Distributions of Federal Income Taxation

[cpwill]

And you refused to address any of my points or defend any of yours. Run along then.

Your points were a mixture of ad hominem's which I refuted with links, and strawmen, which I corrected with an accurate depiction of my position......

....both of which you ignored in order to double down on ad hominems and strawmen

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Your points were a mixture of ad hominem's which I refuted with links, and strawmen, which I corrected with an accurate depiction of my position......

....both of which you ignored in order to double down on ad hominems and strawmen

CPWill's Playbook:

1) Say something stupid, like that countries competing with each other to offer more and more tax incentives to corporations is a good thing and not a race to the bottom.
2) Passionately refuse to defend your position when challenged.
3) Refuse to address anyone else's points then flip over the game board and leave.

 

[Mulefoot]

It's passed to that corporation's final profits, and larger corporations should pay higher taxes. If a larger corporation increases the prices of their goods in order to compensate for their higher tax rate, they'll be less competitive to the Mom and Pop company with a lower tax rate who could offer the product at a lower price. Throwing your hands up and declaring we shouldn't make big corporations pay any taxes is absurd.

The answer is that all costs are passed to shareholders, employees and consumers - all who are for the most part regular middle class folk. And it's not 'if' larger corporations increases the prices of their goods, it's the blend of those increased costs to one of those folk. They do get passed.

The problem with the assumptions in all of these corporate tax arguments is about what a corporation really is. There are politicians (and followers who are swayed into believing it) who would like to paint these entities as some evil, wealthy fat cats that will somehow be punished by tax increases on corporations that they happen to manage. These fat cats certainly exist, but they don't share in tax increases at the corporate level, particularly since they ultimately decide where these costs are absorbed.

In other words, they're not gonna eat it.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The answer is that all costs are passed to shareholders, employees and consumers - all who are for the most part regular middle class folk. And it's not 'if' larger corporations increases the prices of their goods, it's the blend of those increased costs to one of those folk. They do get passed.

The problem with the assumptions in all of these corporate tax arguments is about what a corporation really is. There are politicians (and followers who are swayed into believing it) who would like to paint these entities as some evil, wealthy fat cats that will somehow be punished by tax increases on corporations that they happen to manage. These fat cats certainly exist, but they don't share in tax increases at the corporate level, particularly since they ultimately decide where these costs are absorbed.

In other words, they're not gonna eat it.

So then your suggestion is to make the corporate tax rate zero so they can make as much profit as they want while giving nothing back to society?

 

[cpwill]

CPWill's Playbook:

1) Say something stupid, like that countries competing with each other to offer more and more tax incentives to corporations is a good thing and not a race to the bottom.
2) Passionately refuse to defend your position when challenged.

I"m happy to defend my position. What I will not waste time doing is defending positions I don't hold, but which you want to insist I do, nor am I very much interested in explaining more than twice to someone that I do not hold the position they attribute to me, when they respond by poo flinging.

3) Refuse to address anyone else's points then flip over the game board and leave.

I refuted your ad hominem's with links, and gave you my actual position on taxes twice. Both times you ignored it, and chose instead to go back to name calling.

 

[Mulefoot]

So then your suggestion is to make the corporate tax rate zero so they can make as much profit as they want while giving nothing back to society?

Zero is good.

Any thing that frees up capital to drive down costs for consumers, frees up capital for labor, and maximizes shareholder is giving back to society.

 

[NatMorton]

- Yes, taxes on profits reduce the profits. Are you that stupid?

Not so stupid as to believe shareholders aren't going to fire a management team that cannot maintain a healthy profit margin after a tax increase that affects a company and all its domestic competitors. I cannot, however, vouch for the intelligence of other participants in this thread.

- Yes, you are literally saying that corporations should pay no taxes if you believe we should continuously race to the bottom with other countries by continuously reducing corporate tax rates to zero.

No, I am not saying that; you are.

 

[NatMorton]

But only death and taxes are guaranteed. Are you suggesting that changing tax laws cannot address need for increased federal tax revenue?

I am suggesting that companies are not static, and they respond to changes in tax rates. To believe otherwise is foolish beyond belief (not saying that's you, but it's clearly the case for others here). It's a simple fact, if you create an incentive for businesses to realize profit overseas that is what more of them will do. You will have a higher rate on a smaller revenue pool.

Let's look at the extremes:

• A 0% tax rate on business is stupid.
• A 100% tax rate on business is stupid.

Somewhere in between 0% and 100% there's an optimal point of the Laffer curve where the combination of rate and taxable revenue yields the highest return for the Treasury. Having the highest corporate tax rate among the world's leading economies is unlikely to bring us to that optimal point.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I am suggesting that companies are not static, and they respond to changes in tax rates. To believe otherwise is foolish beyond belief (not saying that's you, but it's clearly the case for others here). It's a simple fact, if you create an incentive for businesses to realize profit overseas that is what more of them will do. You will have a higher rate on a smaller revenue pool.

Let's look at the extremes:

• A 0% tax rate on business is stupid.
• A 100% tax rate on business is stupid.

Somewhere in between 0% and 100% there's an optimal point of the Laffer curve where the combination of rate and taxable revenue yields the highest return for the Treasury. Having the highest corporate tax rate among the world's leading economies is unlikely to bring us to that optimal point.

This is very true. Like anything else ion a global economy, we must compete with other nations. Taxes are one factor that corporations look at when deciding where to place new expansions, or move.

A question for you lefties.

If you are planning to buy a new home, and you find two places near each other that you like and cost the same money, with the same assessed value, would property taxes be a consideration determining which house you bought? If one was on a county tax district that charged 1.5% property tax per $1,000 assessed value, and the other tax 1.1% per $1,000, for two equally assessed values, wouldn't you tend to relocate to the place that had a 1.1% rather than 1.5% tax rate? If each place was values at $300,000, then wouldn't the $100 per month difference in taxes be the better choice?

Remember, you like both places equally otherwise. Which would you buy?

 

[mrjurrs]

I am suggesting that companies are not static, and they respond to changes in tax rates. To believe otherwise is foolish beyond belief (not saying that's you, but it's clearly the case for others here). It's a simple fact, if you create an incentive for businesses to realize profit overseas that is what more of them will do. You will have a higher rate on a smaller revenue pool.

Let's look at the extremes:

• A 0% tax rate on business is stupid.
• A 100% tax rate on business is stupid.

Somewhere in between 0% and 100% there's an optimal point of the Laffer curve where the combination of rate and taxable revenue yields the highest return for the Treasury. Having the highest corporate tax rate among the world's leading economies is unlikely to bring us to that optimal point.

You are correct about companies responding to changes. IMO the Laffer Curve has been sufficiently debunked to stop relying on the data analysis provided by it.

Five Critiques of Arthur Laffer’s Supply-Side Model Show Tax Cuts as Junk Economics

Lawmakers seeking to reduce or eliminate income and estate taxes frequently claim that doing so will result in an economic…

itep.org

The US is still the #1 market in the world. Businesses want a part of it. If they want it, they'll pay. If they don't want to pay, they can leave, there are substitute products and new businesses that would love to replace them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You are correct about companies responding to changes. IMO the Laffer Curve has been sufficiently debunked to stop relying on the data analysis provided by it.

Five Critiques of Arthur Laffer’s Supply-Side Model Show Tax Cuts as Junk Economics

Lawmakers seeking to reduce or eliminate income and estate taxes frequently claim that doing so will result in an economic…

itep.org

The US is still the #1 market in the world. Businesses want a part of it. If they want it, they'll pay. If they don't want to pay, they can leave, there are substitute products and new businesses that would love to replace them.

The laffer curve has a real effect, and to debunk it by comparing only cherry picked variable per setting is short sighted.

 

[NatMorton]

You are correct about companies responding to changes. IMO the Laffer Curve has been sufficiently debunked to stop relying on the data analysis provided by it.

Five Critiques of Arthur Laffer’s Supply-Side Model Show Tax Cuts as Junk Economics

Lawmakers seeking to reduce or eliminate income and estate taxes frequently claim that doing so will result in an economic…

itep.org

The US is still the #1 market in the world. Businesses want a part of it. If they want it, they'll pay. If they don't want to pay, they can leave, there are substitute products and new businesses that would love to replace them.

As night follows day, you can bet when you mention "Laffer Curve" that someone from the left will chime in with a claim that it has been "debunked." In the context I used the term here, that is utter nonsense.

I mentioned the LC in a very limited context: the idea that there is a point of diminishing returns with taxation. All I really said is that you'll get more tax revenue from, say, a 50% rate than a 100% rate. If you agree to that, then to that extent you agree with the Laffer Curve.

Great debate about the LC is where is that optimal point? Is 45% better than 50%, or is 30% better than both? That is where the debate is.

 

[NatMorton]

I"m happy to defend my position. What I will not waste time doing is defending positions I don't hold, but which you want to insist I do, nor am I very much interested in explaining more than twice to someone that I do not hold the position they attribute to me, when they respond by poo flinging.



I refuted your ad hominem's with links, and gave you my actual position on taxes twice. Both times you ignored it, and chose instead to go back to name calling.

Beaten like a rented Alpaca.

 

[mrjurrs]

The laffer curve has a real effect, and to debunk it by comparing only cherry picked variable per setting is short sighted.

I'm not debunking it. Economists are, therefore your opinion is fine, but I don't buy it. The idea obviously has merits, Laffer gets the inputs wrong.

 

[cpwill]

As night follows day, you can bet when you mention "Laffer Curve" that someone from the left will chime in with a claim that it has been "debunked." In the context I used the term here, that is utter nonsense.

I mentioned the LC in a very limited context: the idea that there is a point of diminishing returns with taxation. All I really said is that you'll get more tax revenue from, say, a 50% rate than a 100% rate. If you agree to that, then to that extent you agree with the Laffer Curve.

Great debate about the LC is where is that optimal point? Is 45% better than 50%, or is 30% better than both? That is where the debate is.

I honestly do not understand why this is so difficult for some to grasp.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm not debunking it. Economists are, therefore your opinion is fine, but I don't buy it. The idea obviously has merits, Laffer gets the inputs wrong.

Do the few that dismiss it speak for all?

I think not.

 

[mrjurrs]

As night follows day, you can bet when you mention "Laffer Curve" that someone from the left will chime in with a claim that it has been "debunked." In the context I used the term here, that is utter nonsense.

I mentioned the LC in a very limited context: the idea that there is a point of diminishing returns with taxation. All I really said is that you'll get more tax revenue from, say, a 50% rate than a 100% rate. If you agree to that, then to that extent you agree with the Laffer Curve.

Great debate about the LC is where is that optimal point? Is 45% better than 50%, or is 30% better than both? That is where the debate is.

Okay, then I suggest you don't refer to Laffer and just talk about the data. ITEP hardly qualifies as a liberal (left of center yes, liberal no) source.

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) – Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

There are diminishing returns, Laffer is not the way to support that idea.

 

[mrjurrs]

Do the few that dismiss it speak for all?

I think not.

Few? Nope. Most? Probably.

Thinking About the Laffer Curve

The observation at the core of the Laffer Curve often gets distorted as supporting the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves.

www.aei.org

 

[Lafayette]

Yes, you are literally saying that corporations should pay no taxes if you believe we should continuously race to the bottom with other countries by continuously reducing corporate tax rates to zero.

Not to zero, no. But the trend is downward. Great Lobbying, isn't it?

The history of Corporate Taxation since 1934 is in green below. It gets thinner and thinner ...

And that yello band above is the Payroll Tax. Do you know what that is?

Definition from here:

What Is a Payroll Tax?

A payroll tax is a percentage withheld from an employee's pay by an employer who pays it to the government on the employee's behalf. The tax is based on wages, salaries, and tips paid to employees. Federal payroll taxes are deducted directly from the employee's earnings and paid to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

In the U.S., the term federal payroll taxes refers to the taxes deducted to fund Medicare and Social Security programs. These are labeled as MedFICA and FICA on pay stubs. Federal income tax, which also is withheld from employee paychecks, goes into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury.

Most states and some cities and counties impose income taxes as well, and these amounts are paid directly to their coffers. In addition, employers, but not employees, also pay federal unemployment taxes for each of their employees.

Unlike the U.S. income tax, which is a progressive tax, some elements of payroll taxes are levied only up to a certain yearly limit. For example, any income that exceeds the Social Security wage base, set at $137,700 in 2020, is not subject to Social Security tax, making the U.S. payroll tax a regressive tax.

 

[NatMorton]

I'm not debunking it. Economists are, therefore your opinion is fine, but I don't buy it. The idea obviously has merits, Laffer gets the inputs wrong.

You're being willfully obtuse. Neither you (nor those "economists") have debunked the concept I conveyed here. No economist worth his or her salt would. No one who is rational would.

 

[NatMorton]

I honestly do not understand why this is so difficult for some to grasp.

I do. Acknowledging it would challenge the left's definition of "fair" taxation (which, as you no doubt know, loosely - and always -- translates to "more.")

 

[trouble13]

Simple solution to corporations leaving America because of taxes. You want access to the largest consumer base in the world then pay the taxes.

Instead of giving all the money to the top 10% why not try putting more money into that consumer base. The people who spend the majority of their income just making ends meet.

Want to see real economic growth. Give working Americans a raise.

A wealth tax wont accomplish that. It will however help out things like crypto currency, which imo, is a good thing.

 

[NatMorton]

Okay, then I suggest you don't refer to Laffer and just talk about the data. ITEP hardly qualifies as a liberal (left of center yes, liberal no) source.

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) – Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

There are diminishing returns, Laffer is not the way to support that idea.

And why shouldn't I mention Laffer, because you folks see the word, get triggered, and start reflexively saying things that are simply untrue?

 

[rickc]

This is very true. Like anything else ion a global economy, we must compete with other nations. Taxes are one factor that corporations look at when deciding where to place new expansions, or move.

A question for you lefties.

If you are planning to buy a new home, and you find two places near each other that you like and cost the same money, with the same assessed value, would property taxes be a consideration determining which house you bought? If one was on a county tax district that charged 1.5% property tax per $1,000 assessed value, and the other tax 1.1% per $1,000, for two equally assessed values, wouldn't you tend to relocate to the place that had a 1.1% rather than 1.5% tax rate? If each place was values at $300,000, then wouldn't the $100 per month difference in taxes be the better choice?

Remember, you like both places equally otherwise. Which would you buy?

Depends on the school district.

 

[rickc]

And why shouldn't I mention Laffer, because you folks see the word, get triggered, and start reflexively saying things that are simply untrue?

Laffer was the republicans excuse for trickle down