No I don't agree with you because regardless of how you try to parse it your posting history is evidence that you feel corporations are if not evil then reprehensible.

 

I have no problem with anyone or any entity doing anything legal to reduce the amount of money our inefficient government gets from them, with one exception. I firmly believe that anyone who believes that any taxes should be raised on anyone that does anything to reduce their own tax liability is guilty of hypocrisy. If you did anything at all to decrease your tax liability then I would include you in that category.

 

I appreciate your personal vendetta. Still doesn't answer my question from the beginning of the thread. Which is: Does it matter what the corporate tax rate is, since in our system companies (and individuals) can make moves to reduce their liability. So the rate does not end up being 35% for any corporation?

I didn't read the article, but I think it's reasonably well known that many loopholes exist in the tax system that more or less lower the tax rate.

 

This graph shows the US corporate tax rate compared to other industrialized countries, which is quite high comparatively:

 

 

This graph shows how much revenue the US makes from corporate taxation compared to other industrialized countries, which is much less:

 

 

I think that shows the actual rate and effective rate are quite different, and that with reform the actual rate could be halved while keeping similar revenues from the tax.

 

Source

I appreciate your personal vendetta. Still doesn't answer my question from the beginning of the thread. Which is: Does it matter what the corporate tax rate is, since in our system companies (and individuals) can make moves to reduce their liability. So the rate does not end up being 35% for any corporation?

 

If it's legal then so be it. I happen to think that corporations serve a useful purpose so I have no problem with them making a legal profit and legally reducing their tax liability, that is unless they have advocated raising taxes on anyone else.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/nswift/ge-cronies-cuddle-up-to-tax-code Here is how it works for some companies...

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/nswift/ge-cronies-cuddle-up-to-tax-code Here is how it works for some companies...

 

GE is one of the Dems and Obama's big contributors.

I don't understand how you have zero liability and pay your CEO MILLIONS in BONUSES, not salary, but BONUSES?

 

Don't the CEOs still have to pay taxes on the income?

 

You can have all of the purity tests you want, that is fine with me, and call me a hypocrite all you want, all I know is that I paid taxes, I didn't have a zero liability and I didn't pay my wife millions in bonuses. She is the COO of the house, and the CEO and CFO - she is pretty much THE CHIEF. But I digress. I wasn't saying, if you actually read my posts, that it was bad. My point was, just because the % says our tax rates are the highest doesn't mean that corporations pay more here. It is not a straight up tax. I believe the article even points out that some companies do have tax liabilities in other countries and don't here so it really doesn't matter that our rate is higher I think what matters is what you actually have to pay.

 

She would have to also pay taxes on the income as well as self employment tax. So basically she'd have to pay double taxes.

 

If the tax liability in the other country is 7%, you're not as concerned about getting to zero liability.

 

Also, even if a company does achieve zero liability. They still pay taxes. Every dollar of payroll taxes, FICA tax, medicare tax, state and local taxes are matched by the company. There are countless other taxes and government fees they get to pay.

 

Last, why do you care what the CEO makes as long as he pays his taxes?

Don't the CEOs still have to pay taxes on the income?

 

 

 

She would have to also pay taxes on the income as well as self employment tax. So basically she'd have to pay double taxes.

 

If the tax liability in the other country is 7%, you're not as concerned about getting to zero liability.

 

Also, even if a company does achieve zero liability. They still pay taxes. Every dollar of payroll taxes, FICA tax, medicare tax, state and local taxes are matched by the company. There are countless other taxes and government fees they get to pay.

 

Last, why do you care what the CEO makes as long as he pays his taxes?

 

I am not concerned with what the CEO makes, but if the CEO is making BONUSES, I am not talking about salary, then the company is making profits, and if the company is making profits they should pay taxes. You want to really want to reduce the debt and deficit . . . make everyone pay a fair share, but the MAIN POINT is that people get on here and complain about our corporate tax rate, yet for many of the biggest corporation, it is in effect zero.

I am not concerned with what the CEO makes, but if the CEO is making BONUSES, I am not talking about salary, then the company is making profits, and if the company is making profits they should pay taxes. You want to really want to reduce the debt and deficit . . . make everyone pay a fair share, but the MAIN POINT is that people get on here and complain about our corporate tax rate, yet for many of the biggest corporation, it is in effect zero.

Fair share. The libs love that "phrase". Sorry, but this countries debt and deficit is not due to lack of taxation, peroid.

I am not concerned with what the CEO makes, but if the CEO is making BONUSES, I am not talking about salary, then the company is making profits, and if the company is making profits they should pay taxes. You want to really want to reduce the debt and deficit . . . make everyone pay a fair share, but the MAIN POINT is that people get on here and complain about our corporate tax rate, yet for many of the biggest corporation, it is in effect zero.

 

I agree. There are over 50% of people who filed 2009 tax returns that did not pay a dime in federal income tax. You hit the nail on the head here, make everyone pay a fair share.

I am not concerned with what the CEO makes, but if the CEO is making BONUSES, I am not talking about salary, then the company is making profits, and if the company is making profits they should pay taxes. You want to really want to reduce the debt and deficit . . . make everyone pay a fair share, but the MAIN POINT is that people get on here and complain about our corporate tax rate, yet for many of the biggest corporation, it is in effect zero.

 

So if a company has a loss of 1 billion in 2009 and their CEO takes them to a profit of $500 million the following year, earning big bonuses for this $1.5 billion turnaround; you don't want the company to be able to claim the prior year losses against the current income? If they do, you don't want the CEO to get a bonus?

 

You should want a corporate tax rate of zero if you care about the poor people or the unemployed.

 

What is a fair share? Are the individuals paying no income tax paying their fair share? How far does your proposal go?

I am not concerned with what the CEO makes, but if the CEO is making BONUSES, I am not talking about salary, then the company is making profits, and if the company is making profits they should pay taxes. You want to really want to reduce the debt and deficit . . . make everyone pay a fair share, but the MAIN POINT is that people get on here and complain about our corporate tax rate, yet for many of the biggest corporation, it is in effect zero.

 

Sorry Ace, your argument makes zero sense. The current top rate for corporations is 35% (with an exception for income levels between approx 15 and 18 million which is taxed at 38%). The top tax rate for individuals is 35%.

 

Whether its "salary", "bonuses" or whatever you want to call it, the corp will be entitled to the deduction for compensation paid, and the recipient will be required to report the income as it will be reflected in the W-2. At a taxable income level of $373,650 in 2010, a couple who files jointly will be in the 35% tax bracket. Thus, if a corporation is paying millions of dollars in "bonuses" to its CEO, CFO, COO, etc and reducing it tax liability by doing so, the recipient is ultimately going to hit the top personal tax rate of 35%. It would be an obvious case of double taxation to disallow deductions for the corporation while the individual is paying taxes on the income.

 

Given your past history of posting in P&R, you may be comforted by the fact that double taxation does in fact still exist when it comes to the payment of dividends to shareholders in C Corporations (not the case for shareholders in S Corporations thank goodness). Although changes have been made in the tax code that reduces the impact of double taxation for dividends paid by C Corps, double taxation does in fact still exist because dividends paid by C corps are NOT deductible by the corporations paying them BUT they are taxable to recipients (who have taxable income exceeding the 15% effective income tax bracket) up to a rate of 15% as long as the dividends are deemed to be "qualifying dividends" which means they are paid from the earnings of the corporation and not from other sources. If the dividends are not qualifying dividends, then they are taxed as ordinary income up to the max rate of 35%.

 

The following example is an extreme example, but it proves a point. Let's assume a corporation has profits that place it in the 35% tax bracket. In this example, the corporation pays $1,000,000 in qualifying dividends to individuals, all of which have levels of income that place them above the 15% tax bracket. As stated earlier, dividends are NOT deductible by C corporations. Thus, in this example, the Corp will have paid $350,000 on the income used to pay the dividends. The recipients of these qualifying dividends will be subject to a rate of 15% which amounts to $150,000. Thus, the $1,000,000 has been taxed by the federal government in the amount of $500,000. This example doesn't even include state tax consequences which potentially pushes the effective tax rate well above 50%.

One of the biggest - if not the single biggest - reason this country has such a high corporate tax rate, yet still generates less overall corporate taxes than other countries is due to the very high percentage of businesses that are structured as "pass-through" tax entities. There are a number of ways that a business/corporation can structure themselves so as not to pay any federal taxes - i.e., S Corps, Partnerships, LLC's, etc... In these instances, income is only taxed when it passes through to the individual returns of the owners and investors. The key to increasing revenue generated from corporate taxation in the U.S. is not to increase the already-high rate, but to broaden the corporate tax base by eliminating most/all of the tax structures that don't require businesses to pay any corporate taxes. I believe I saw a stat somewhere that stated that almost 50% of the business income generated in the U.S. is by corporations that pay no federal income tax because they are structured as one of the available "pass-through" entities.

One of the biggest - if not the single biggest - reason this country has such a high corporate tax rate, yet still generates less overall corporate taxes than other countries is due to the very high percentage of businesses that are structured as "pass-through" tax entities. There are a number of ways that a business/corporation can structure themselves so as not to pay any federal taxes - i.e., S Corps, Partnerships, LLC's, etc... In these instances, income is only taxed when it passes through to the individual returns of the owners and investors. The key to increasing revenue generated from corporate taxation in the U.S. is not to increase the already-high rate, but to broaden the corporate tax base by eliminating most/all of the tax structures that don't require businesses to pay any corporate taxes. I believe I saw a stat somewhere that stated that almost 50% of the business income generated in the U.S. is by corporations that pay no federal income tax because they are structured as one of the available "pass-through" entities.

 

So any individual who recieves money as either income or profit pays taxes on that money?

 

But if the money is kept in the company's coffers, for what ever reason, like keep a store to protect against a bad couple of years, it is not taxed?

Fair share. The libs love that "phrase". Sorry, but this countries debt and deficit is not due to lack of taxation, peroid.

 

Agree. Overspending is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more of a problem. We're definitely not undertaxed.

Agree. Overspending is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more of a problem. We're definitely not undertaxed.

 

What do we overspend on?