US loses $100 billion a year in offshore tax havens

[sealybobo]

A Senate report estimated in 2008 that the United States loses up to $100 billion a year in tax revenue to offshore tax havens

Shell companies and sham headquarters" in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

The citizens of New York and Texas shoulder over $8 billion a year, and the good people of California are on the hook for an extra $11 billion.

Large multi-billion dollar corporations who have used gimmicks to avoid paying their fair share

80 percent of the hundred biggest U.S. companies took advantage of tax havens.

Bailout beneficiaries Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America boast over 300 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands.

It has an effect on every taxpayer who has to take on this extra burden.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/offshore-tax-havens-a-sta_n_186640.html

 

[del]

i blame bush.

 

[xsited1]

A Senate report estimated in 2008 that the United States loses up to $100 billion a year in tax revenue to offshore tax havens

Shell companies and sham headquarters" in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

The citizens of New York and Texas shoulder over $8 billion a year, and the good people of California are on the hook for an extra $11 billion.

Large multi-billion dollar corporations who have used gimmicks to avoid paying their fair share

80 percent of the hundred biggest U.S. companies took advantage of tax havens.

Bailout beneficiaries Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America boast over 300 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands.

It has an effect on every taxpayer who has to take on this extra burden.

Offshore Tax Havens: A State-By-State Breakdown Of The Cost To Taxpayers

Simple fix: Lower the Corporate tax rate in the US.

 

[sealybobo]

i blame bush.

You should. They passed laws to make it easier for corporations to do this sort of thing.

 

[sealybobo]

A Senate report estimated in 2008 that the United States loses up to $100 billion a year in tax revenue to offshore tax havens

Shell companies and sham headquarters" in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

The citizens of New York and Texas shoulder over $8 billion a year, and the good people of California are on the hook for an extra $11 billion.

Large multi-billion dollar corporations who have used gimmicks to avoid paying their fair share

80 percent of the hundred biggest U.S. companies took advantage of tax havens.

Bailout beneficiaries Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America boast over 300 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands.

It has an effect on every taxpayer who has to take on this extra burden.

Offshore Tax Havens: A State-By-State Breakdown Of The Cost To Taxpayers

Simple fix: Lower the Corporate tax rate in the US.

Moron.

No. Close this loophole and make them pay their fair share. Then the CEO's will only make $10 million and not $20 million. Boo fucking hoo.

Let me explain to you how corporate America works. They always want to increase profits. So if you lower corporate tax rates, it'll never be enough. So if we lower the corporate tax rates and lets say they have record profits this year. So what will they do next year to beat that? Oh??? They'll put their money back in these offshore tax havens.

PS. Do you realize that back in the day, Corporations paid most of the taxes and we the people paid less. And over the years, people like Reagan and Bush put more of the burden on us?

So don't be a fool. If you lower their taxes, expect yours to go up.

 

[xsited1]

A Senate report estimated in 2008 that the United States loses up to $100 billion a year in tax revenue to offshore tax havens

Shell companies and sham headquarters" in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

The citizens of New York and Texas shoulder over $8 billion a year, and the good people of California are on the hook for an extra $11 billion.

Large multi-billion dollar corporations who have used gimmicks to avoid paying their fair share

80 percent of the hundred biggest U.S. companies took advantage of tax havens.

Bailout beneficiaries Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America boast over 300 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands.

It has an effect on every taxpayer who has to take on this extra burden.

Offshore Tax Havens: A State-By-State Breakdown Of The Cost To Taxpayers

Simple fix: Lower the Corporate tax rate in the US.

Moron.

No. Close this loophole and make them pay their fair share. Then the CEO's will only make $10 million and not $20 million. Boo fucking hoo.

Let me explain to you how corporate America works. They always want to increase profits. So if you lower corporate tax rates, it'll never be enough. So if we lower the corporate tax rates and lets say they have record profits this year. So what will they do next year to beat that? Oh??? They'll put their money back in these offshore tax havens.

PS. Do you realize that back in the day, Corporations paid most of the taxes and we the people paid less. And over the years, people like Reagan and Bush put more of the burden on us?

So don't be a fool. If you lower their taxes, expect yours to go up.

So explain to me again how ordinary taxpayers have had more of the tax burden pushed on them???

 

[Iriemon]

A Senate report estimated in 2008 that the United States loses up to $100 billion a year in tax revenue to offshore tax havens

Shell companies and sham headquarters" in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

The citizens of New York and Texas shoulder over $8 billion a year, and the good people of California are on the hook for an extra $11 billion.

Large multi-billion dollar corporations who have used gimmicks to avoid paying their fair share

80 percent of the hundred biggest U.S. companies took advantage of tax havens.

Bailout beneficiaries Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America boast over 300 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands.

It has an effect on every taxpayer who has to take on this extra burden.

Offshore Tax Havens: A State-By-State Breakdown Of The Cost To Taxpayers

Simple fix: Lower the Corporate tax rate in the US.

I think offshore tax havens are utilized by individuals to shield income as well as corporations, but I don't know the breakdown.

I agree with you on corporations.

In fact eliminate corporate taxes.

Tax the individuals who benefit from the corporation more instead.

 

[sealybobo]

Simple fix: Lower the Corporate tax rate in the US.

Moron.

No. Close this loophole and make them pay their fair share. Then the CEO's will only make $10 million and not $20 million. Boo fucking hoo.

Let me explain to you how corporate America works. They always want to increase profits. So if you lower corporate tax rates, it'll never be enough. So if we lower the corporate tax rates and lets say they have record profits this year. So what will they do next year to beat that? Oh??? They'll put their money back in these offshore tax havens.

PS. Do you realize that back in the day, Corporations paid most of the taxes and we the people paid less. And over the years, people like Reagan and Bush put more of the burden on us?

So don't be a fool. If you lower their taxes, expect yours to go up.

So explain to me again how ordinary taxpayers have had more of the tax burden pushed on them???

If the rich got tax breaks the last 8 years and corporations have evaded hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes and the fucking debt doubled, more of that is now on you buddy. You don't see that?

 

[del]

i blame bush

 

[sealybobo]

A Senate report estimated in 2008 that the United States loses up to $100 billion a year in tax revenue to offshore tax havens

Shell companies and sham headquarters" in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

The citizens of New York and Texas shoulder over $8 billion a year, and the good people of California are on the hook for an extra $11 billion.

Large multi-billion dollar corporations who have used gimmicks to avoid paying their fair share

80 percent of the hundred biggest U.S. companies took advantage of tax havens.

Bailout beneficiaries Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America boast over 300 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands.

It has an effect on every taxpayer who has to take on this extra burden.

Offshore Tax Havens: A State-By-State Breakdown Of The Cost To Taxpayers

Simple fix: Lower the Corporate tax rate in the US.

I think offshore tax havens are utilized by individuals to shield income as well as corporations, but I don't know the breakdown.

I agree with you on corporations.

In fact eliminate corporate taxes.

Tax the individuals who benefit from the corporation more instead.

You are wrong. Back in the day, corporations paid more of the taxes so we could pay less. For some strange reason they have conned you guys into thinking that they should get the breaks and YOU should pay more. WRONG!!! They should pay more.

But oh god, they won't make as much in profits, and they'll raise the price of their products and they won't hire as many people.

You guys are too easily manipulated.

I was going to say they won't stop until they convince you that they shouldn't pay any taxes but I see you are already there.

Americans really need to wake up.

 

[Iriemon]

Simple fix: Lower the Corporate tax rate in the US.

I think offshore tax havens are utilized by individuals to shield income as well as corporations, but I don't know the breakdown.

I agree with you on corporations.

In fact eliminate corporate taxes.

Tax the individuals who benefit from the corporation more instead.

You are wrong. Back in the day, corporations paid more of the taxes so we could pay less. For some strange reason they have conned you guys into thinking that they should get the breaks and YOU should pay more. WRONG!!! They should pay more.

But oh god, they won't make as much in profits, and they'll raise the price of their products and they won't hire as many people.

You guys are too easily manipulated.

I was going to say they won't stop until they convince you that they shouldn't pay any taxes but I see you are already there.

Americans really need to wake up.

Think about it before adopting the standard left wing position.

A corporate tax in significant part is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services. Thus, to at least some degree, it is in effect a sales tax. A sales tax that disproportionately burdens the poorer.

Why do you want a tax that hurts the poorer more?

Take a corporation whose CEO makes $50 million.

If there is a big corporate tax on profits, the cost of the tax is passed on to the consumers, and some is borne by the shareholders. But it doesn't reduce the CEO's $50 million income much, if at all.

An income tax on the CEO directly affects his take home income.

So which tax do you think the CEO would rather see? A big corporate tax and small income tax, or vice versa?

 

[sealybobo]

A Senate report estimated in 2008 that the United States loses up to $100 billion a year in tax revenue to offshore tax havens

Shell companies and sham headquarters" in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

The citizens of New York and Texas shoulder over $8 billion a year, and the good people of California are on the hook for an extra $11 billion.

Large multi-billion dollar corporations who have used gimmicks to avoid paying their fair share

80 percent of the hundred biggest U.S. companies took advantage of tax havens.

Bailout beneficiaries Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Bank of America boast over 300 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands.

It has an effect on every taxpayer who has to take on this extra burden.

Offshore Tax Havens: A State-By-State Breakdown Of The Cost To Taxpayers

Simple fix: Lower the Corporate tax rate in the US.

I think offshore tax havens are utilized by individuals to shield income as well as corporations, but I don't know the breakdown.

I agree with you on corporations.

In fact eliminate corporate taxes.

Tax the individuals who benefit from the corporation more instead.

Corporations are taxed because they use public services, and are therefore expected to help pay for them - the same as citizens.
Corporations make use of a work force educated in public schools paid for with tax dollars. They use roads and highways paid for with tax dollars. They use water, sewer, and power and communications rights-of-way paid for with taxes. They demand the same protection from fire and police departments as everybody else, and enjoy the benefits of national sovereignty and the stability provided by the military and institutions like NATO and the United Nations, the same as all residents of democratic nations.
In fact, corporations are heavier users of taxpayer-provided services and institutions than are average citizens. Taxes pay for our court systems, which are most heavily used by corporations to enforce contracts. Taxes pay for our Treasury Department and other governmental institutions which maintain a stable currency essential to corporate activity. Taxes pay for our regulation of corporate activity, from assuring safety in the workplace to a pure food and drug supply to limiting toxic emissions.
Under George W. Bush, the burden of cleaning up toxic wastes produced by corporate activity has largely shifted from polluter-funded Superfund and other programs to taxpayer-funded cleanups (as he did in Texas as governor there before becoming President).
Because it's well understood that corporations use our tax-funded institutions at least as heavily as do citizens, they've traditionally been taxed at similar rates. For example, the top corporate tax rate in the US was 48% during the Carter administration, down from the a peak of 53% during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
Today it stands at 35%, but in May of 2001 Bush administration Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill suggested there should be no corporate income tax whatsoever. This was the opening salvo in a very real war to have working people bear all the costs of the commons and governance, while the wealthy corporate elite derive most of its benefits.
A cornerstone of the conservative movement to consolidate power in the hands of a wealthy corporate elite, the campaign to end corporate income taxes altogether - and leave the rest of us to pick up the entire tab for corporate use of our institutions and corporation despoliation of our commons - first picked up steam when Reagan came to power in 1980.
The December 1, 2004 Washington Times article, titled "End Corporate Income Tax," reflects a powerful and growing movement not just in the United States but across the world. So-called "free trade" agreements and supranational institutions like the WTO have given multinational corporations control of the economic lives of nations that were previously democracies. Holland, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Belgium - the list goes on and on.
We are quickly shifting toward a corporate-run state in countries all over the world. It appears "free" and even allows elections, albeit they are only among candidates funded and approved by corporate powers, held on voting machines owned by those corporate powers, and marketed in media owned by those corporate powers.
But this bears little resemblance to the democratic republic envisioned by our nation's Founders.
If our elected representatives - and those of other "free" nations - don't quickly wake up and reverse course, we will soon again be in a feudal world. And it's up to us - We the People - to help them awaken.


Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes

 

[sealybobo]

I think offshore tax havens are utilized by individuals to shield income as well as corporations, but I don't know the breakdown.

I agree with you on corporations.

In fact eliminate corporate taxes.

Tax the individuals who benefit from the corporation more instead.

You are wrong. Back in the day, corporations paid more of the taxes so we could pay less. For some strange reason they have conned you guys into thinking that they should get the breaks and YOU should pay more. WRONG!!! They should pay more.

But oh god, they won't make as much in profits, and they'll raise the price of their products and they won't hire as many people.

You guys are too easily manipulated.

I was going to say they won't stop until they convince you that they shouldn't pay any taxes but I see you are already there.

Americans really need to wake up.

Think about it before adopting the standard left wing position.

A corporate tax in significant part is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services. Thus, to at least some degree, it is in effect a sales tax. A sales tax that disproportionately burdens the poorer.

Why do you want a tax that hurts the poorer more?

Take a corporation whose CEO makes $50 million.

If there is a big corporate tax on profits, the cost of the tax is passed on to the consumers, and some is borne by the shareholders. But it doesn't reduce the CEO's $50 million income much, if at all.

An income tax on the CEO directly affects his take home income.

So which tax do you think the CEO would rather see? A big corporate tax and small income tax, or vice versa?

How about we give them a break when they hire or WHEN they lower the price of their product or IF they don't pay their executives too much?

Bush gave the rich tax breaks so they would hire and so the cost of things wouldn't go too high. How did that work out for us?

 

[Iriemon]

Simple fix: Lower the Corporate tax rate in the US.

I think offshore tax havens are utilized by individuals to shield income as well as corporations, but I don't know the breakdown.

I agree with you on corporations.

In fact eliminate corporate taxes.

Tax the individuals who benefit from the corporation more instead.

Corporations are taxed because they use public services, and are therefore expected to help pay for them - the same as citizens.
Corporations make use of a work force educated in public schools paid for with tax dollars. They use roads and highways paid for with tax dollars. They use water, sewer, and power and communications rights-of-way paid for with taxes. They demand the same protection from fire and police departments as everybody else, and enjoy the benefits of national sovereignty and the stability provided by the military and institutions like NATO and the United Nations, the same as all residents of democratic nations.
In fact, corporations are heavier users of taxpayer-provided services and institutions than are average citizens. Taxes pay for our court systems, which are most heavily used by corporations to enforce contracts. Taxes pay for our Treasury Department and other governmental institutions which maintain a stable currency essential to corporate activity. Taxes pay for our regulation of corporate activity, from assuring safety in the workplace to a pure food and drug supply to limiting toxic emissions.
Under George W. Bush, the burden of cleaning up toxic wastes produced by corporate activity has largely shifted from polluter-funded Superfund and other programs to taxpayer-funded cleanups (as he did in Texas as governor there before becoming President).
Because it's well understood that corporations use our tax-funded institutions at least as heavily as do citizens, they've traditionally been taxed at similar rates. For example, the top corporate tax rate in the US was 48% during the Carter administration, down from the a peak of 53% during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
Today it stands at 35%, but in May of 2001 Bush administration Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill suggested there should be no corporate income tax whatsoever. This was the opening salvo in a very real war to have working people bear all the costs of the commons and governance, while the wealthy corporate elite derive most of its benefits.
A cornerstone of the conservative movement to consolidate power in the hands of a wealthy corporate elite, the campaign to end corporate income taxes altogether - and leave the rest of us to pick up the entire tab for corporate use of our institutions and corporation despoliation of our commons - first picked up steam when Reagan came to power in 1980.
The December 1, 2004 Washington Times article, titled "End Corporate Income Tax," reflects a powerful and growing movement not just in the United States but across the world. So-called "free trade" agreements and supranational institutions like the WTO have given multinational corporations control of the economic lives of nations that were previously democracies. Holland, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Belgium - the list goes on and on.
We are quickly shifting toward a corporate-run state in countries all over the world. It appears "free" and even allows elections, albeit they are only among candidates funded and approved by corporate powers, held on voting machines owned by those corporate powers, and marketed in media owned by those corporate powers.
But this bears little resemblance to the democratic republic envisioned by our nation's Founders.
If our elected representatives - and those of other "free" nations - don't quickly wake up and reverse course, we will soon again be in a feudal world. And it's up to us - We the People - to help them awaken.


Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes

But a corporation is just an organization. It is individuals who benefit (or suffer detriment) from corporations.

See my post above, which you have not addressed.

 

[sealybobo]

I think offshore tax havens are utilized by individuals to shield income as well as corporations, but I don't know the breakdown.

I agree with you on corporations.

In fact eliminate corporate taxes.

Tax the individuals who benefit from the corporation more instead.

Corporations are taxed because they use public services, and are therefore expected to help pay for them - the same as citizens.
Corporations make use of a work force educated in public schools paid for with tax dollars. They use roads and highways paid for with tax dollars. They use water, sewer, and power and communications rights-of-way paid for with taxes. They demand the same protection from fire and police departments as everybody else, and enjoy the benefits of national sovereignty and the stability provided by the military and institutions like NATO and the United Nations, the same as all residents of democratic nations.
In fact, corporations are heavier users of taxpayer-provided services and institutions than are average citizens. Taxes pay for our court systems, which are most heavily used by corporations to enforce contracts. Taxes pay for our Treasury Department and other governmental institutions which maintain a stable currency essential to corporate activity. Taxes pay for our regulation of corporate activity, from assuring safety in the workplace to a pure food and drug supply to limiting toxic emissions.
Under George W. Bush, the burden of cleaning up toxic wastes produced by corporate activity has largely shifted from polluter-funded Superfund and other programs to taxpayer-funded cleanups (as he did in Texas as governor there before becoming President).
Because it's well understood that corporations use our tax-funded institutions at least as heavily as do citizens, they've traditionally been taxed at similar rates. For example, the top corporate tax rate in the US was 48% during the Carter administration, down from the a peak of 53% during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
Today it stands at 35%, but in May of 2001 Bush administration Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill suggested there should be no corporate income tax whatsoever. This was the opening salvo in a very real war to have working people bear all the costs of the commons and governance, while the wealthy corporate elite derive most of its benefits.
A cornerstone of the conservative movement to consolidate power in the hands of a wealthy corporate elite, the campaign to end corporate income taxes altogether - and leave the rest of us to pick up the entire tab for corporate use of our institutions and corporation despoliation of our commons - first picked up steam when Reagan came to power in 1980.
The December 1, 2004 Washington Times article, titled "End Corporate Income Tax," reflects a powerful and growing movement not just in the United States but across the world. So-called "free trade" agreements and supranational institutions like the WTO have given multinational corporations control of the economic lives of nations that were previously democracies. Holland, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Belgium - the list goes on and on.
We are quickly shifting toward a corporate-run state in countries all over the world. It appears "free" and even allows elections, albeit they are only among candidates funded and approved by corporate powers, held on voting machines owned by those corporate powers, and marketed in media owned by those corporate powers.
But this bears little resemblance to the democratic republic envisioned by our nation's Founders.
If our elected representatives - and those of other "free" nations - don't quickly wake up and reverse course, we will soon again be in a feudal world. And it's up to us - We the People - to help them awaken.


Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes

But a corporation is just an organization. It is individuals who benefit (or suffer detriment) from corporations.

See my post above, which you have not addressed.

The government doesn't give me a tax break so I will donate to charity. They give me a tax break IF I donate to charity.

I understand your post above. I just don't buy it. Sure, makes sense that if we eliminate all corporate taxes that it will be good for the consumer, but it will be bad for the country and tax payers who will have to shoulder that burden.

No, Corporations should be paying most of the taxes. Them and the rich people.

 

[Iriemon]

Corporations are taxed because they use public services, and are therefore expected to help pay for them - the same as citizens.
Corporations make use of a work force educated in public schools paid for with tax dollars. They use roads and highways paid for with tax dollars. They use water, sewer, and power and communications rights-of-way paid for with taxes. They demand the same protection from fire and police departments as everybody else, and enjoy the benefits of national sovereignty and the stability provided by the military and institutions like NATO and the United Nations, the same as all residents of democratic nations.
In fact, corporations are heavier users of taxpayer-provided services and institutions than are average citizens. Taxes pay for our court systems, which are most heavily used by corporations to enforce contracts. Taxes pay for our Treasury Department and other governmental institutions which maintain a stable currency essential to corporate activity. Taxes pay for our regulation of corporate activity, from assuring safety in the workplace to a pure food and drug supply to limiting toxic emissions.
Under George W. Bush, the burden of cleaning up toxic wastes produced by corporate activity has largely shifted from polluter-funded Superfund and other programs to taxpayer-funded cleanups (as he did in Texas as governor there before becoming President).
Because it's well understood that corporations use our tax-funded institutions at least as heavily as do citizens, they've traditionally been taxed at similar rates. For example, the top corporate tax rate in the US was 48% during the Carter administration, down from the a peak of 53% during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
Today it stands at 35%, but in May of 2001 Bush administration Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill suggested there should be no corporate income tax whatsoever. This was the opening salvo in a very real war to have working people bear all the costs of the commons and governance, while the wealthy corporate elite derive most of its benefits.
A cornerstone of the conservative movement to consolidate power in the hands of a wealthy corporate elite, the campaign to end corporate income taxes altogether - and leave the rest of us to pick up the entire tab for corporate use of our institutions and corporation despoliation of our commons - first picked up steam when Reagan came to power in 1980.
The December 1, 2004 Washington Times article, titled "End Corporate Income Tax," reflects a powerful and growing movement not just in the United States but across the world. So-called "free trade" agreements and supranational institutions like the WTO have given multinational corporations control of the economic lives of nations that were previously democracies. Holland, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Belgium - the list goes on and on.
We are quickly shifting toward a corporate-run state in countries all over the world. It appears "free" and even allows elections, albeit they are only among candidates funded and approved by corporate powers, held on voting machines owned by those corporate powers, and marketed in media owned by those corporate powers.
But this bears little resemblance to the democratic republic envisioned by our nation's Founders.
If our elected representatives - and those of other "free" nations - don't quickly wake up and reverse course, we will soon again be in a feudal world. And it's up to us - We the People - to help them awaken.


Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes

But a corporation is just an organization. It is individuals who benefit (or suffer detriment) from corporations.

See my post above, which you have not addressed.

The government doesn't give me a tax break so I will donate to charity. They give me a tax break IF I donate to charity.

I understand your post above. I just don't buy it. Sure, makes sense that if we eliminate all corporate taxes that it will be good for the consumer, but it will be bad for the country and tax payers who will have to shoulder that burden.

No, Corporations should be paying most of the taxes. Them and the rich people.

Your assumption that if corporations don't pay taxes it will be bad for the country and tax payers is false. Someone pays the taxes; they just don't go away if you tax the corporation instead. The question is who should pay them. If corporations pay it it is essentially consumers who pay it. That is the opposite of your "tax the rich people" goal.

I can understand it sounds contrary, but supporting big corporate taxes is supporting a sales tax that hurts lower incomes relatively more. Plus it makes our corporations less competitive abroad.

It doesn't make sense to tax corporations more and tax CEOs less. Unless you want consumers and not CEOs to pay more of the taxes.

 

[sealybobo]

But a corporation is just an organization. It is individuals who benefit (or suffer detriment) from corporations.

See my post above, which you have not addressed.

The government doesn't give me a tax break so I will donate to charity. They give me a tax break IF I donate to charity.

I understand your post above. I just don't buy it. Sure, makes sense that if we eliminate all corporate taxes that it will be good for the consumer, but it will be bad for the country and tax payers who will have to shoulder that burden.

No, Corporations should be paying most of the taxes. Them and the rich people.

Your assumption that if corporations don't pay taxes it will be bad for the country and tax payers is false. Someone pays the taxes; they just don't go away if you tax the corporation instead. The question is who should pay them. If corporations pay it it is essentially consumers who pay it. That is the opposite of your "tax the rich people" goal.

I can understand it sounds contrary, but supporting big corporate taxes is supporting a sales tax that hurts lower incomes relatively more. Plus it makes our corporations less competitive abroad.

It doesn't make sense to tax corporations more and tax CEOs less. Unless you want consumers and not CEOs to pay more of the taxes.

Well I can see they have successfully convinced you despite the warnings and facts.

 

[sealybobo]

But a corporation is just an organization. It is individuals who benefit (or suffer detriment) from corporations.

See my post above, which you have not addressed.

The government doesn't give me a tax break so I will donate to charity. They give me a tax break IF I donate to charity.

I understand your post above. I just don't buy it. Sure, makes sense that if we eliminate all corporate taxes that it will be good for the consumer, but it will be bad for the country and tax payers who will have to shoulder that burden.

No, Corporations should be paying most of the taxes. Them and the rich people.

Your assumption that if corporations don't pay taxes it will be bad for the country and tax payers is false. Someone pays the taxes; they just don't go away if you tax the corporation instead. The question is who should pay them. If corporations pay it it is essentially consumers who pay it. That is the opposite of your "tax the rich people" goal.

I can understand it sounds contrary, but supporting big corporate taxes is supporting a sales tax that hurts lower incomes relatively more. Plus it makes our corporations less competitive abroad.

It doesn't make sense to tax corporations more and tax CEOs less. Unless you want consumers and not CEOs to pay more of the taxes.

Stopping illegal employers from hiring illegal workers will raise their prices too. What should we do here?

 

[sealybobo]

But a corporation is just an organization. It is individuals who benefit (or suffer detriment) from corporations.

See my post above, which you have not addressed.

The government doesn't give me a tax break so I will donate to charity. They give me a tax break IF I donate to charity.

I understand your post above. I just don't buy it. Sure, makes sense that if we eliminate all corporate taxes that it will be good for the consumer, but it will be bad for the country and tax payers who will have to shoulder that burden.

No, Corporations should be paying most of the taxes. Them and the rich people.

Your assumption that if corporations don't pay taxes it will be bad for the country and tax payers is false. Someone pays the taxes; they just don't go away if you tax the corporation instead. The question is who should pay them. If corporations pay it it is essentially consumers who pay it. That is the opposite of your "tax the rich people" goal.

I can understand it sounds contrary, but supporting big corporate taxes is supporting a sales tax that hurts lower incomes relatively more. Plus it makes our corporations less competitive abroad.

It doesn't make sense to tax corporations more and tax CEOs less. Unless you want consumers and not CEOs to pay more of the taxes.

I'm trying to find an article I read once that said, "corporations won't necessarily raise their prices just because they have to pay taxes". And I can choose to not buy their products if they raise their prices too much. And Clinton raised corporate taxes. Did you have a problem in the 90's? I didn't. I was saving money and buying lots of things.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, federal tax collections from corporations peaked in 1943, when corporate tax revenue was 39.8 percent of total federal tax collections. In more recent history, corporate tax revenue was as high as 17 percent of total federal tax collections in 1970, bottoming out at just 6 percent in 1983. During the 1990s, corporate tax revenues rose again following President Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which raised the top statutory corporate income tax rate from 34 percent to 35 percent.

 

[Iriemon]

The government doesn't give me a tax break so I will donate to charity. They give me a tax break IF I donate to charity.

I understand your post above. I just don't buy it. Sure, makes sense that if we eliminate all corporate taxes that it will be good for the consumer, but it will be bad for the country and tax payers who will have to shoulder that burden.

No, Corporations should be paying most of the taxes. Them and the rich people.

Your assumption that if corporations don't pay taxes it will be bad for the country and tax payers is false. Someone pays the taxes; they just don't go away if you tax the corporation instead. The question is who should pay them. If corporations pay it it is essentially consumers who pay it. That is the opposite of your "tax the rich people" goal.

I can understand it sounds contrary, but supporting big corporate taxes is supporting a sales tax that hurts lower incomes relatively more. Plus it makes our corporations less competitive abroad.

It doesn't make sense to tax corporations more and tax CEOs less. Unless you want consumers and not CEOs to pay more of the taxes.

I'm trying to find an article I read once that said, "corporations won't necessarily raise their prices just because they have to pay taxes". And I can choose to not buy their products if they raise their prices too much. And Clinton raised corporate taxes. Did you have a problem in the 90's? I didn't. I was saving money and buying lots of things.

I'm sure you'll find some. It's an issue that is debated and imprecise to measure. It depends upon things like competition in the market and elasticity of demand for the product. But in relatively less competitive markets where corporations can get away with raising prices, they will as will the industry as a whole.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, federal tax collections from corporations peaked in 1943, when corporate tax revenue was 39.8 percent of total federal tax collections. In more recent history, corporate tax revenue was as high as 17 percent of total federal tax collections in 1970, bottoming out at just 6 percent in 1983. During the 1990s, corporate tax revenues rose again following President Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which raised the top statutory corporate income tax rate from 34 percent to 35 percent.

Simple question.

How does raising the tax rate on a corporation affect the CEO making $50 million.