Guess the rate of Ind/Corp taxes paid

[RightIsWrong]

I was thinking of putting a poll up but it would just be made moot by the google.

Anywho...I was looking around and researching something for the "ZOMG! Obama is gonna bankrupt the corporations!" and found a disturbing factoid.

How many on here realize that individuals paid a 7.3% to corporations' 1.2% as a percentage of GDP in 2003? That is more than 5x the amount! In fairness, in 2006 it "dropped" to individuals paying 8% of GDP in taxes and the corps paying 2.7%. Still a pretty big discrepancy when you consider where the real money lies IMO.

The sad part is that is only income taxes. It doesn't say anything about SS taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. and the CBO director says that the increase from 2003 to 2006 is "disproportionately accounted for by increases in corporate tax revenues"

Source: CBO Director's letter to the Senate's Committee on the Budget Committee chairman.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I was thinking of putting a poll up but it would just be made moot by the google.

Anywho...I was looking around and researching something for the "ZOMG! Obama is gonna bankrupt the corporations!" and found a disturbing factoid.

How many on here realize that individuals paid a 7.3% to corporations' 1.2% as a percentage of GDP in 2003? That is more than 5x the amount! In fairness, in 2006 it "dropped" to individuals paying 8% of GDP in taxes and the corps paying 2.7%. Still a pretty big discrepancy when you consider where the real money lies IMO.

The sad part is that is only income taxes. It doesn't say anything about SS taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. and the CBO director says that the increase from 2003 to 2006 is "disproportionately accounted for by increases in corporate tax revenues"

Source: CBO Director's letter to the Senate's Committee on the Budget Committee chairman.

Two notes:

- It helps fill in the picture to note how our society and middle class thrived 50 years ago when the ratios were reversed.

- The right likes to argue its ideological claim that there's no point to taxing business at all, because the taxes are simply passed along and you pay either way.

Of course, that's nonsense, as while it has a degree of truth, businesses can't simply pass along 100% of the burden. It can spur increases in efficiency, reduce very high profits, etc.

I wonder why you never hear the other side of that argument, why not tax only businesses, because the extra money given to taxpayers will spur the economy?

The sad thing is that this topic rarely sees any factual basis, but only the emotional and parroted views of the right for the most part.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234


The sad thing is that this topic rarely sees any factual basis, but only the emotional and parroted views of the right ...

... and the emotional and parroted view of the left...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234


The sad thing is that this topic rarely sees any factual basis, but only the emotional and parroted views of the right ...

... and the emotional and parroted view of the left...

The left isn't generally expert on the topic, but I far more often see them make restrained comments as a result, not 'emotional and parroted views'.

I had actually planned to write that comment in general about all sides in the discussion, but couldn't defend the inclusion of the left equally with the right based on the comments I see.

Regardless, the more important issue than the partisan one is the lack of any solid basis for the discussion on the topic, preventing the forming of a good policy.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Who owns the business - people.

Taxing the business decreases profits to share and be taxed on as personal income..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234


The sad thing is that this topic rarely sees any factual basis, but only the emotional and parroted views of the right ...

... and the emotional and parroted view of the left...

The left isn't generally expert on the topic, but I far more often see them make restrained comments as a result, not 'emotional and parroted views'.

I had actually planned to write that comment in general about all sides in the discussion, but couldn't defend the inclusion of the left equally with the right based on the comments I see.

Regardless, the more important issue than the partisan one is the lack of any solid basis for the discussion on the topic, preventing the forming of a good policy.

Sure. We hear emotional BS all the time from the left. What do you think "windfall taxes" are? Nothing but a heart string(wallet string) emotional ploy.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Who owns the business - people.

Taxing the business decreases profits to share and be taxed on as personal income..

The whole point of a corporation is to shield individuals within the company from liability by making the corporation itself a legal entity. This entity enjoys all the rights of a person so it should be treated just like person and should be taxed the same way a person would.. no more, and no less.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Sure. We hear emotional BS all the time from the left. What do you think "windfall taxes" are? Nothing but a heart string(wallet string) emotional ploy.

Whereas from the right we hear such emotionally loaded BS as "death tax," "punishing success," "class warfare," "tax burden," etc., ad nauseum.

 

[ElFenix]

corporations are merely a nexus of contracts so saying that they pay anything is just legal smoke.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Who owns the business - people.

Taxing the business decreases profits to share and be taxed on as personal income..

Yep. Corporate income (i.e., profit) taxes have much the same impact as capital gains taxes. They primarily affect investment income instead of earned income. Taxing investment income does affect a broad range of the middle class -- a little -- but affects the very wealthy a lot.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Who owns the business - people.

Taxing the business decreases profits to share and be taxed on as personal income..

The whole point of a corporation is to shield individuals within the company from liability by making the corporation itself a legal entity. This entity enjoys all the rights of a person so it should be treated just like person and should be taxed the same way a person would.. no more, and no less.

thats only partially true. Incorporating also gives the business an opportunity for a higher influx of cash due to shareholder's participation.

 

[hellod9]

here's how corporate taxation works in the real world:

--a state wants to attract more businesses, so they offer 'incentives' for businesses to move there
--those incentives usually come in the form of a 'tax-waiver'
--the business moves in, and pays no taxes for a number of years
--ideally, they eventually become good 'tax-paying' members of their new state...but all too often, once the tax incentives are gone, they pick up and leave...as is the case of DHL in Wilmington, Ohio

REAL economic development requires building a culture that spawns new businesses...instead of one that attracts businesses looking to take advantage of a 'good deal.' Unfortunately, most government economic policy is focused on the issue of taxes...especially policies from Republicans. Democrats, on the other hand, are much more open to investing in society, and thus in the long term future of the economy.

It is no accident that cities/regions with thriving 21st century economies are often much more liberal than usual. Think Silicon Valley/San-Francisco, Seattle/Biotech, the North Carolina Research Triangle, etc...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Who owns the business - people.

Taxing the business decreases profits to share and be taxed on as personal income..

Yep. Corporate income (i.e., profit) taxes have much the same impact as capital gains taxes. They primarily affect investment income instead of earned income. Taxing investment income does affect a broad range of the middle class -- a little -- but affects the very wealthy a lot.

not quite right. corporate taxes in part fall on shareholders, that is true, but it also in part falls on consumers and workers. consumers because some corporations will exit the market, contracting supply and driving up prices, and laborers because with less goods to make less workers are needed. the latest studies seem to indicate that laborers actually bear the largest part of the economic burden.



corporate taxes also favor debt financing over equity financing, and therefore general purpose assets over specialized assets and established corporations over startups.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yep. Corporate income (i.e., profit) taxes have much the same impact as capital gains taxes. They primarily affect investment income instead of earned income. Taxing investment income does affect a broad range of the middle class -- a little -- but affects the very wealthy a lot.

not quite right. corporate taxes in part fall on shareholders, that is true, but it also in part falls on consumers and workers. consumers because some corporations will exit the market, contracting supply and driving up prices, and laborers because with less goods to make less workers are needed. the latest studies seem to indicate that laborers actually bear the largest part of the economic burden. ...

Any chance you can provide data to back that up? Frankly, I don't buy it, at least to any significant extent. While it may be a material factor for excessive taxes on goods or property, I don't believe corporate profit (i.e., income) taxes have the same side effects. Either a business is profitable or it isn't, regardless of the tax rate then applied to that profit.

 

[EagleKeeper]

A business may choose to not operate if the owners feel that there is not enough profit to warrent investment.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Who owns the business - people.

Taxing the business decreases profits to share and be taxed on as personal income..

Both completely false.

A handful of Rich CEO's != people.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
A business may choose to not operate if the owners feel that there is not enough profit to warrent investment.

Good, they are free to leave this country.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Sure. We hear emotional BS all the time from the left. What do you think "windfall taxes" are? Nothing but a heart string(wallet string) emotional ploy.

Whereas from the right we hear such emotionally loaded BS as "death tax," "punishing success," "class warfare," "tax burden," etc., ad nauseum.

I didn't say they didn't use it at times. I was responding to the post that ONLY mentioned the "right".

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
A business may choose to not operate if the owners feel that there is not enough profit to warrent investment.

Good, they are free to leave this country.

Yet you closed down your business because there was not enough profit to cover your required investment.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Sure. We hear emotional BS all the time from the left. What do you think "windfall taxes" are? Nothing but a heart string(wallet string) emotional ploy.

Whereas from the right we hear such emotionally loaded BS as "death tax," "punishing success," "class warfare," "tax burden," etc., ad nauseum.

I didn't say they didn't use it at times. I was responding to the post that ONLY mentioned the "right".

I'm not planning a big debate on this small issue; as I said:

Regardless, the more important issue than the partisan one is the lack of any solid basis for the discussion on the topic, preventing the forming of a good policy.

However, I think you meant windfall profits, and I don't think they are an example of the same thing. Windfall profits are a real phenomenon, whatever you think of them.

Sure, there's an element that it can get an emotional reaction, but if you use that standard, reasonable phrases like 'big government' and 'boondoggle' would be fair game too.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I was thinking of putting a poll up but it would just be made moot by the google.

Anywho...I was looking around and researching something for the "ZOMG! Obama is gonna bankrupt the corporations!" and found a disturbing factoid.

How many on here realize that individuals paid a 7.3% to corporations' 1.2% as a percentage of GDP in 2003? That is more than 5x the amount! In fairness, in 2006 it "dropped" to individuals paying 8% of GDP in taxes and the corps paying 2.7%. Still a pretty big discrepancy when you consider where the real money lies IMO.

The sad part is that is only income taxes. It doesn't say anything about SS taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. and the CBO director says that the increase from 2003 to 2006 is "disproportionately accounted for by increases in corporate tax revenues"

Source: CBO Director's letter to the Senate's Committee on the Budget Committee chairman.

I'm not sure what this proves - corporate income taxes are paid on profits, so its somewhat axiomatic that the federal government receives more when business is good and vice versa. A lot of corporations lost money in 2003 and therefore paid no income tax. A lot of companies made bank in 2006 and paid a lot more in income tax.

 

[Mail5398]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I was thinking of putting a poll up but it would just be made moot by the google.

Anywho...I was looking around and researching something for the "ZOMG! Obama is gonna bankrupt the corporations!" and found a disturbing factoid.

How many on here realize that individuals paid a 7.3% to corporations' 1.2% as a percentage of GDP in 2003? That is more than 5x the amount! In fairness, in 2006 it "dropped" to individuals paying 8% of GDP in taxes and the corps paying 2.7%. Still a pretty big discrepancy when you consider where the real money lies IMO.

The sad part is that is only income taxes. It doesn't say anything about SS taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. and the CBO director says that the increase from 2003 to 2006 is "disproportionately accounted for by increases in corporate tax revenues"

Source: CBO Director's letter to the Senate's Committee on the Budget Committee chairman.

I hope to God that you did not go to college. The only way someone can be so ignorant of how taxation works is to grow up under a rock. If all you care about is taking from the rich then tax the rich. Taxing corporations will hurt the consumers, workers, and investors (401K anyone) more than hurting the rich, which is who I think you really want to get.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Mail5398
I hope to God that you did not go to college. The only way someone can be so ignorant of how taxation works is to grow up under a rock. If all you care about is taking from the rich then tax the rich. Taxing corporations will hurt the consumers, workers, and investors (401K anyone) more than hurting the rich, which is who I think you really want to get.

You didn't read any of the thread did you? Your alarmist assertions have already been addressed. Care to address the points raised in those posts instead of merely repeating dogma?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Mail5398
I hope to God that you did not go to college. The only way someone can be so ignorant of how taxation works is to grow up under a rock. If all you care about is taking from the rich then tax the rich. Taxing corporations will hurt the consumers, workers, and investors (401K anyone) more than hurting the rich, which is who I think you really want to get.

You didn't read any of the thread did you? Your alarmist assertions have already been addressed. Care to address the points raised in those posts instead of merely repeating dogma?

Well said, and thanks for saving me writing it Funny enough, his dogma was not only addressed, but predicted and answered before he said it.

I guess the economy in the 40's/50's/60's was a disaster compared to today, since the corporate share was far higher.

 

[daishi5]

This is an interesting quote

In the other direction, higher realizations of capital gains (including any effects associated with legislated reductions in tax rates) added 0.3 percentage points to the ratio of individual income tax revenues to GDP.

Does this actually say that reducing the tax rate on capital gains increased the tax revenue on capital gains? I have heard the laffer curve thrown about in a few of my macro-econ classes, but I would be amazed if I actually saw a real life application of it. Of course it is late, I may just need sleep.

Could someone help me find links to relevant data and the changes in the taxes?