1151
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 262 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Republicans love to harken back to “the golden age” of america. Ever wonder what paid for it? A big portion was .. corporate tax!

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-corporate-tax-rates-brackets/

Corporate tax is currently at the lowest point since 1940

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/corporate-tax-rate

See this big drop in corporate tax? You thank ol’ trumpy for that

Along with personal income tax - Note this is the top bracket of tax

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IITTRHB

Want your golden age back? Tax these fucking billionaire grifters.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 95 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Another thing that raising the corporate tax rate does is make it more profitable to re-invest your income into the company. Since they're only taxed on profits they'll pay zero taxes if they make zero profit. How do you do that? Expanding your business, spending money on R&D, and paying your employees more.

Edit: Haha, just kidding, they'll blow it on stock buybacks.

[-] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 40 points 2 months ago

Ideally, yes - but until share buybacks are outlawed - companies will just ‘reinvest’ by buying up shares (increasing their price, and thereby existing shareholder wealth), and issuing them as bonuses to their C-suite in lieu of payment.. by-and-large avoiding a lot of the income tax that they would otherwise be due to be paid.

Our current late-stage capitalist corporate system is built upon layers and layers of tax-avoidance and self-enrichment at the cost of society as a whole.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 140 points 2 months ago

Fucking insane that 28% is a tax hike.

[-] drbluefall@toast.ooo 57 points 2 months ago

Should be no less than 90%, like it used to be.

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You have to bear in mind that the "like it used to be" part operated when digital card payments were not a thing. A customer would give you cash, and maybe you would write it down in your taxes, but there was no digital indicator of what actually happened.

Small business owners got to stay afloat by swindling the government, and this was the normal way for centuries.

I'm not saying it's right, just that the high business tax of the past wasn't as effective as you think it was, and will hit extremely differently this time around in the digital era.

[-] x00z@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago

The best thing to have is a variable tax rate that goes up the more profit is made.

That's how it is in my country.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Ritsu@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The top marginal corporate tax rate never exceeded 52.9%. This is conflating the corporate tax rate with the individual income tax rate. The marginal rate was raised above 80% during the Great Depression, and it was raised above 90% in the 1940’s.

In the 1950’s, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but people were allowed to avoid income tax by funneling income through corporate tax shelters, leaving a top effective tax rate that wasn’t much higher than it is today (the exact number is hard to calculate). Not only that, but the tax burden has also shifted dramatically since the 1950’s. In Eisenhower’s day, those earning more than $100,000 per year shouldered around 20% of the tax burden. Today, the equivalent economic class shoulders over ~~80%~~ 40% of the tax burden.

Heres another flaw: when tax rates were 90%, the tax code also provided for tons of deductions that no longer exist. It also treated income from many sources as not being subject to tax, such as income derived from trusts or investments held in trusts. Imagine Bill Gates placing his Microsoft stock into a trust and only paying tax on the money he takes as a salary from his Foundation or from speaking fees. Sure, his “tax rate” might hit 90%, but the vast majority of his income would escape taxation. Such was the tax code under Eisenhower. You can’t just compare tax rates without also accounting for the rest of the tax laws including credits, deductions, exclusions, and definitions of taxable income.

So, no, corporate tax rates were literally never 90%.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 139 points 2 months ago

Awwww.... Raise it above the old 35% tax rate at least.

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 56 points 2 months ago

It's still a start, and something more likely to get though congress

[-] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 53 points 2 months ago

49% is golden. But 28% is a start.

[-] The_v@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

Staggered based upon gross income just like personal taxes.

Tiny businesses 5% Small businesses 25% Mid sized companies 50%. Mega-corporations wth billions - 95%

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago

One problem with that is that companies could create a ton of subsidiaries or shell companies and move money around in funny ways to keep all of them at the lowest bracket

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Xyre@lemmus.org 23 points 2 months ago

And index it against inflation. 😉

[-] ours@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

No better: to the cost of living index. That way if they pump prices up like they have in the last few years, they choke themselves with their own rope.

[-] Anissem@lemmy.ml 103 points 2 months ago

God I can’t wait until US news headlines aren’t tainted with the name Trump. I’m so tired of it all.

[-] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 39 points 2 months ago

There is one headline with his name that I can't fucking wait to see.

[-] Fuzzy_Red_Panda@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago

Yeah me too but then the guy missed.

...Oh wait, you mean the other headline.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

There’ll always be someone else. But we may have a bit of silence when Trump is gone.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 63 points 2 months ago

The amazing economy that these MAGA people dream of getting back to can be largely attributed to two things. The first is lots of manufacturing, which the CHIPS Act is a step in the right direction towards, but is impossible to ever really get back to ever since Nixon opened the door to China as a trade and manufacturing superpower in the 70s, and companies decided to lower costs by sending manufacturing over there. The second is a MUCH higher business tax rate. At one point, it was 91%. I'm not saying that that's the correct rate in the modern economy, but 28% ain't shit. Raise it to 40% at least, and then use that additional revenue to get everyday Americans' heads above water.

I'm an extremely lucky 35-year-old American white guy, married with no kids or pets, denied ourselves several comforts and luxuries, and I'm still just now at a point where I'm trying to buy my first home. I have almost every advantage possible, and I'm still over ten years behind my parents' generation. That shit ain't right. Help us, the people.

[-] Evrala@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago

The higher the corporate tax rates the more the companies reinvest into the company to keep profit margins down which causes the economy to flourish rather than funneling as much cash as possible to shareholders.

Companies generally would rather pay their own workers more than pay more in taxes. If you're going to lose the money anyway, might as well spend it keeping your workforce happy than give it to the government.

[-] MrVilliam@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

You might be right, but what's silly is that you think companies wouldn't do everything in their power to not reduce pay to both workers and the government at the same time. And they do. In fact, they lobby endlessly to lower their taxes as well as keep wages low, loosen regulations, dismantle the power of unions, roll back labor rights, and take away voting power of the people who would vote against their interests. You need to understand that the entire motivation of these companies is to maximize profit at all costs. "If you're going to lose the money anyway" is not something they have ever or will ever accept. That's like assuming that you accept that you will never eat another scrap of food ever again. Your survival depends upon it, and when access to it is threatened, you will lie and cheat and steal as much as is necessary to ensure your survival.

If the government taxed businesses at a higher rate and used that increased revenue to improve the quality of life and access to opportunities for all, I'd say that that's a much better use of that money. We've tried taxing businesses less in hopes of having anything other than piss trickle down to the workers. That's how we got here. Productivity has boomed, yet wages have stagnated and people are struggling to get by. It's time to stop propagating broken bullshit-ass Reaganomics and start advocating for your fellow human to be able to afford access to the bare minimum of food, shelter, and medical care. The GDP of the US is over $25 TRILLION. So why in the blue fuck are people still freezing and starving to death in this country? Unacceptable.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago

Does it really matter what the rate is when they don't pay it anyway?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/13/companies-spend-more-executive-salaries-than-taxes/72941207007/

"The analysis names 35 corporations, including Tesla, Netflix and Ford, that each reportedly spent more on compensation to their five highest-paid executives than they paid in federal income taxes over five years.

Collectively, the 35 corporations spent $9.5 billion on their top executives over that span, the report said, while their combined federal tax bill came to -$1.8 billion: a collective refund."

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Imagine if the law was no more can be spent in corporate executive compensation than the company pays in taxes. Idk if that's a good idea for small corporations, but it's a jumping off point.

[-] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 10 points 2 months ago

We could set it so that companies whose CEO's net worth is less than a half mil are exempt

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] scarabine@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 2 months ago

I gotta tell ya, “is planning on increasing corporate taxes” seems like the right direction to me. So, yes.

[-] Soup@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Yes, there’s more to be done, obviously.

For someone who clearly knows how fucked the issue is that wording seems almost distracting from the road that will get us to a solution. It’s a good thing, let it happen.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

I feel like I pay that now as a peon.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

The GOP wants to take America back to when it was “great,” as long as “great” ignores when the rich and companies paid their fair share for infrastructure, schools, etc.

God forbid we actually decided to pay for those things again and stopped letting the country rot.

Shocker, things go to shit when you don’t pay for them and or sell them off to private companies. Looking at you, Starliner capsule.

[-] LordCrom@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

Fuck...I pay that , and more on bonuses I receive.

Let them pay more.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 13 points 2 months ago

This is SO BAD for the Economy! All those Job Creators laying off Tens of Thousands of Workers will MOVE! We need to Tax the HOMELESS instead! I'm Fiscally Responsible Republican!

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

I'm game for over 50% really

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago
[-] dutchkimble@lemy.lol 17 points 2 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

If corporations were being honest, they'd acknowledge that's a bargain.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 2 months ago

Talk about taxing private citizens who have more money than some nations.

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 months ago

Pre-80s tax rate for the wealthy was 70%.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 2 months ago

That needs to be restored.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
1151 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19159 readers
4476 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS