Corporations 'Are People, My Friend'

[pdog]

Romney had a few hecklers in his audience this past week.

Mitt Romney Heckled, Says Corporations 'Are People, My Friend' (VIDEO)

The point of interest to me is not how Romney handled the hecklers, but the hecklers themselves. I am an advocate of restoring our tax code to pre 1980's, however, I'm also an advocate of lower corporate taxes as long as there are mechanisms against cheaply exporting cash out of the country. Low corporate taxes ease the double dip tax burdon on small to medium incorporated businesses, makes us globally competitive, and since corporations are the ACTUAL job creators, low corp taxes encourages employment.

So here are my questions? Which would you choose? Higher corporate taxes or higher upper bracket income taxes? Why? Please, no "option C" answers.

 

[CriticalThought]

Low corporate taxes ease the double dip tax burdon on small to medium incorporated businesses, makes us globally competitive, and since corporations are the ACTUAL job creators, low corp taxes encourages employment..

Do you think all corporations are created equal when it comes to job creation, or do some corporations lead to significantly more jobs than others?

For that matter, do some corporations reduce the number of jobs available to the market?

Your view is a little too over simplistic. Low corporate taxes do not encourage employment. There is no evidence to support that view. You are under the mistaken assumption that corporations can only invest money that they save from lower taxes back into the economy. I suggest that you look into hedge funds and what effect those particular markets have had on the economy on the last 20 years.

 

[liblady]

Romney had a few hecklers in his audience this past week.

Mitt Romney Heckled, Says Corporations 'Are People, My Friend' (VIDEO)

The point of interest to me is not how Romney handled the hecklers, but the hecklers themselves. I am an advocate of restoring our tax code to pre 1980's, however, I'm also an advocate of lower corporate taxes as long as there are mechanisms against cheaply exporting cash out of the country. Low corporate taxes ease the double dip tax burdon on small to medium incorporated businesses, makes us globally competitive, and since corporations are the ACTUAL job creators, low corp taxes encourages employment.

So here are my questions? Which would you choose? Higher corporate taxes or higher upper bracket income taxes? Why? Please, no "option C" answers.

so tell me, how many jobs do corporations create when there's nobody to buy their goods or services? consumers create jobs, not corporations.

 

[AdamT]

I would prefer to see the increases on very high personal income, as opposed to tax increases on corporations, which are more regressive. Why regressive? Because corporate taxes are generally absorbed by raising prices on goods, cutting employee pay (and employees), and in lower profits/dividends/share prices. In other words, most of the taxes are hitting middle class folks. To that extent Romney was right and I think that liberal blogs are unfairly latching on to Romney's phrase.

 

[Mach]

Which would you choose? Higher corporate taxes or higher upper bracket income taxes? Why? Please, no "option C" answers.

I took it to mean you were OK with adding new, higher brackets, that likewise had a higher tax rate assocaited with them. That may be option C, but I can't tell.
If taxes were going up up, doing that makes sense considering that's what 90% of the liberal propoganda hates on - the very wealthy. $250K/year income is not wealthy.

Raising corporate tax would not be good. Raising tax on only those making $250K+ may indirectly just be, as they like to point out, a small business tax. That, and it's arbitrary class warfare.

 

[Deuce]

I took it to mean you were OK with adding new, higher brackets, that likewise had a higher tax rate assocaited with them. That may be option C, but I can't tell.
If taxes were going up up, doing that makes sense considering that's what 90% of the liberal propoganda hates on - the very wealthy. $250K/year income is not wealthy.

Raising corporate tax would not be good. Raising tax on only those making $250K+ may indirectly just be, as they like to point out, a small business tax. That, and it's arbitrary class warfare.

People talking about class warfare at a time when wage disparity has never been greater is just... sad.

 

[Geo Patric]

Low corporate taxes ease the double dip tax burdon on small to medium incorporated businesses, makes us globally competitive, and since corporations are the ACTUAL job creators, low corp taxes encourages employment.

rightist dogma with little or no basis in fact.

Romney may have just shot himself in the foot. good.

geo.

 

[Temporal]

Just tax the ultra wealthy and cut spending. Problem solved.

We have been doing neither of these things and that's one of the reasons why recovery has been difficult. The U.S. effective tax rate on the rich is the lowest in the developed world. Our tax code says one thing and lets people do another.

The fact that people can't see we are living in a republican plutocracy now is just sad.

 

[pdog]

I took it to mean you were OK with adding new, higher brackets, that likewise had a higher tax rate assocaited with them. That may be option C, but I can't tell.

Yes I agree. More brackets.

Your view is a little too over simplistic. Low corporate taxes do not encourage employment. There is no evidence to support that view

But is there evidence for the contrary?

so tell me, how many jobs do corporations create when there's nobody to buy their goods or services? consumers create jobs, not corporations.

rightist dogma with little or no basis in fact.

Keep in mind that as far as income taxes go, I'm a strong advocate for perfectly progressive taxes which puts me darn near on the "socialist" side by the standards of this site. I also beleive this is a demand-side recession so I understand and beleive in consumer driven growth. Yes I meant to say something like "Conceptually..." before my hypothesis on the effects of low corporate taxes. But that said, my hypothesis has some logic, similar to that of AdamT...

I would prefer to see the increases on very high personal income, as opposed to tax increases on corporations, which are more regressive. Why regressive? Because corporate taxes are generally absorbed by raising prices on goods, cutting employee pay (and employees), and in lower profits/dividends/share prices.

So the logic is this, if we had a perfectly progressive personal income tax system, why do we need corporate taxes? What is the value of money to something that is nothing more than a legal representation? Why can't we tax money simply at the time it becomes income (or when it leaves the country). Think about this from the aspect of a smaller corporation. Rather than the owner paying taxes twice (corporate and individual), why not just charge him once at the individual level at a higher rate (assuming he was making enough to fall into one of my upper brackets?) Wouldn't that provide the same income levels while making us more globally competitive from a business sense? Wouldn't that encourage money to remain invested in the company? Even if that company choose automation over employment, doesn't that mean business for another american business (remember, I have protections in place)?

 

[Canell]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/106366-corporations-people.html :2wave:

 

[jambalaya]

Do you think all corporations are created equal when it comes to job creation, or do some corporations lead to significantly more jobs than others?

For that matter, do some corporations reduce the number of jobs available to the market?

Your view is a little too over simplistic. Low corporate taxes do not encourage employment. There is no evidence to support that view. You are under the mistaken assumption that corporations can only invest money that they save from lower taxes back into the economy. I suggest that you look into hedge funds and what effect those particular markets have had on the economy on the last 20 years.

It has been proven by consensus by most countries in the world that lower corporate tax rates encourages economic growth and employment. The U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world so to go even higher would be suicide. So you are just blowing a lot of smoke. We have plenty of other areas that we can tax without raising corporate tax rates.

 

[jambalaya]

so tell me, how many jobs do corporations create when there's nobody to buy their goods or services? consumers create jobs, not corporations.

We have over 300 million people in this country so their are plenty of people to buy goods. The problem is that we are buying goods made in other countries. Raising corporate tax rates is not going to encourage people to locate and make things here. We frankly need to get out of these free trade agreements. When we signed on to those we gave other countries a huge adavantage because of their lower wage scales. Those countries are becoming more prosperous and the wages are slowly creeping up but in the mean time we have a very hard time creating jobs. Yep, corporations are living high off the hog by locating factories in those countries and making their goods elsewhere but taxing them more is not the answer. That will set up a situation where foreign owned countries will have an advantage and we will start buying more of their products. We have a Catch 22 here.

 

[Geo Patric]

It has been proven by consensus by most countries in the world that lower corporate tax rates encourages economic growth and employment.

which means, of course, that there is evidence to that effect? p'raps you can point to some? the truth is the actual rate is far lower because of shelters... foreign investments, mostly.

but... you needn't bother as you are mistaken anyway. In fact, m. Obama has called for LOWERING corp rates... and eliminating 'loopholes' which would still increase revenues.

it is not growth and employment that low corp rates encourage so much as investment.... sheltering monies from foreign corps and individuals. all we would really be doing is trig the tables.

geo.

 

[jambalaya]

which means, of course, that there is evidence to that effect? p'raps you can point to some? the truth is the actual rate is far lower because of shelters... foreign investments, mostly.

but... you needn't bother as you are mistaken anyway. In fact, m. Obama has called for LOWERING corp rates... and eliminating 'loopholes' which would still increase revenues.

it is not growth and employment that low corp rates encourage so much as investment.... sheltering monies from foreign corps and individuals. all we would really be doing is trig the tables.

geo.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. Even if some investment is sheltering as you claim investment is needed for growth and employment and it creates jobs. I know you would have us believe that invested money just gets passed around from one bank to the next and magically accrues interest but it is not true. We can't eat money, or fill our gas tanks with money, or run our cell phones on money; Oh wait a minute, yes we can be creating services and products and delivering them to the people that want or need them.

 

[pdog]

Remember, I'm asking people to choose between two tough choices - raise corporate taxes or raise taxes on the higher income earners? For those that support raising taxes on corporations, I asked do we need taxes on corporations if we adequately capture the same revenue thru income taxes?

I find this to be an interesting place for me. I'm a firm supporter of restoring (raising) our progressive tax code for upper earners, putting me firmly on the left. But I also support low corporate taxes as money only has value to a person, and not a legal entity, which puts me on the right. Does anybody else split in this way?