• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats rely on misleading messaging to sell Manchin-Schumer bill

That is a separate problem and should be fixed. The (special?) accounting games being played with employee compensation should be eliminated. The form of employee compensation used (by paycheck vs. by ‘fringe benefits’) impacting their total (taxable) income should be removed.



Yes they do, since the total federal income tax revenue is what matters. Unlike a business, people can’t (easily) pass the costs of their (personal) income taxation along to others.
As I said up thread, corporations avail themselves of a physical and social infrastructure that is instrumental to the efficient running of their business from highways to ports, customs, air traffic control and much much more. If corporations did not pay taxes that gap would have to be borne by the consumer. That would cost the consumer much more than some price increases that might ensue. I say might because it is not a given that would happen. A sizable personal income tax increase would be a certainty.
 
As I said up thread, corporations avail themselves of a physical and social infrastructure that is instrumental to the efficient running of their business from highways to ports, customs, air traffic control and much much more. If corporations did not pay taxes that gap would have to be borne by the consumer. That would cost the consumer much more than some price increases that might ensue. I say might because it is not a given that would happen. A sizable personal income tax increase would be a certainty.

I mostly agree (but was not advocating getting rid of the corporate income tax), but the personal FIT bracket rates are progressive and apply only to income above the ‘standard’ deduction amount. If corporate taxation increases the cost of a widget that (passed along) tax increase (per widget) is equal for both a lower income customer and a higher income customer.
 
The bill calls for a 15% minimum tax for corporations. That's hardly onerous. Even at 15%, it would be the lowest minimum since 1939, according to the Tax Foundation.

The argument that a 15% minimum rate would harm corporations just can't be believed with a straight face. Corporate America was quite prosperous in the 1960s when rates were far higher.
 
The bill calls for a 15% minimum tax for corporations. That's hardly onerous. Even at 15%, it would be the lowest minimum since 1939, according to the Tax Foundation.

The argument that a 15% minimum rate would harm corporations just can't be believed with a straight face. Corporate America was quite prosperous in the 1960s when rates were far higher.
Especially when you look at the list of companies paying no taxes. They are mega corporations making billions and billions in profit.
 
Especially when you look at the list of companies paying no taxes. They are mega corporations making billions and billions in profit.
That's my point. Taxing profits on corporations that have been getting a free ride for decades is not only fair, it won't harm those companies while adding needed funds to the Treasury.
 
That's my point. Taxing profits on corporations that have been getting a free ride for decades is not only fair, it won't harm those companies while adding needed funds to the Treasury.

OK, but why apply that new tax rule to corporations “making” over $1B? The real problem is the corporate tax law allowing those profits to ‘disappear’ (on paper) in the first place. Does it really make sense for a corporation “making” over $1B to pay a (special?) 15% tax (penalty?) while allowing a corporation “making” ‘only’ $999M to continue to pay no tax?
 
OK, but why apply that new tax rule to corporations “making” over $1B? The real problem is the corporate tax law allowing those profits to ‘disappear’ (on paper) in the first place. Does it really make sense for a corporation “making” over $1B to pay a (special?) 15% tax (penalty?) while allowing a corporation “making” ‘only’ $999M to continue to pay no tax?
This is from Bloomberg:
Companies with at least $1 billion in income would be required to calculate their annual tax liability two ways: one using longstanding tax accounting methods, which is 21% of profits less deductions and credits; the other by applying the 15% rate to the earnings they report to shareholders on their financial statements, commonly known as book income. Whichever amount is greater would be what they owe.
...
The appeal for Democrats is two-fold. First, the minimum tax goes after corporations that many in the party say don’t pay enough in taxes. President Joe Biden cited a report in his State of the Union address this year that found that 55 companies paid no federal income taxes in 2020, despite earning profits under the standards of GAAP. Second, this approach solved a political problem: It’s a way for them to raise taxes on corporations without increasing the 21% headline tax rate, a move that Senator Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona Democrat whose vote is needed in the 50-50 Senate, has opposed. Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, says the minimum tax doesn’t so much raise taxes as close a loophole -- even though it would mean that some corporations have to pay more to the federal government.


This is separate and distinct from the 15% worldwide minimum levy deal that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen helped broker last year is meant to stop multinational companies from moving operations to low-tax havens. Up until now, multi-national corporations engaged in a fiction to place their revenue and profits in countries with low tax-rates, even if those revenues and profits didn't really happen there. These actions plug this fiction.
 
Last edited:
This is from Bloomberg:
Companies with at least $1 billion in income would be required to calculate their annual tax liability two ways: one using longstanding tax accounting methods, which is 21% of profits less deductions and credits; the other by applying the 15% rate to the earnings they report to shareholders on their financial statements, commonly known as book income. Whichever amount is greater would be what they owe.
...
The appeal for Democrats is two-fold. First, the minimum tax goes after corporations that many in the party say don’t pay enough in taxes. President Joe Biden cited a report in his State of the Union address this year that found that 55 companies paid no federal income taxes in 2020, despite earning profits under the standards of GAAP. Second, this approach solved a political problem: It’s a way for them to raise taxes on corporations without increasing the 21% headline tax rate, a move that Senator Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona Democrat whose vote is needed in the 50-50 Senate, has opposed. Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, says the minimum tax doesn’t so much raise taxes as close a loophole -- even though it would mean that some corporations have to pay more to the federal government.


This is separate and distinct from 15% worldwide minimum levy deal that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen helped broker last year is meant to stop multinational companies from moving operations to low-tax havens. Up until now, multi-national corporations engaged in a fiction to place their revenue and profits in countries with low tax-rates, even if those revenues and profits didn't really happen there. These actions plug this fiction.

OK, but why let that “fiction” continue to exist at all?
 
OK, but why let that “fiction” continue to exist at all?
Paul Krugman explains this way better than I can. If you have time to read the whole thing, it's worth it. Here is a snippet:


The big argument for cutting corporate taxes has long been that if we don’t, corporations will move capital and jobs to lower-tax nations. And a casual look at the data suggests that this actually happens. U.S. corporations have a lot of overseas assets, and seem to favor countries with low tax rates.

What we’ve learned over the past 7 or 8 years, however, is that we’re mainly looking at accounting tricks rather than real capital flight to avoid taxes. There are multiple ways to make this point; in my column on the subject I used “leprechaun economics,” the crazy swings in Irish growth that demonstrate the fictitious nature of corporate investment in Ireland’s economy. Another way to make the point is to note that most — most! — overseas profits reported by U.S. corporations are in tiny tax havens that can’t realistically be major profit centers. Here’s a chart from the Biden administration’s fact sheet on its tax plan:

o40821krugman3-jumbo.png


So one way to think about the failure of the Trump tax cut is that it didn’t reverse capital flight because the capital flight never happened in the first place. In effect, the U.S. government gave up hundreds of billions of dollars to fix a nonexistent problem.

Now the Biden administration wants to go after the real problem, which was always tax avoidance, not loss of jobs to foreigners. Will they manage to pass the necessary legislation? We’ll just have to wait and see.
 
Paul Krugman explains this way better than I can. If you have time to read the whole thing, it's worth it. Here is a snippet:


The big argument for cutting corporate taxes has long been that if we don’t, corporations will move capital and jobs to lower-tax nations. And a casual look at the data suggests that this actually happens. U.S. corporations have a lot of overseas assets, and seem to favor countries with low tax rates.

What we’ve learned over the past 7 or 8 years, however, is that we’re mainly looking at accounting tricks rather than real capital flight to avoid taxes. There are multiple ways to make this point; in my column on the subject I used “leprechaun economics,” the crazy swings in Irish growth that demonstrate the fictitious nature of corporate investment in Ireland’s economy. Another way to make the point is to note that most — most! — overseas profits reported by U.S. corporations are in tiny tax havens that can’t realistically be major profit centers. Here’s a chart from the Biden administration’s fact sheet on its tax plan:

o40821krugman3-jumbo.png


So one way to think about the failure of the Trump tax cut is that it didn’t reverse capital flight because the capital flight never happened in the first place. In effect, the U.S. government gave up hundreds of billions of dollars to fix a nonexistent problem.

Now the Biden administration wants to go after the real problem, which was always tax avoidance, not loss of jobs to foreigners. Will they manage to pass the necessary legislation? We’ll just have to wait and see.

You seem to have completely missed my point. Why should corporate tax law (or avoidance thereof) change only for corporate “profit” amounts above $1B?
 
.......and your point would be? The employees of companies which do pay their taxes pay income tax too.
All companies pay taxes. How much depends on tax law and the details of the company's situation. My company is probably not going to pay taxes this year because it won't make any net income this. It would be too early in the year to make a prediction like that but I see things getting worse, not better.
 
It should be called The IQ Reduction Act
It should be called the green new deal since that is what it is. It is certainly adding a bunch to inflation as government spends money into existence to pay for it..
 
This has already been debunked. Also ... it's Faux trash and is not to be believed.

The 1% scum do not want to pay their share of taxes.

Corporate tax rates are always passed down to the consumer in one form or another.

It wasn't in the 1950s when the corporate tax rate was 70%.
 

Corporate tax rates are always passed down to the consumer in one form or another.
The market determines what the consumer pays, not the corporate tax rate. Taxes are an input cost. Their price to manufacture will go up. Whether they are able to recoup that is dependent on a number of things.
 
It should be called the green new deal since that is what it is. It is certainly adding a bunch to inflation as government spends money into existence to pay for it..

Not money - bonds. Now you can recalculate properly.
 
You seem to have completely missed my point. Why should corporate tax law (or avoidance thereof) change only for corporate “profit” amounts above $1B?

Because that is an easy way to target the biggest offenders.
 
Bo
Not money - bonds. Now you can recalculate properly.
Bonds have value. They can be converted to "money" easily. But value doesn't mean much to you does it?
 
Bo

Bonds have value. They can be converted to "money" easily. But value doesn't mean much to you does it?

If you sell a bond to another private sector party, total dollars still doesn't change. Isn't it all about the dollars with you?
 
If you sell a bond to another private sector party, total dollars still doesn't change. Isn't it all about the dollars with you?
The value doesn't change. It is just an exchange of one asset for another.
 
The value doesn't change. It is just an exchange of one asset for another.
Yeah, but your whole point was that deficit spending is "spending money into existence." Are you switching to saying demand is causing inflation (a much better argument, btw)?
 
Yeah, but your whole point was that deficit spending is "spending money into existence." Are you switching to saying demand is causing inflation (a much better argument, btw)?
No I don't view inflation as having anything to do with prices other than devaluing the currency. For me all of it originates from government spending money into existence. Prices are all about supply and demand. It makes no sense to me to combine the two. The causes are different, the effects are different and the "cure" for them is different.
 
No I don't view inflation as having anything to do with prices other than devaluing the currency. For me all of it originates from government spending money into existence. Prices are all about supply and demand. It makes no sense to me to combine the two. The causes are different, the effects are different and the "cure" for them is different.
That makes no sense. If prices of groceries don't change, how is the dollar "devalued"? It's all connected.

If the dollar loses value on the FX market, CPI will rise. It's a global market.
 
The market determines what the consumer pays, not the corporate tax rate. Taxes are an input cost. Their price to manufacture will go up. Whether they are able to recoup that is dependent on a number of things.
It's a fallacy to many that assume that corporate taxes are passed onto consumers. I wrote about it several times. This is one post:
 
Back
Top Bottom