Skip to main content

View Diary: Eliminate corporate tax, seriously (422 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sadly, Reich doesn't offer (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wayoutinthestix, shaharazade, hester

    much analysis to support his plan.  For example, why is this preferred to simply closing the loopholes that yield the negative result of small companies paying more than their larger brethren?  It seems a rather facile approach.

    How would this plan affect pensions?  It appears that a greater tax burden would be placed on middle and working class persons who participate in pension plans.  And what of those with IRAs, etc.?  Wouldn't they also have a greater tax burden, thereby whittling down their accounts?  This smacks of a regressive tax, which no progressive or liberal should ever laud.  

    I also do not see how such a revision would result in an influx of capital in the US.  Is there evidence to support the position that companies are not investing capital in the US solely because of corporate tax consequences as opposed to costs attendant to labor (wages, workplace laws) and regulatory obligations?    

    Furthermore, one of the benefits of corporate taxation is ease of enforcement.  If corporate taxes are essentially shifted to individuals, we'd require greater enforcement to eliminate fraud, cheating, etc.  

    I really wish Reich would clarify his position to account for these issues.  

    •  IRAs are already exempt from capital gains (0+ / 0-)

      I don't know about pensions, but wouldn't be surprised if they also have some exemption.  So this would not be regressive at all.

      The people most affected by this would be folks who have more money than they are allowed to tuck away in an IRA (due to contribution limits per year).  Those would be the ones that would feel this tax.

      The capital gains portion of this would definitely be a very progressive way to tax investors.

      Still trying to figure it all out

      by CindyV on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 01:40:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm talking about the additional taxes (0+ / 0-)

        deriving from the trading activities of the funds, not taxation incurred upon vesting.  I realize this is not clear from my comment.  If the funds pay higher taxes for their activities, those costs are ultimately passed on to the beneficiaries.  In this case, we are not talking about the wealthy paying more, but everyone with any skin in the investment gain, which includes many working and middle class Americans.  

        •  As long as the fees are small enough (0+ / 0-)

          It seems this approach would still be somewhat progressive.  The capital gains portion wouldn't impact most smaller investors.  Also, if the majority of the money actively traded is from investors in the top 10% (which it seems it would be), then most of the fees would be paid by them.

          Yes, the retirement investors would also pay a portion that is significant. But their portion would be spread among a much larger number of people, so their individual costs would still be small.

          I wonder if this type of per transaction fee would also have the added benefit of slightly disincentivising faster turnover.  And that seems like something that would be good for business - less focus on making the quick buck and more on investing in solid companies to hold onto.

          Still trying to figure it all out

          by CindyV on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 02:55:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's still an additional tax (0+ / 0-)

            on those least able to afford it.  I don't accept the notion that it's only a small amount, no big deal.  This would constitute an additional tax on working Americans, who will not be able to use accounting to minimize their exposure.  Frankly, I don't see how such a plan could be endorsed by any true liberal or progressive.  Doing away with corporate taxes while increasing taxes on working Americans is simply not progressive.    

            •  So your view is "no new taxes" period (0+ / 0-)

              Guess you might want to consider being part of other organizations who have similar views like the Tea Party.

              Personally, I am not willing to draw such hard lines in the sand because I think the world never works with hard lines.  Especially in today's political climate, I think we need to be willing to take a little pain to get something worthwhile.

              This type of per transaction fee might be a way to slightly disincentivize the current trend of high volume trading which adds no real value to the economy.

              The fees would have a negligible impact on earnings for retirement investments.  And it seems there might be enough tax revenue to potentially include some offsets to those who can afford the extra fees the least.

              Still trying to figure it all out

              by CindyV on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 10:22:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Try reading the comment again (0+ / 0-)

                My view is:  no shifting tax burdens from corporations to average Americans.  Basic reading comprehension would make that clear.  I will add that there should be no new taxes on average Americans.  Additional taxes should come from the wealthy and corporations.  

                •  I read it the first time - not a reading issue (0+ / 0-)

                  Just still believe you are not being realistic - similar to the way the Tea Party makes hard rules and ignores reality.

                  Still trying to figure it all out

                  by CindyV on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 04:48:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site