Corporate Taxation Tied to Burden

[NaughtyGeek]

Rather than go into some long diatribe, I'll make it short and sweet. Should a corporation's tax rate be increased by the tax burden its employment base creates?

Example, McDonald's earned $5.586B USD for 2013. It's employees cost taxpayers 1.2B in public assistance. Should McDonald's tax on its profits be increased by the $1.2B its employees cost the system?

 

[werepossum]

We'd have to start taxing Congresscritters at 1000%.

 

[BoberFett]

Define burden.

Most taxpayers are net takers, rather than net payers.

 

[Fern]

Somehow (illegal or otherwise) immigrants making minimum wage are huge boon to our economy but native born citizens aren't?

---------------------

I suspect companies would simply refuse to hire workers who claim such benefits. This would be a problem particularly for single moms looking for a job since many social benefits are based on the number of kids you have.

Fern

 

[Cozarkian]

Rather than go into some long diatribe, I'll make it short and sweet. Should a corporation's tax rate be increased by the tax burden its employment base creates?

Example, McDonald's earned $5.586B USD for 2013. It's employees cost taxpayers 1.2B in public assistance. Should McDonald's tax on its profits be increased by the $1.2B its employees cost the system?

No. By offering a part-time job to an unmarried single parent with a disability that prevents full-time employment, a company like McDonald's reduces the tax burden that person imposes on society. McDonald's shouldn't be punished for that decision by requiring it to assume the remainder of that employee's tax burden.

Note: These are true factual circumstances of someone I know, except for a different fast food chain.

Even if certain types of discrimination in hiring are illegal, that doesn't mean you should create a law that gives financial incentives if you successfully discriminate without getting caught.

 

[Zaap]

Somehow (illegal or otherwise) immigrants making minimum wage are huge boon to our economy but native born citizens aren't?

It is funny how that flips around 180 degrees depending on the rhetoric innvolving legal citizens or illegal.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Corporate taxes should be eliminated altogether as should corporations themselves.

 

[MongGrel]

Not even going to give my headache and get started on this one.

Why a Corporation that makes Billions even gets tax dodges to unload other things in general beyond me.

Corporations are people my Ass.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No. By offering a part-time job to an unmarried single parent with a disability that prevents full-time employment, a company like McDonald's reduces the tax burden that person imposes on society. McDonald's shouldn't be punished for that decision by requiring it to assume the remainder of that employee's tax burden.

Note: These are true factual circumstances of someone I know, except for a different fast food chain.

Even if certain types of discrimination in hiring are illegal, that doesn't mean you should create a law that gives financial incentives if you successfully discriminate without getting caught.

OP I'll agree its an original thought but the above applies. When money is involved any party is going to grab any benefit it can. Lets assume the true cost of employment can be tracked accurately (which would be next to impossible to do for every employer) it will only cause employers to tighten credit checks and background checks to eliminate as many candidates that live in poverty as possible.
A better idea would be have an additional medicare/soc security fee based upon the median salary. The lower the median the higher the penalty. However I doubt this would work either to be honest.
The solution to everything is simply get more people working and wages will rise. This shouldn't be a Dem or Rep issue its a US issue and far too many of our leaders want quick talking points or want to prevent the other party from being successful. We all need to reevaluate whom we vote for, how districts are drawn and hold elected officials to specific commitments they make or insist they speak in definite quantifiable terms.

 

[nehalem256]

Rather than go into some long diatribe, I'll make it short and sweet. Should a corporation's tax rate be increased by the tax burden its employment base creates?

Example, McDonald's earned $5.586B USD for 2013. It's employees cost taxpayers 1.2B in public assistance. Should McDonald's tax on its profits be increased by the $1.2B its employees cost the system?

Paying people wages pretty much by definition reduces their burden on the tax payer.

 

[sandorski]

Raising the Minimum Wage is a more practical solution.

 

[nehalem256]

Maybe we should have a special tax on women to pay for the burden of their reproductive rights?

 

[PokerGuy]

OP's idea is just plain stupidity born from the usual talking points of the lefties.

The employer has nothing to do with what kind of a "burden" an employee creates for the state, nor does the employer have any control over that. The employer is simply engaging in a transaction with an individual -- the individual provides a service, the employer compensates the individual at a mutually agreed upon rate.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

So, if an employee of WalMart, McDonald's etc qualifies for 100% public assistance based on the wage they are paid, how is their burden reduced by the employment? Are we not in fact subsidizing the labor pool for those employers?

 

[nehalem256]

So, if an employee of WalMart, McDonald's etc qualifies for 100% public assistance based on the wage they are paid, how is their burden reduced by the employment? Are we not in fact subsidizing the labor pool for those employers?

Pretty sure it is exceedingly unlikely that an employee working at Walmart full-time is going to qualify for 100% of public assistance.

Now perhaps if they have 2 or 3 bastard children...

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe we should have a special tax on women to pay for the burden of their reproductive rights?

Maybe you can introduce depraved misogyny into any discussion, huh?

 

[Jhhnn]

OP's idea is just plain stupidity born from the usual talking points of the lefties.

The employer has nothing to do with what kind of a "burden" an employee creates for the state, nor does the employer have any control over that. The employer is simply engaging in a transaction with an individual -- the individual provides a service, the employer compensates the individual at a mutually agreed upon rate.

Which was obviously true for serfs in the middle ages, as well, huh?

Perhaps you're rather intentionally overlooking the power differentials involved in modern corporate employment. Most Americans aren't Rich- they can't live off their investments, so they have to work. For the vast majority, that means working for somebody else, simply because they have no capital. In that, employers call the tune, particularly when un and under employment are rampant.

Simple facts, really, other than to those who prefer the fantasy of astroturfed Libertopian ideology.

 

[TerryMathews]

The problem with this line of thinking is that eligibility for assistance scales with the number of dependents.

FT $7.50/hr is $15600/ year. I'm not going to look up the figures but let's say for the sake of argument that he's a few dollars over the assistance threshold.

Why is McDonald's responsible for the employee deciding to have kids? And if we are going to tax McD on that basis shouldn't they have the legal right to control that tax by reducing their liability (only hiring employees with no kids, firing those that have kids)? Currently, that's highly illegal.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

The problem with this line of thinking is that eligibility for assistance scales with the number of dependents.

FT $7.50/hr is $15600/ year. I'm not going to look up the figures but let's say for the sake of argument that he's a few dollars over the assistance threshold.

Why is McDonald's responsible for the employee deciding to have kids? And if we are going to tax McD on that basis shouldn't they have the legal right to control that tax by reducing their liability (only hiring employees with no kids, firing those that have kids)? Currently, that's highly illegal.

I would contend that if they were in fact allowed to discriminate in such a manner, their available labor pool would drop significantly enough that they would be forced to compete for the remaining labor pool thereby negating the advantages of hiring people without kids. 58% of their current labor pool receives public assistance, you can't eliminate that many workers without spiking a demand.

 

[JesseKnows]

To take the next step for NaughtyGeek: "spiking the demand" means the employer would need to increase wages. Or choose to pay the additional tax instead.

 

[soulcougher73]

Easier to just not support people that can't take of themselves and let them die off, less people is a good thing

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem with this line of thinking is that eligibility for assistance scales with the number of dependents.

FT $7.50/hr is $15600/ year. I'm not going to look up the figures but let's say for the sake of argument that he's a few dollars over the assistance threshold.

Why is McDonald's responsible for the employee deciding to have kids? And if we are going to tax McD on that basis shouldn't they have the legal right to control that tax by reducing their liability (only hiring employees with no kids, firing those that have kids)? Currently, that's highly illegal.

So, the new Right Libertopian slogan will be...

Starve the children!

But be sure to think of them, of course.

 

[mrjminer]

Interesting idea, but no. Instead, there should be more restrictions on those able to apply for, basically, free money -- and other means, preferably those that won't give more power and increase the expenditures of the IRS significantly, should be used to accommodate the corporation vs. employee balance. Such as minimum wage which is regularly increased with inflation.

 

[nehalem256]

So, the new Right Libertopian slogan will be...

Starve the children!

But be sure to think of them, of course.

The obvious solution is a tax on women for the burden of their reproductive rights.

We tax corporations for the burden they create (not paying enough to feed their employees)

And we tax women for the burden of their reproductive rights(ie the bastard children they can't feed).

Everyone pays for their burdens and no children starve exactly what lefties are claiming they want. :thumbsup:

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Interesting idea, but no. Instead, there should be more restrictions on those able to apply for, basically, free money -- and other means, preferably those that won't give more power and increase the expenditures of the IRS significantly, should be used to accommodate the corporation vs. employee balance. Such as minimum wage which is regularly increased with inflation.

If you increase minimum wage then you are punishing all business rather than those that are creating a public burden.