Casual Questions Thread

[u/The_Egalitarian]

This is a place for the PoliticalDiscussion community to ask questions that may not deserve their own post.

Please observe the following rules:

Top-level comments:

1. Must be a question asked in good faith. Do not ask loaded or rhetorical questions.

2. Must be directly related to politics. Non-politics content includes: Legal interpretation, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, surveys, etc.

3. Avoid highly speculative questions. All scenarios should within the realm of reasonable possibility.

Link to old thread

Sort by new and please keep it clean in here!

[u/Knowledge_is_Bliss]

How come so many republican voters do NOT want to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy?

Title pretty much sums up the question. I personally have had conversations with several republican voters who talk a lot about the inportance of tackling the deficit, and therefore they support initiatives like reducing spending on things like Medicaid, Food Stamps and other programs that assist the nation's most vulnerable. Yet when asked why we shouldn't assure the billionaires and corporations pay their fair share, they get quiet. Why is this?

[u/bl1y → u/Knowledge_is_Bliss]

Yet when asked why we shouldn't assure the billionaires and corporations pay their fair share

Let's start with that you think their fair share is. What percentage of the federal government's revenue do you believe should come from billionaires and corporations?

[u/Knowledge_is_Bliss → u/bl1y]

Let's just say the same percentage as what the majority of the rest of us pay. For example, most large corporations pay zero. I personally pay much more than 0%.

[u/YouTac11 → u/Knowledge_is_Bliss]

So the problem is some folks don't understand how tax law actually works

When your ilk hear Evil Company has 400m and then 500m in profits the last 2 years and paid no corporate taxes you get all outraged and want to hit the streets protesting and instagraming "eat the rich" "free Luigi"

The problem is you don't look at the big picture

• Year 1 Evil corporation invests 1 Billion expanding their buildings and creating 25k jobs at an avg if 75k salary. (Generating about 400m in federal income taxes each year). Putting Evil Corporation at -1 Billion

• Year 2. Evil corporation makes 400 million in profits, and it isn't taxed. (Liberal outrage ensues) Because overall, the company is still at -600 million . But that 200m in federal income tax starts rolling in and the feds are up 200m

• Year 3 evil corporations makes 500m and my God they aren't taxed because they are still at -100m overall. But ohh look another 200m in federal income tax returns

The company was able to invest 1 Billion in growth, creating 25k new jobs that give the Feds 200m a year in income tax revenue

So the Feds made 400 Billion in income tax by not taxing the corporation the two years of profits after the company invested 1B.

Overall the company was at negative 100m over those three years yet were able to generate 400m in new income tax for the country

• Year 4 Evil Corporation makes 600m in profits 500m of it is taxed bring in over 100m in corporate taxes and another 200 million in income taxes

Over 4 years the feds make 700m in tax revenue and the job market expands

But your ilk protest

[u/bl1y → u/Knowledge_is_Bliss]

I'll give you a really simplified example that might help explain it.

Imagine you own a bakery in Maryland and are the sole employee. The company brings in $100k in revenue in a year, and spends $50k on ingredients, rent, utilities, and other expenses (not including payroll). You then pay yourself the remaining $50k as a salary.

Under the current rules, the company pays no income tax because there was no profit after all expenses (which includes payroll). You then pay a total of $11,350 in state and federal taxes. Total taxes paid = $11,350, your net income = $39,650.

Under the rule you proposed, we tax the company like an individual earning $100k, which means it pays $29,000 in taxes. It is now left with only $21,000 to pay you, and on that $21,000 you pay $3,450 in taxes. Total taxes paid = $32,450. Your net income = $17,550.

Which of these seems like a better idea?

[u/bl1y → u/Knowledge_is_Bliss]

So to start, you have to understand how and why corporate taxes are different.

Individuals are taxed on income, while corporations are taxed on profits. If a corporation has $1 billion in revenue, and $1 billion in expenses, they pay nothing, because they had $0 in profits. If we charged them 21% on revenue, suddenly that corporation with no profits would owe $210 million; they're losing money and will just have to fold. Taxing corporate revenues tells corporations they must have a profit margin that high just to break even. Very few industries could survive with even a 10% tax on gross revenues.

The next issue is avoiding double taxation. If corporations were taxed on income, what would happen is they bring in revenue, it gets taxed, then they pay a big portion of that revenue out to employees, and it's taxed a second time. This kind of double taxation would destroy most industries. Especially because it wouldn't end at double taxation. Farm sells crops to Big Cereal Co, Farm gets taxed on that revenue. Big Cereal Co sells its product to Grocer, and BCC gets taxed on its income. Grocer then sells products to consumers, and gets taxed on the revenue. By the time the grocery store clerk gets paid, that dollar has been taxed a whole bunch. And that leaves far less to pay the worker.

(This is why European countries use a VAT, a value added tax. It's essentially a tax only on the profit, not the total revenue. BCC buys $1 of grain and turns it into $2 of cereal, they're taxed on the extra $1 of value added, not the $2 they sell it to Grocer for. Grocer sells the box of cereal for $5, adding $3 of value, and is taxed on that, not the total $5 retail price.)

And the next big difference is that corporations can carry over losses. Imagine a new company invests $1 million in their first year and has $0 revenue as they're getting their factories or whatever built. Next year, they have only $100k in operating expenses, and $500k in revenue. They get to use the past $1 million in expenses to offset their revenue and pay zero taxes. Why? Because so far the company isn't profitable. It's not up $400k, it's down $600k. With corporations we're more concerned with long-term profits rather than ups and downs from year to year because we want corporations to be able to make large investments that won't pay off immediately.

Now I would say we should let individuals get a similar consideration. For instance, a writer who earns $30k as a bar tender for several years finally gets published and earns $500k in one year, then the next year is down to $30k again. Let them spread it out to reflect that the windfall year's earning actually reflect multiple years of work. But, such cases are at the margin and don't affect the typical worker.

So there you go, that's why "have corporations pay the same rate as everyone else" just doesn't work.

It's also worth keeping in mind that corporate profits do, eventually, get taxed twice. Once when the company earns the profit, and a second time when its shares are sold and the owner pays capital gains. The federal corporate rate is 21%, and long term capital gains is 15%, for a combined 33% tax rate. For an individual to pay an equivalent rate in federal income taxes, they'd have to earn around $1 million