Should we make the corporate tax rate 0%?

[KevinWestern]

Yes, but deductions are much more aggressive, ie; 100% vs a much smaller percentage. When comparing an individual vs a corporation using the individuals rules are the most fair.

What though, do you mean by individual rules? What are you proposing?

The key here is that you need to subtract operating expenses from revenue before we begin the discussion about corporate taxes. Sure, there are additional deductions and what not that we probably can tighten up on, but at the end of the day you NEED to deduct wages, COGS, etc from revenue before discussing corporate taxes...

...you're aligned, right?

I'm not proposing anything. I've already posted a link defining effective rates. I'm comparing individual (a person or persons) vs a corporation.

But Walmart's effective rate is 30%!

That was much higher than my effective tax rate!

 

[KevinWestern]

People have 100% deductions?

I don't follow.

There are some slight differences (obviously) between the way a business operates to earn money and the way a person operates to earn money. Most people's largest operating expense (to earn money) is travel. Here in Chicago I'm allowed to pay for my CTA train pass pre-tax, and for significant travel usually the company will pick up the tab. Most of what I earn in a day is 100% profit, meaning I didn't have to put up anything initially to earn it.. make sense?

Great, but noting to do with comparing individual vs corporate effective rates.

As an individual, most incomes are taxed at like a 15% effective rate. Walmart's income was taxed at about a 30% effective rate. What's your problem here?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, but deductions are much more aggressive, ie; 100% vs a much smaller percentage. When comparing an individual vs a corporation using the individuals rules are the most fair.

What though, do you mean by individual rules? What are you proposing?

The key here is that you need to subtract operating expenses from revenue before we begin the discussion about corporate taxes. Sure, there are additional deductions and what not that we probably can tighten up on, but at the end of the day you NEED to deduct wages, COGS, etc from revenue before discussing corporate taxes...

...you're aligned, right?

I'm not proposing anything. I've already posted a link defining effective rates. I'm comparing individual (a person or persons) vs a corporation.

1%er

Even individuals subtract basis before calculating taxes. For example, if you sell stock you pay taxes on what you got for the stock minus what you originally paid. The difference is income/profit. As another example, if you are a sole proprietor of your small business and that business is selling stuff, you subtract the cost you paid for the stuff from price you sold the stuff to calculate how much you made on the stuff (ignoring issues like operational costs that bring the profit down even further). You don't pay corporate taxes on your sole proprietorship revenue or on what you sold your house for. You pay taxes on the profit.

So your comparison of personal income taxes to corporate taxes also falls on its face.

Your apparent mistake from what I can tell, was reading what some blogger, that was full of shit, said and assuming he was right cause the lame stream democrat media keep pushing the lie. Probably made you angry at all those one percenters. Probably angry enough to want to create a fake persona on the interweb. Instead all you got was a joke of a persona based on false information.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't follow.

There are some slight differences (obviously) between the way a business operates to earn money and the way a person operates to earn money. Most people's largest operating expense (to earn money) is travel. Here in Chicago I'm allowed to pay for my CTA train pass pre-tax, and for significant travel usually the company will pick up the tab. Most of what I earn in a day is 100% profit, meaning I didn't have to put up anything initially to earn it.. make sense?

Great, but noting to do with comparing individual vs corporate effective rates.

As an individual, most incomes are taxed at like a 15% effective rate. Walmart's income was taxed at about a 30% effective rate. What's your problem here?

Someone told him all the rich folk and big companies like walmart get away with not paying what they owe in taxes. Convincing him that was a lie is like convincing a welfare queen she doesn't need her welfare. All you get from them is a dumb look like your crazy.

 

[OnePercenter]

I don't follow.

There are some slight differences (obviously) between the way a business operates to earn money and the way a person operates to earn money. Most people's largest operating expense (to earn money) is travel. Here in Chicago I'm allowed to pay for my CTA train pass pre-tax, and for significant travel usually the company will pick up the tab. Most of what I earn in a day is 100% profit, meaning I didn't have to put up anything initially to earn it.. make sense?

Great, but noting to do with comparing individual vs corporate effective rates.

As an individual, most incomes are taxed at like a 15% effective rate. Walmart's income was taxed at about a 30% effective rate. What's your problem here?

OK, compare an individual vs corporate effective tax rate. Apples to apples.

 

[OnePercenter]

What though, do you mean by individual rules? What are you proposing?

The key here is that you need to subtract operating expenses from revenue before we begin the discussion about corporate taxes. Sure, there are additional deductions and what not that we probably can tighten up on, but at the end of the day you NEED to deduct wages, COGS, etc from revenue before discussing corporate taxes...

...you're aligned, right?

I'm not proposing anything. I've already posted a link defining effective rates. I'm comparing individual (a person or persons) vs a corporation.

1%er

Even individuals subtract basis before calculating taxes. For example, if you sell stock you pay taxes on what you got for the stock minus what you originally paid. The difference is income/profit. As another example, if you are a sole proprietor of your small business and that business is selling stuff, you subtract the cost you paid for the stuff from price you sold the stuff to calculate how much you made on the stuff (ignoring issues like operational costs that bring the profit down even further). You don't pay corporate taxes on your sole proprietorship revenue or on what you sold your house for. You pay taxes on the profit.

So your comparison of personal income taxes to corporate taxes also falls on its face.

Your apparent mistake from what I can tell, was reading what some blogger, that was full of shit, said and assuming he was right cause the lame stream democrat media keep pushing the lie. Probably made you angry at all those one percenters. Probably angry enough to want to create a fake persona on the interweb. Instead all you got was a joke of a persona based on false information.

How would you compare individual vs. corporate effective tax?

 

[RKMBrown]

How would you compare individual vs. corporate effective tax?

Well they are both taxes. They both discourage the thing they tax. Both are bad for our economy.

But really unless it's a sub-s or sole proprietorship/partnership corp the comparisons are like comparing cattle to commercial airplanes. They are so different that the comparison is futile.

 

[RandomVariable]

The fact remain that using that using the same (people) rules Walmart paid 1.7% and people paid 16%-18% effective tax. Aren't corporations people?

Ok man, I don't mean to be rude but you seriously need to educate yourself. Corporations (in simple terms) are taxed on profits and NOT total revenue. And for your information, is that this is very, very similar to how we tax individuals...

When i go to work and make $100 that day, generally speaking I don't have $90 in operating expenses to get me there. If I did, I'd probably find a different job because it wouldn't be worthwhile. Therefore, the $100 is basically 100% profit. As you may have noticed, the gov't often provides tax free travel options for commuters (ie treating them like "operating expenses").

When corporations earn $100,000 - for instance - they usually will of initially dished out $90,000 to get there (in wages, COGS, etc). Therefore the taxable income comes out to $100,000 - $90,000 = $10,000. That $10,000 is what they earned just as the $100 is what I earned.

It's perfectly logical, dude.

If we were to tax businesses on TOTAL REVENUE, we would put a ridiculous amount of companies out of business. It's a preposterous and ridiculous thing to suggest. Again, not to be rude but you need to educate yourself before you go spouting out suggestions.

You're arguing to treat corporations like people when we already ARE treating them like people when it comes to taxation.


.

If you knew how completely moronic that sounded you won't of said it, of course. That one part was an excellent idea however, tax businesses on revenue.

 

[OnePercenter]

How would you compare individual vs. corporate effective tax?

Well they are both taxes. They both discourage the thing they tax. Both are bad for our economy.

But really unless it's a sub-s or sole proprietorship/partnership corp the comparisons are like comparing cattle to commercial airplanes. They are so different that the comparison is futile.

No it's not. You use the least restrictive method. The individual.

 

[thereisnospoon]

My original post was comparing corporations to individuals. The only way to do this truthfully is total income/revenue.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8633910-post445.html

Thank for playing!

Come on man, we're trying to have a rational discussion here and you're asking people to not accept the legal/standard method of calculating an effective tax rate (which puts Walmart at about 30%) and instead only accept your method of calculating the number? Because you said so?

That makes no sense at all.

The fact remain that using that using the same (people) rules Walmart paid 1.7% and people paid 16%-18% effective tax. Aren't corporations people?

You keep hanging with that. Let us know how it turns out for ya.

 

[KevinWestern]

Great, but noting to do with comparing individual vs corporate effective rates.

As an individual, most incomes are taxed at like a 15% effective rate. Walmart's income was taxed at about a 30% effective rate. What's your problem here?

OK, compare an individual vs corporate effective tax rate. Apples to apples.

I don't understand what you're talking about, lol! I'm totally lost here.

I just said Walmart's effective tax rate was like in the 30% range (all you have to do is google this to confirm - it's reported publicly) and individual tax rates (for the majority of Americans) are much lower than that. Can you maybe show me an example of what you're trying to explain?

 

[KevinWestern]

If you knew how completely moronic that sounded you won't of said it, of course. That one part was an excellent idea however, tax businesses on revenue.

I can't tell if you're insulting me or making a point against what 1%er said, lol. Anyways, tax business on total revenue? No, that's crazy as you would put most businesses out of business because the tax would be greater than the profit they earn. Think of it like this:

Example using a 30% corporate tax rate:

Corporation makes $100 in revenue and has $80 in operating expenses, leaving us with a $20 profit. If their entire revenue is taxed that would mean they would have to give the government $30, and would put their total earnings for the year at -$10. They would eventually go out of business. See how this doesn't work?

 

[RKMBrown]

How would you compare individual vs. corporate effective tax?

Well they are both taxes. They both discourage the thing they tax. Both are bad for our economy.

But really unless it's a sub-s or sole proprietorship/partnership corp the comparisons are like comparing cattle to commercial airplanes. They are so different that the comparison is futile.

No it's not. You use the least restrictive method. The individual.

First, thank you for being cordial. I'll do my best to respond in kind.

Second, that was my point. "Individual" only applies to sub-s, proprietorship, and partnerships. C-Corp, medium to large corporations are typically not owned by one individual. I suppose you could argue it's possible to find a large c-corp owned by one person like Soros, or Gates. Then make the comparison for that person and expose how that person shelters his money in a tax shelter owned by a corporation in which he is the primary owner.

So if you meant to point to tax shelters, such as charities... well yeah we don't tax charities, they are exempted. So the effective tax rate is low to zero for them.

However, we were talking about Walmart, which is not a charity, and is a publicly traded company with millions of owners. You can't compare an individual personal income tax rate to Walmart's corporate tax rate, effective or otherwise. Well, you can try, but IMO it's Apples and Oranges and I don't see how.

If Walmart has a profit they pay corporate tax rate on it, and the money left over is still in the corporation. If they send dividend checks to the owners that money is then taxed at the personal income tax rate. Thus, the money not taxed is basically tied up in the corporation till the corporation spends it on things like... payroll that is taxed and employe benefits, like SS, Medicare, and health care. From that perspective it really does not make sense to compare corporate taxes to personal taxes. It's more like double taxation, than something to be compared. In the context of this discussion I think of corp and person taxation like a fruit bowl, with apples and oranges in it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you knew how completely moronic that sounded you won't of said it, of course. That one part was an excellent idea however, tax businesses on revenue.

I can't tell if you're insulting me or making a point against what 1%er said, lol. Anyways, tax business on total revenue? No, that's crazy as you would put most businesses out of business because the tax would be greater than the profit they earn. Think of it like this:

Example using a 30% corporate tax rate:

Corporation makes $100 in revenue and has $80 in operating expenses, leaving us with a $20 profit. If their entire revenue is taxed that would mean they would have to give the government $30, and would put their total earnings for the year at -$10. They would eventually go out of business. See how this doesn't work?

People like onepercenter think taxes should be calculated off gross revenues.
When they read stories about a company's revenue, they see the number reported then translate that into "they made" that much.
This theory was used when the price of oil was $140. There was noise about 'windfall profits taxes'. That idiot Maxine Waters(D-CA) threatened to "nationalize" the oil business.
The USMB libbies were screaming about those eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil oil companies making mega profits. Even Obama got in on that act. Meanwhile oil co. stocks were largely flat and profit margins were flat at around 9%.
These libs are all just a bunch of reactionary hot air.
Few of them do any research other than to visit the usual lib blogs and places like HuffPo..

 

[RKMBrown]

If you knew how completely moronic that sounded you won't of said it, of course. That one part was an excellent idea however, tax businesses on revenue.

I can't tell if you're insulting me or making a point against what 1%er said, lol. Anyways, tax business on total revenue? No, that's crazy as you would put most businesses out of business because the tax would be greater than the profit they earn. Think of it like this:

Example using a 30% corporate tax rate:

Corporation makes $100 in revenue and has $80 in operating expenses, leaving us with a $20 profit. If their entire revenue is taxed that would mean they would have to give the government $30, and would put their total earnings for the year at -$10. They would eventually go out of business. See how this doesn't work?

People like onepercenter think taxes should be calculated off gross revenues.
When they read stories about a company's revenue, they see the number reported then translate that into "they made" that much.
This theory was used when the price of oil was $140. There was noise about 'windfall profits taxes'. That idiot Maxine Waters(D-CA) threatened to "nationalize" the oil business.
The USMB libbies were screaming about those eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil oil companies making mega profits. Even Obama got in on that act. Meanwhile oil co. stocks were largely flat and profit margins were flat at around 9%.
These libs are all just a bunch of reactionary hot air.
Few of them do any research other than to visit the usual lib blogs and places like HuffPo..

I'm starting to think he just didn't really give it much thought. Which is fair. I've been guilty of repeating things that sounded plausible that I heard on the lame stream media before. Only to find out later that they were lying. It happens. We can all be hoodwinked.

 

[KevinWestern]

I'm starting to think he just didn't really give it much thought. Which is fair. I've been guilty of repeating things that sounded plausible that I heard on the lame stream media before. Only to find out later that they were lying. It happens. We can all be hoodwinked.

Definitely. I'm not upset with the guy or anything. I just want to point out that taxing corporations on straight revenues would be disastrous..

 

[Truthseeker420]

This shall be paid for eliminating useless leftist government programs.

The good things from this?

Many MANY Jobs will be created in America, since companies will return to their homeland.

Jobs are not created off of tax policy. It is moronic to think if you give billionaires more money they will magically create jobs out of thin air.

Why should corporations get a free ride off my tax dollars?

 

[Sarah G]

It might be a good idea for them to get tax incentives for treating their employees well, paying fairly, training and delegating work evenly. Giving the CEO millions while making the actual working employees the poorest in the nation is not a good example of being fair and I would not agree with a 0% tax rate for these corrupt individuals.

 

[kaz]

My original post was comparing corporations to individuals. The only way to do this truthfully is total income/revenue.

And "redefining" the word "earnings" to do it and presenting a link as if that proved your point?

So do you support the Fair Tax then?

Too late. Republicans tweaked the advantage to the rich years ago.

Empty partisan rhetoric, that's so persuasive, thanks for that explanation.

 

[kaz]

It might be a good idea for them to get tax incentives for treating their employees well, paying fairly, training and delegating work evenly. Giving the CEO millions while making the actual working employees the poorest in the nation is not a good example of being fair and I would not agree with a 0% tax rate for these corrupt individuals.

As to the red, it's a strawman since the thread isn't about not taxing executives, it's about not taxing corporations.

As for your view, let's test your consistency in your that taxes should be levied on all because some of them are "corrupt." Do you apply that standard to environmental organizations? Can we remove all their tax free statuses if we can prove that any of them are "corrupt?"

Personally, I think we should go after anyone who is "corrupt" and not use it as an excuse to punish the innocent like you do.