I invest money with. So, they’re out the money, not me, right? So I don’t pay taxes, in exactly the same way corporations don’t.

Hey, I get it, some people say always or never when it is not the most prudent thing to say. At least he didn’t lie about getting a blow job.

So what? For every penny in taxes they owe an individual loses. Employees may earn less or that bread costs an extra nickel. The company is going to make the same amount of profit either way. The individual is the one who shoulders these costs.

That is an interesting bit of nonsense. Without taxation you would have that extra wealth in the form of goods, services, or cash. Since you are taxed there are certain things you cannot buy with that amount that was removed from your paycheck. This is not the case with corporations.

And, yes, everything has a downstream effect. Whether you are taxed, robbed, or give your money to charity someone down the line will miss out. That is nothing that is unique to taxed money.

Nope, you are 180 degrees wrong on this. If all the suppliers of bread have to compete with each other and pay taxes and do the accounting for it, they are all much more sophisticated purchasers of comparative wholesaling, accounting services, etc than the end of the term bread customer, who compares a few bread brands on the shelf and makes his/her choice based on price or taste or other preference there. The rich are in a much better position to absorb the costs of tax collection than anybody who is any poorer than they are, and then pass the better negotiated costs they can get along at a lower rate because they are competing with people who do the exact same thing. Suggest that the less wealth can do this as well is absurd. If you collect directly through the wealthy (corporations), they get the best deal they can and can and do regularly stand up to the government (the BP Oil spill is the only time I have ever seen a corporation lay down for the government). The government doesn’t give a damn about people who cannot fight due to lack of resources. The wealthy, the corporations, are pros at all of that. Why not use capitalistic principles to benefit everybody?

Luckily, nobody really thinks that way. But far too many people think like this:

  1. I have it pretty good.
  2. This is because I am naturally superior to other people and deserve it; certainly not because of:
    a) Luck
    b) Being born of the majority race and dominant sex
    c) Free primary and secondary education, paid by taxes
    d) Inexpensive access to collegiate education, subsidized by taxes
    e) A stable society, enforcement paid by taxes
    f) Fairly adjudicated contract law, paid by taxes
    g) Efficient goods transport infrastructure, subsidized by taxes
    h) An open internet, developed with tax money
    i) A reasonable minimum wage and employment law that allows one to escape wage slavery, enforced by government
    j) Massive subsidies to many industries, paid by taxes
    k) Environmental standards that allow one to enjoy life, enforced by government
    l) Product safety standards that prevent one’s children from dying in preventable ways, thus rendering the estate tax irrelevant, enforced by government
  3. Due to my aforementioned superiority, there is no sequence of events that would have resulted in me not having it so good.
  4. Therefore, other people are lazy.
  5. Therefore, fuck 'em.

People tend to get sucked into the fallacy that corporations can pay taxes, and then complain that they don’t pay enough in taxes. Whether they claim this happens because of off-shore incorporation, sleazy accounting practices or whatever, this fallacy is, ultimately, damaging to Mr. & Mrs. Hard Working US Citizen.

Any business, from the Mom & Pop down at the corner to the Multi-Mega-Mart in the 'burbs to the globe-spanning conglomerate, exists to make money. As evil as that sounds, it is the way economies run in a capitalist society. To make money, the business must show a profit. Too many quarters without a profit and the business is bankrupt.

A business incorporates for a variety of reasons, but one of the benefits of incorporation is the issuing of shares in the company, or “Stock.” A publicly-traded company has to answer to its shareholders, who expect a fair return on their investment in the corporation. Some investors are happy with steady growth of the company, others invest to reap “dividends” from the continued solvency of the business.

An incorporated business may engage in any type of economic activity, such as manufacturing, oil and gas exploration, financial services, et cetera. They may provide goods and services to another corporate entity, or directly to consumers, or both. Good accounting practices keep the company in the black. All expenses related to the goal of the company must be offset by the income derived from the sale of the goods and services. Raw materials, labor, energy, transportation, real property, capital improvements, machinery and taxes are all expenses the corporation must account for to remain solvent. An increase in any one of the myriad categories of expense must be matched by an increase in the price the company charges for its product.

If the government chooses to increase the level of taxation on all businesses in a particular industry, they will pass those costs on to whomever their customer base is; either another corporation or individual consumers. If it is another business, they, in turn, must pass along the increase in costs to remain profitable, until it eventually comes down to a consumer. Here, the buck, literally, stops. Mr. & Mrs. Hard Working US Citizen cannot simply “pass on” the increase in their costs of doing business. Would that it were different, but even with “Cost of Living Adjustments”, or COLAs, the spending power of the average wage-earner is constantly being eroded.

Most (if not all) wage-earners cannot simply go to their employer and increase their salary to match the inflated cost of living. They may ask for a raise, or, if represented by a Union, have COLAs and other increases written into their contract. But ultimately, it is the individual wage slave who pays the costs of all businesses, whether buying a car, grocery shopping, heating and cooling the house, using a phone—we are the foundation upon which the economy is based.

Many politicians capitalize on the notion that “Those big corporations aren’t paying their fair share!!!1!!” and whip the citizenry into a lather to impose onerous taxes on those “dead loads” to “pull their weight.” With a disingenuous flourish, they sign new tax laws to bring those selfish behemoths to heel. With a wink to the affected industries, they know full well that the increased costs will merely be passed along until Mr. & Mrs. Hard Working US Citizen ends up paying the tab.

And to further rub salt in the wound, the Income Tax Brackets are not indexed to inflation. What this means is, even if you get a pay raise or COLA to match inflation, if it pushes you up to a higher bracket, you end up paying an increased rate of taxes, and consequently, take home less money.

Not sure what to think about this post. Or if you’re just trolling and whooshing.

But you started out with “Nobody thinks this way” and then proceed to expose that you precisely think this way.

Your list of points (a) through (i) expose your line of thinking that somehow the person who has the wealth in question has not earned it. That they have enjoyed an unfair advantage over others, and therefore those other people cannot be at fault. And somehow deserve better.

Then, points 1 through 5 you ascribe all sorts of personal motives and evil intent, including a 4-letter verbal epithet. Rather than focus on the rule of law, or even basic economics.

So to summarize…

Your points (a) through (i) do an excellent job of painting Success = Luck and Unfair Advantage, and Lack of Success = Not My Fault. That’s victimization point number 1.

Your points 1 through 5 then layer on “Meanness” to the Success part. That would be victimization point number 2.

I struggle to come up with a better reply that proves my point. The prosecution rests its case, Your Honor.

Unless of course that was a whoosh. In which case, well done.

What you describe would exist with or without a corporate tax. You are doing a good job at explaining how businesses compete but you are saying absolutely nothing about the corporate tax.

What the people want is simple: they want the government to do everything while taxing nothing. Oh, but keeping a balanced budget doing it. When will the government listen?

You wouldn’t take home less than if you hadn’t gotten a pay raise or COLA. If you get more money, you have to pay taxes on it.

I am not sure how strictly you are defining the terms, but things like this may be of interest to you:

Exxon Mobil paid no federal taxes in 2009

Similar situation with GE:

Google’s “Double Irish” Tax Scheme:

Broadly speaking:

More here:

How about:

  1. Choosing to study hard in high school so you can get good grades?
  2. Choosing to attend college?
  3. Chosing to study a relevant and practical major like business, accounting, engineering, computer science and so on?
  4. Keeping at it until you graduate?
  5. Pursuing a professional career?
  6. Putting in extra effort at work so you get noticed?
  7. Staying current in your industry?
  8. Building networks and relationships with your peers?
  9. Living within your means?
  10. Not knocking someone up or getting knocked up when you are not in a position to care for a child?
  11. Deciding not to get heavily into drugs and/or alchohol?

How about societies are stable because they are made of hard-working and industrious people? They don’t just appear out of thin air.

At what point are people expected to be responsible for their actions?

Thank you for stating this point much better than I could.
If we want to impoverish a future generation, we institute huge public debt/entitlement programs without a solid plan/method of repayment.

I’m really worried about my state’s future.
This is why:

http://www.dailynews.com/columnists/ci_16599269

Increasing taxes on “big corporations” who “do not pay their fair share of taxes” is a decoy, not to mention a waste of time.

I think that’s where a lot of the anti-tax feeling comes in. I don’t think anyone objects to paying their fair share, but sometimes it feels like you get punished simply for being money smart or fiscally responsible.

People keep complaining that “corporations don’t care about America”. Why should they? What makes them “American” companies? The country where they are incorporated? The nationality of the CEO or their employees? Multinational corporations like Exxon and General Electric do business and employ people all over the world. Why should they have a particular loyalty to any one country beyond what makes good fiscal sense?

Social Security is not an “entitlement” program. We pay high taxes for it. About 15 percent for self employment and combined the same for employed. The government uses this money to fund its operations and has as a surplus since the 1930. The Republicans would never default on T bills, but talk about defaulting on this debt all the time. That’s “conservative”?
For example, take IBM. Here is IBM’s own press statement from 2008. IBM Newsroom Revenue $ 103.6 billion, profit $16.7 billion. It’s tax rate for 2008 was 26.2 percent. That’s just on the profit, not the gross. 2022 IBM Annual Report | IBM They planned to pay $4.3 billion in income taxes and all taxes of $8.4 billion. That is all taxes at less than 8.2 percent. Sweet deal!

Federal Tax Rates and Tax Brackets: 2011-2023 When I pay taxes, I pay on the overall income with a personal deduction. A self employed person making up to $112,650 pays $23,225 on adjusted income. That’s 20.6 percent. Another 15 percent on self employment taxes, and whatever all other gas, sales, state and local taxes are. (Property taxes are deductible for persons and corporations). Figure about 40 percent of all income, or roughly 5 times the rate of a big corporation. Corporations have all the rights of humans except they cannot vote. Yet. Practically speaking, crimes committed on their behalf do not result in incarceration, and they cannot be drafted in times of war, but rather can profit like Halliburton. Wars are fought for particular corporations (see United Fruit, etc), but not for individual people unless Saddam Hussein tried to kill your daddy and you are the President.

In a country founded of the people, for the people and by the people, humans pay taxes at rate on income of 5 times what corporations pay. Despite the fact that it would be more efficient to collect this money through corporations. People, in our constitution may imply to the dumb reader human beings, but people, according Citizens United decision, means corporations.

The constant refrain from politicians on all sides is that we have got to tax beneficially for corporations because it is good for business. I’d rather see good for humans. I don’t see why humans should not in all morality have the same beneficial rates and deductions as corporations.

Next we hear that dividends and capital gains should not be taxed because they have already been taxed. Bullshit. Taxed at one-fifth the rate? When I get my salary and then hire a gardener or auto-mechanic, you bet that that they have to pay taxes on what I pay them.

The US tax system absolutely destroys the little guy in favor of the big guy. Same rates, same deductions, same taxes for all corporations and people. Like that will ever happen.

“An increase in any one of the myriad categories of expense must be matched by an increase in the price the company charges for its product.”

The above is false. We find ways to be more efficient and lower other costs.
Old thinking …Cost plus profit equals selling price.
New way…Selling price minus costs equals profit.

Forbes has updated its article to include a statement from Exxon: "Though Exxon’s financial statement’s don’t show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a ‘substantial 2009 tax liability.’ How substantial? 'That’s not something we’re required to disclose, nor do we

Sigh.

No, it doesn’t. Corporations are not legally equivalent to human beings.

We’ve been over this like a billion times.

That’s what an entitlement program is. The reason it’s called that is because you are considered to be **entitled **to it because you paid a specific schedule of payments to get it.

It seems to me that if corporation are entitled to donate as much money as they like secretly to fund political campaigns, they ought to be required to pay their taxes. Publicly.