20 Reasons to Kill Corporate Taxes

mass ignorance

The posters here arguing wiwth Jimmy P. display gross ignorance of economic basics. They attempt to deny the existance of hard statistics that J.P. uses to back up his case. It is this ignorance that Democrats and big government liberals count on to keep getting elected and wreaking havoc upon the economy.

Pat of IL @ Aug 25, 2008 15:08:28 PM

Lies and More lies

This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. If corps are allowed to not pay taxes, they will just pay their CEO's more obscene "bonuses" and the working class will get stiffed and so will the stockholders. I beg to differ on other countries corporate tax rates being lower, Germany, prime example. Their corporate taxes were just raised, not lowered. And they have universal health care they pay for with those taxes. More club for growth NONSENSE about keeping the rich richer and screw the working class. Warren Buffett's secretary pays more in taxes than he does. Since when did corporations become honest? after enron? Give me a break!

Not so dumb of MD @ Aug 25, 2008 14:02:49 PM

Good analysis

All points presented were valid. Furthermore, personal income should be trashed. The FairTax is the answer. Unfortunately, too many current leaders don't want to stop playing in the tax code sandbox by handing out sweetheart tax breaks. Always ask a potential candidate if they are pro or anti-fairtax. if you don't get a excited "yes", move on.

Read "the fairtax book" for more info.

mark m of FL @ Aug 25, 2008 10:17:30 AM

The more fundamental issue is a moral one

As long as people accept the notion that one man's "needs" justify the seizure of another man's money, there will never be any way to limit government spending, and therefore no way to limit taxation -- because there is no limit to the "needs" that various individuals and groups can claim.

That is the fundamental issue we face: Do the "needs" of others constitute a moral claim on my life? Or, do I have the inalienable moral right to exist for my own sake, pursuing my own happiness by means of my own effort?

Those are the questions that need to be debated -- not in what manner our money will be seized, but what justifies the seizure in the first place.

As long as people believe that “need“ trumps a man‘s right to his own life, we are doomed to a non-stop drift into ever-greater socialism -- with all of its disastrous economic consequences growing nearer by the day.

Michael Smith of GA @ Aug 25, 2008 09:50:33 AM

corporations as persons

Corporations are considered persons under the law and are given most of the same rights you are as an individual, such as First Amendment rights associated with freedom of speech, etc. The Supreme Court case that made this possible is Santa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

I think Jimmy the Geek is onto something. Corporations are persons under the law. As such, it would be unfair to tax individuals and not corporations. Unfortunately, his idea doesn't work because corporations have no choice regarding whether to give up those rights. A Consitutional Amendment would be required to modify how corporations are treated under the law as persons.

I think corporations should continue to pay income taxes. If you're concerned about double taxation, I would suggest not taxing dividends paid by corporations that pay US taxes. Such a compromise would resolve complaints of double taxation. There is nothing inherently wrong with taxing corporations as long as it is done fairly.

btw: #14 lists dead people. The argument loses a lot of respectability because it relies on someone who spent the last 15 years of his life hidden from public view with alzheimer's disease (no disrespect intended).

dfb of CA @ Aug 25, 2008 01:44:20 AM

Author dishonest or incompetent

The author is at least mildly dishonest or mildly incompetent, or perhaps a bit of both. The "OECD study" he cites is not an OECD study, but a working paper that specifically cautions that it does not represent the views of OECD.

And the paper does not say get rid of the corporate tax--it says that if our primary focus is on economic growth, we should shift the corporate tax to some other tax that would have less negative impact on growth. So if the author wants to get rid of the tax, to whom will he shift the tax?

He also claims that 70% of the tax is paid by workers and consumers. The incidence of the corporate tax is controversial and it is far from uncontroversial fact that anything approaching 70% of the corporate tax is paid by workers and consumers. This is not to say the author is wrong, just that his "fact" is really economic speculation.

Norman Stein of AL @ Aug 24, 2008 16:02:37 PM

To tax or not to tax---is that the question?

I would like to see the myth that less taxes translate into more revenue for the government tested by eliminating all taxes. No taxes should really make the government rich?

Whose lips should we read this time around?

HillbillyBill of TN @ Aug 24, 2008 08:22:54 AM

Here's How You Get Rid of It Revenue-Neutrally

1. Eliminate the corporate income tax. This will cost about $2 trillion over 10 years.

2. Tax dividends and capital gains as ordinary income (this would raise the rate today from 15% to 35%, and Obama wants to raise the ordinary rate to 39.6%). This is fair since the double taxation of capital income is eliminated, and shareholders will garner 3/10ths of the benefit from eliminating the corporate tax (see above).

3. Since employees economically bear the burden of FICA taxes, eliminate the fiction and have employees bear the full 15.3% FICA tax themselves. This makes the payroll tax more transparent, while not changing the compensation formula one bit (since employers will simply shift to higher wages over time to compensate). In the short run, workers will benefit from the elimination of the corporate income tax to the tune of 7/10ths (see above). This raises revenue since employees don't get a FICA tax deduction, while employers currently do. According to my calculation, this simple and transparent shift pays for about half the cost of corporate income tax repeal.

4. For the rest of the money, take away exclusions, adjustments, deductions, and credits for the highest-income households (to the extent needed to make up the rest of the money, which won't be much if (2) and (3) are implemented). Easiest way to do this is to make the Pease phaseout steeper and more inclusive. No reason why the exclusions, adjustments, and credits should be untouched, though.

Voila! You'd end up with a tax system that's much more pro-growth, and a virtual flat tax (albeit at a high rate) for higher income households.

Politically, this would probably be acceptable to most conservatives and most honest liberals. The tax distribution would be roughly-equivalent to where it is now, revenue would be the same, and the whole code would be far more conducive to economic growth.

Ryan of VA @ Aug 23, 2008 21:03:41 PM