This is the usual argument of conservatives. But let's be realistic, there must be a sweet spot which is the perfect balance where tax revenues is maximized.
I guess this sweet spot is not 0% (because then tax revenue would be 0) and not 100% (because then it would be 0 too).
So, where is the sweet spot? 10%? 15%? 25?
>>68098201
Depends on country and economic situation. But anyway 17% is ok.
>>68098201
It must be regulated according to the circumstances of the country
>>68098201
You are asking the latfer curve question, considering we have corperations all leaving I'd say it is likely too high a tax now. Its higher than most nations. Not to mention many regulations and other essentially "hidden fees".
>>68098767
Laffer*
>>68098767
But this can also be regulated with import tariffs to foreign corporations, so you can protect local ones
My whole life I've only seen tax funds being wasted on stupid projects or misguided ideals that only ended up hurting people, culture, and society at large. I'm not convinced that generating tax revenue is even a good idea. How about a -10% tax rate? The more you earn, the more the government sees that you are a productive member of society contributing GDP and rewards you. We need something to offset all the bullshit fees for licenses, regulations, procedures, and other mandatory losses that bleed you of capital you could otherwise spend/invest with wisely.
>>68098201
Yusra Mardini
>>68099125
>hurr duur gov can just print money!
Can someone explain to me what are corporate taxes?
How do they differ from normal taxes?
People seem to talk about corporate taxes as if they were something else entirely.
>>68098201
Who is this wiener cleaner
>>68104714
There are generally 3 types of taxes:
1. Income taxes
2. Corporate income taxes
3. VAT, sales taxes, excise taxes and other transaction based taxes
Corporate income taxes are shit because whatever people may say, corporations aren't people, they are abstract legal shells. They do not die at old age, they do not eat or sleep. As a result, it makes no sense to tax them. They are just a conduit to channel money to shareholders. It makes sense to use 1. and 3. to tax the shareholders, it makes 0 sense to use 2. to tax the shell.
>>68104808
>Who is this wiener cleaner
>>68100889
preemptive answer by the Burger
>>68098201
The goal of taxes isn't to gather the most amount of money from a tax base.
>>68098201
Any tax has an optimal % for maximum revenue. This number is not constant, and depends on nation internal factors, as well as external ones. The only sensible way to control your tax levels is to minimize it and state expenditures. If a state does not aim for a decent cost-effectiveness, it's bloated, and the tax is too high,
>>68105063
>As a result, it makes no sense to tax them.
By what logic?
They collect profit and the nation collects some of it to operate government functions.
>It makes sense to use 1. and 3. to tax the shareholders, it makes 0 sense to use 2. to tax the shell.
So a company passes no income to it's shareholders because maybe it's privately held and instead just collects more money and assets at some point you have a multi billion dollar entity consuming billions in government services without paying anything to support it. Leaving the whole tax burden on it's employees and other citizens.
Why should people pay to support a company by funding the support structure of government and society that the company just leeches from?
>>68098907
You want import tariffs to foreign corporations in your nation? Do you hate jobs, growth, and foreign investments?
>>68105181
To a socialist it is.
>>68098201
Its time based. Maximizes at infinitely close to zero after infinite time.
"Sweet spot" depends on government spending
>>68098201
100 %
>>68105441
>Do you hate jobs, growth, and foreign investments?
Why can expansion only come from outside sources?
The only use for outside investment that couldn't be supplied internally is to import goods, services, tech from outside the nation.
>>68105565
>Why can expansion only come from outside sources?
Never said that. Internal growth exists as well, why wouldn't?
The question is, why you would punish people making an investment in your country?
>>68105426
>They collect profit and the nation collects some of it to operate government functions.
The point is that this profit, to be useful to anyone, needs to be channeled to shareholders at which point it can be taxed. I see no reason at all to tax it when it just sits in the shell or is used for investments or to pay employees. It is just a beautiful way for corporate tax lawyers to make a big buck in creating structures to avoid corporate tax.
>>68105426
>So a company passes no income to it's shareholders because maybe it's privately held and instead just collects more money and assets at some point you have a multi billion dollar entity consuming billions in government services without paying anything to support it.
I have no problem with that. Let us say an entity builds houses and it just keeps building houses and employs people and it keeps the profit in its shell to continue building houses and never pays its shareholders anything out. Why should there be a tax?
>>68105426
>Leaving the whole tax burden on it's employees and other citizens.
But it already is at the employees and other citizens. A legal shell is just a construct, any corporation tax is economically paid by the shareholders. Why not just tax them instead? It is a much simpler concept.
>>68105691
>The question is, why you would punish people making an investment in your country?
Why do you think taxes are punishment?
>>68098201
we have the highest corp tax in the world. it makes sense for them to move anywhere else to avoid those taxes.
>>68105888
>tariffs specifically on foreign corporations
gee I don't know.
>>68098201
It depends on individual people and how happy they are with their government.
If the goverment blows the money on stupid shit, big percentage of people choose not to pay any tax if it's big.
Though I'm just speaking about Lithuania where many people do not trust the goverment and think tax money is no longer their money.
In cuckolded countries like Sweden and Germany people think that tax money is still "their" money, will try to pay no matter how high it is, trust their goverment no matter what and report fellow countrymen for anything that damages "their" money.
>the replies ITT
autism
>>68105441
>You want import tariffs to foreign corporations in your nation? Do you hate jobs, growth, and foreign investments?
yes. because it is all in foreign countries instead of here.
>>68105705
It's not hard to collect corporate taxes, you need a much better reason to stop taxing corporations other than taxing people is a simpler concept.
>Why should there be a tax?
Because it consumes government services in it's operation.
Everyone including logical constructs needs to pay a share for a nation to exist under our current system of monetary policy and property rights.
>>68105956
>gee I don't know.
How is that punishment? It's like saying we will create a tax on people. Is that punishing people for living?
>>68105956
suppose i live in a country that can produce everything that your country does. I then send all my products to Denmark at 1/3 the cost of your domestic production. What do you think will happen to your jobs? Do you think that will lead to job growth and investment in your own country?
>>68106199
No, because a tax on citizens does not discriminate. A tax specifically for foreign corporations does discriminate, as it is specifically designed to disadvantage these same corporations.
>>68106231
> I then send all my products to Denmark at 1/3 the cost of your domestic production.
Wow I love arguments that are built on a completely unrealistic premise. First off, selling everything at 1/3 the price of what the current prices here, would result in Danish citizens purchasing power tripling. Do you have any idea what that would mean for our ability to make investments ourselves? Jobs would, as they have done in the US, shift from production to service, innovation, design, new-thinking, marketing, managing, etc. With our new found wealth thanks to your Country's generous prices, we can easily afford creating jobs en masse. Since Denmark is already based on many of the jobs mentioned above, your deal would literally help Denmark, not hurt it. Thanks.
>>68106069
No.
>>68106153
>It's not hard to collect corporate taxes, you need a much better reason to stop taxing corporations other than taxing people is a simpler concept.
Actually it is fucking hard to collect corporate income tax, because of how the corporate income tax works. For instance, if a US company sells assets abroad it may make a loss on that sale which ends up bringing taxable income from other profits to 0 - hence no tax. This is done all the time. You sell assets to some other entity in a tax haven and thus manage your income tax in the countries you operate in.
That is why corporate tax is shit, you can manipulate it if you are a big multinational.
>>68106153
>Because it consumes government services in it's operation.
BS, a corporation never ever consumed any government services ever. it is always people who consume them, never some legal shell. And you can tax people and transactions.
>>68098201
Taxing corporations makes only sense in the minds of stupid leftist.
>>68106809
>No, because a tax on citizens does not discriminate. A tax specifically for foreign corporations does discriminate, as it is specifically designed to disadvantage these same corporations.
They aren't taxing people that live in other nations, so it's clearly discrimination.
Further discrimination doesn't imply punishment.
Prove that a tax that selects one group is punishment rather than just selection.
>>68106910
>Actually it is fucking hard to collect corporate income tax, because of how the corporate income tax works. For instance, if a US company sells assets abroad it may make a loss on that sale which ends up bringing taxable income from other profits to 0 - hence no tax. This is done all the time. You sell assets to some other entity in a tax haven and thus manage your income tax in the countries you operate in.
It's not hard to collect corporate income tax. What you gave an example of is an application of law, not the difficulty in collecting taxes from businesses.
>That is why corporate tax is shit, you can manipulate it if you are a big multinational.
Which is why you shouldn't tax them anything.
That's like saying it's hard to catch criminals that rob people so lets just make robber legal and we can reduce crime.
>>>68106153 (You)
>BS, a corporation never ever consumed any government services ever. it is always people who consume them, never some legal shell. And you can tax people and transactions.
Really so a corporation uses the legal system. It doesn't have protection from the military. It doesn't transport things on government roads. It doesn't hire people educated by the government. It doesn't use money that is backed by the government.
You can tax corporations as well.
>>68107129
>They aren't taxing people that live in other nations, so it's clearly discrimination.
Foreign Corporations conducting business in your country (aka having jobs there, importing goods etc) lives inside the nation, and is taxed in unequal ground compared to the national corporations. Your logic is flawed.
This is the same reason why a progressive income tax system is also a punishment for working longer hours, taking more well-paying jobs, increasing your efficiency and effectiveness, etc.
"If we lose a manufacturing job it will shift to a job that requires higher education"
This is the dumbest argument. It's not like there are a lack of people to do jobs. There is however a lack of jobs for people to do. This affects everyone from the poorly educated to the highly educated. There are not unlimited STEM jobs and a large percentage of STEM grads don't even get a stem job.
The fact that the job market for the highly educated is crowded disproves your entire stupid argument.
>>68107387
Lost manufacturing jobs are replaced by service minded jobs, first and foremost.
> there must be a sweet spot which is the perfect balance where tax revenues is maximized.
No. You make it a 0% tax and you get infinite revenues! It's obvious.
>George Mason University BA in Economics graduate
>>68107378
>This is the same reason why a progressive income tax system is also a punishment for working longer hours, taking more well-paying jobs, increasing your efficiency and effectiveness, etc.
That is not punishment.
>>68105705
Your argument is completely moronic.
The shareholder might not even be residents/citizens of the country.
So you basically want Google and Facebook et all to pay no taxes at all to the EU countries?
>>68107714
Yes it is. You work 30 hours a week, make $50,000 annual (using some danish figures here) and pay 36% income tax. I work 60 hours a week, make $100,000 and pay 50% income tax.
That's punishment.
>>68107900
Why should they?
Investment money is voluntary. Taxation is always enforced by guns.
To get more investment there should be no corporation taxes.
>>68107967
Well maybe they don't really want you to work that much?
Maybe it's better if you work 35 hours a week and let the other 35 hours be covered by somebody else.
>>68107967
>That's punishment.
It's not punishment, unless you think your government wants you to earn less money.
Punishment is to correct an action, rather than just cruelty which is to inflict harm for the sake of hurting.
Are progressive taxes cruel? Maybe.
Are they punishment? No.
>>68098201
Yes there is a sweet spot. It's probably around 10% to 15%, but no one is really sure.
Think about the government as a buffet. People come in, enjoy the service, and pay a fixed amount. Some people get more for there money, some people get less (depending on how much they eat.)
If you charge too much for the buffet, you'll get more money per customer, but you'll also turn away business. And you'll encourage the customers that DO come to eat more than they otherwise would have.
If you don't charge enough for your buffet, you lose money. You can't keep paying for all the food your customers eat.
There is a balance, an optimum. Which will depend on where the buffet is, what kind of people it draws in, and what kind of workers it has. The buffet that finds that balance is going to outcompete all the others. Just as the country that figures out the optimum level of taxation is going to outcompete the rest.
>>68107900
>The shareholder might not even be residents/citizens of the country.
Ever heard of exit taxes on capital? They already exist. If a US company pays a dividend to a foreign citizen, that transaction is taxed in the US.
>>68107900
>So you basically want Google and Facebook et all to pay no taxes at all to the EU countries?
Yes, I want Google and Facebook to not pay taxes in the EU. I want no corporation to pay any tax in the EU, I want people to pay taxes and transactions being taxed.
As a matter of fact, I think the best way to get in revenue would actually to be to solely rely on transaction based taxes. You only have a VAT or cigarette taxes or alcohol taxes etc. Why should anyone who doesn't consume anything have to pay taxes? We should not tax anyone just because he or she contributes to society through work. The only thing we should tax is taking away from society through consumption.
>>68107344
>What you gave an example of is an application of law, not the difficulty in collecting taxes from businesses.
That is the same thing.
The application of law provides easy ways to legally avoid corporate income tax. And you can't really do anything about that because it is part of the nature of corporate income tax that in a global economy you can shift profits to tax heavens - completely legal and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
>>68107995
>Why should they?
Because we can force them to? Because it suits us?
>Investment money is voluntary.
Not really. It's driven by market demand and market supply.
>Taxation is always enforced by guns.
So are property rights. Cry me a river.
>To get more investment there should be no corporation taxes.
>>muh Americanomics
I make it a point not to discuss economics with people who subscribe to that cult in the same
way that I don't discuss Christianity with Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. This is the last reply you get from me.
>>68108272
>best way to get in revenue would actually to be to solely rely on transaction based taxes.
Would this apply to all transactions or only retail?
So would someone buying and selling securities pay this? How about a manufacturer that is buying raw materials to make consumer products?
Does a business hiring a contractor pay this?
>>68107967
You can say it punishes you, that's not the same thing as it being punishment. The latter implies that it is designed to punish, but the government isn't out to get you
They should be, though. As >>68108049 says, don't hoard the available work, faggot
>>68108341
>That is the same thing.
No it's not.
Law says they can do this so they do it.
Because of that action no amount of taxes are valid to be collected on some sum of money.
That's not having a hard time collecting taxes.
>The application of law provides easy ways to legally avoid corporate income tax. And you can't really do anything about that because it is part of the nature of corporate income tax that in a global economy you can shift profits to tax heavens - completely legal and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Or we could change our laws if we wanted to collect that subset of revenue earned.
Laws are not fixed, they are subject to change by governments.
Again it's not hard to collect corporate taxes. Most of the day to day accounting and internal compliance aspects of business convert directly into ease of tax collection. It's rare for a even mid sized corporations to have errors in their taxes, intentional or accidental.
>>68108401
>Would this apply to all transactions or only retail?
Depends on what you want. Look up how a VAT works, ultimately it is always the consumer who pays (this is hte case for ALL taxes, directly or indirectly)
Basically you reward people who contribute to the economy by providing services and manufacturing products and working etc. by charging them 0, and then you tax those people who consume these services and products or who buy them and try to resell them elsewhere.
It is an easy system that is much harder to defraud and you could get rid of all income tax statements as there would be no more income tax.
>>68108401
>So would someone buying and selling securities pay this?
No, because trading in securities isn't consuming or using up anything.
>How about a manufacturer that is buying raw materials to make consumer products?
In a VAT system that manufactuer pays VAT on the raw materials, but can then deduct that VAT when it sells on the manufactured product.
>>68108401
>Does a business hiring a contractor pay this?
VAT is charged but can be deducted between busineses.
>>68108646
>Laws are not fixed, they are subject to change by governments.
You cannot limit people to sell assets. It is a constitutional right to dispose of ownership. And that is the flaw in the corporate income tax. Because you can sell assets, you can manipulate corporate income tax.
Unless you somehow change the corporate income tax to a revenue tax (which is basically a VAT or sales tax), you cannot eliminate the biggest corporate income tax loophole which is managing corporate income tax via creating artificial losses to offset real profits.
>>68108049
Why? Maybe my work requires me to work that much.
>>68107967
>Got Mine Fuck You
Go live in China then you traitorous capitalist cuck.
>>68108481
You don't know shit, faggot. I work as a management engineer / technical consultant at COWI. I NEED to work 50 hours. That's what it takes. Get your head out of your ass.
>>68108244
It IS punishment. THEY DO want me to earn less money. What THE FUCK would they tax me more than others if they didn't?
>>68109060
>shitposting force in full action
Go live in North Korea you communist pig.
>>68098201
Taxes shouldn't be designed to "collect as much revenue as possible all the time" - they should be designed to moderate demand according to his much the government wants to spend (and tax much less if there is high unemployment). You, liberals, and conservatives alike always look at tax in completely the wrong way.
>>68105181
This.
>>68109216
according to how* much
>>68109179
I love my country too much. You're a parasite who puts profit before his own country
>>68108801
Your ideas of businesses paying nothing at all in any way ever in support of the nation is not one I accept.
>>68108900
>you cannot eliminate the biggest corporate income tax loophole which is managing corporate income tax via creating artificial losses to offset real profits.
Sure you can. You just make a law that prohibits tax hiding activities. You don't make it a technical law but instead make it an interpretive law and then have the government investigate and bring to trial corporations that are engaging in unlawful tax avoidance.
Your management fees you paid to a company incorporated in a tax haven nation in exact amount to your otherwise taxable profits are not going to be accepted by a judge. The problem isn't the law, it's getting the law changed.
>>68109325
>You're a parasite who puts profit before his own country
How so you delusional emu bitch? By saying that it makes no sense that I have to pay more income tax because I work a fuckton, WHICH IS REQUIRED IN MY FIELD OF EXPERTISE.
Do you think my clients are just gonna be all "oh, of course, we understand that you have to pass the rest of our contract on to another consultant because you have to distribute work, that's fine even though he has no insight in your work and have to adapt to the situation on the spot and will likely deliver sup-par performance as a result as the expense of your investment in your expertise that we specifically asked for"?
Fuck off. You don't know shit, and if you love to tax those evil evil capitalists for all their worth, go live, as I said, in North Korea or shut the fuck up.
>>68109179
>What THE FUCK would they tax me more than others if they didn't?
Because in proportion your highest income creates less hardship when taxed at higher rates than your lower income.
They don't want you to earn less. They just want to take more while hurting their citizens the least.
The government would likely love to have everyone make triple the current average amount and then tax it.
>>68109538
>You just make a law that prohibits tax hiding activities.
But it is legal to sell assets. And you cannot make it illegal. It is not "tax hiding", it is just how the corporate income tax works.
Look why Google didn't pay any income tax in the UK. Google has revenues across Europe but it principally has employees in the UK (its European headquarters) and principally contracts out work to advertisment agencies in London. As a result it has lots of expenses in the UK which match up the revenues in the UK. As a result, it paid pretty much no taxes in the UK, while it paid a lot of taxes in France and Germany.
That example shows that the corporate income tax system just does not work. I worked with a company which has its headquarter in Cyprus and literally pays 1% corporate income tax overall. How does it do that? By tax managing its taxable income in all countries it operates back to Cyprus through internal asset management. Totally legal and cannot be changed - otherwise countries would have made laws in the last decades to change this practice.
Corporation taxes are very distortionary. The ideal rate of Corporation tax is 0%. All Corporation tax does is shift costs on to the consumer.
Simply shift tax to less distortionary areas (such as consumption - and if your worry is that consumption taxes are regressive, this is only because most implementations are, they can easily be made progressive).
I'm broadly centre-left economically, but corporation taxes are a bad idea.
>>68109662
>Because in proportion your highest income creates less hardship when taxed at higher rates than your lower income.
fucking kek. You REALLY don't know shit, do you? The "top tax" in Denmark is at 50%. Did you know that it generates approximately 14 billion DKK, and costs approximately 10 billion DKK in terms of lost jobs, investments, higher wages due to income-optimization, etc? Taxing the rich for being rich to finance their own bloated government is the stupidest meme the left ever invented.
>>68098201
Around 8% (which is what they effectively pay with their armee of tax lawyers).
Trump is right about lowering the rate and getting rid of the loopholes, I wish we had pragmatic leaders too...
>>68098767
You are fucking USA, the biggest consumer in the world! all you have to do is force those corporates to pay the tax in america and hire americans if they want to do business in america and you'll be fine, sure they will make a little less profit, but they will still make enough.
Alertly you can create a scale of contribution to the country and give companies scores based on the percentage of American employees and tax paid per revenue earned in America, that score can be advertised on the product allowing the people to decide if they purchase goods from companies that give something back to the country or companies that only take.
Thats just a suggestion off the top on my head but you get the idea, when you have so much power as consumers why not use it?
>>68107967
I feel you bro. Its hard living in socialism hell.
>>68109556
Your country has generous social benefits I assume that is why your taxes are high traitor. You believe capitalist and corporations will do the right thing.
>>68109840
>The ideal rate of Corporation tax is 0%. All Corporation tax does is shift costs on to the consumer.
100% agree.
>>68109840
>Simply shift tax to less distortionary areas (such as consumption
100% agree
>>68109840
>and if your worry is that consumption taxes are regressive, this is only because most implementations are, they can easily be made progressive).
100% agree
>>68109840
>I'm broadly centre-left economically, but corporation taxes are a bad idea.
100% agree
Brit, I hate to see you leave the EU, but you just posted exactly what I think. So cheers to you.
>>68110362
>You believe capitalist and corporations will do the right thing.
You believe the government will? Go suck some officially elected dick.
>>68109828
>But it is legal to sell assets. And you cannot make it illegal. It is not "tax hiding", it is just how the corporate income tax works.
But it is illegal to sell assets to a shell company to avoid paying taxes, (under the new anti tax avoiding law).
If a company takes the action to try and avoid the taxes by selling something, or paying "management' fees to a company it actually owns then they are breaking the law.
Further you are insane if you think you can sell assets without any regulation. Governments regulate sales ranging from retail consumer products right up to securities.
>Look why Google didn't pay any income tax in the UK.
I take it that the spending on advertising isn't only in the UK, that they buy advertising for all of Europe but pay in the UK near to their profit in the UK. Well that sounds like tax avoidance to me so under my suggestion it would be a criminal act.
>That example shows that the corporate income tax system just does not work. I worked with a company which has its headquarter in Cyprus and literally pays 1% corporate income tax overall. How does it do that? By tax managing its taxable income in all countries it operates back to Cyprus through internal asset management. Totally legal and cannot be changed - otherwise countries would have made laws in the last decades to change this practice.
You just said the law can't be changed... unless they change the law.
Great, change the law then. Tell the companies that their years of playing games with the system are over and that they can look forward to paying taxes in each nation they operate in. Or in your case make it illegal to do business in Cyprus.
>>68098201
The sweet spot is twelve and a half percent.
>>68110457
Government want low unemployment. Capitalists don't. Government and Capitalist have different motives. Government for the people and Capitalist for the $.
Now GTFO pol cuck. Nationalists only.
>>68109896
>fucking kek. You REALLY don't know shit, do you? The "top tax" in Denmark is at 50%. Did you know that it generates approximately 14 billion DKK, and costs approximately 10 billion DKK in terms of lost jobs, investments, higher wages due to income-optimization, etc? Taxing the rich for being rich to finance their own bloated government is the stupidest meme the left ever invented.
You missed the point.
Taxing the first 15,000 at 50% would be a hardship of greater proportion than taxing 100,000+ at 50%
The claims of lost jobs and income and wages are always a rather suspect calculation put forward by highly biased interest groups. It's on par with people claiming we could end poverty by removing the min wage and letting business pay anything they wanted.
>>68110517
>You just said the law can't be changed... unless they change the law.
It cannot be changed because the right to ownership and sell assets you own is constitutional protected. No country will ever interfere with that.
And the decades of not doing anything against this practice shows that it is impossible to do anything against it.
Not to mention that we don't need the whole shitty system in the first place - let us just get rid of corporation income tax and nothing of value will be lost. It is the actual people who are indirectly taxes through corporate income tax anyway - so why not just directly tax people in the first place and leave out corporations?
>>68110362
>Your country has generous social benefits I assume that is why your taxes are high traitor.
Also, we have "generous" social benefits, but did you also know that the ONLY reason Denmark does not have the LOWEST economic growth is because greece exists?
Let me enlighten you, poor economically ilterate shitposter. Social benefits function as parking stations for the unskilled workers. The motivation for working vanishes, when there's LITERALLY only $100 - $150 difference from being on benefits rather than taking a minimum wage job (even though we don't have minimum wage in Denmark).
If you want to see who the REAL poor are, look to the entreaneurs. These people CANNOT claim benefits, as they are employed, by themselves. As a result, THEY are POORER than the people on social benefits, AND they work maybe 60 hours a week to make their business work. IF they succeed and create a successful business, they are taxed by 50% of their fucking income.
Socialist logic: No help for you when you want to create the future of Danish jobs and economic sustainability, you are on your own. BUT FUCK YOU, when you make it big. GIVE US YOUR MONEY, YOU PARASITE!
The government doesn't want low unemployment, especially not socialists. THEY NEED the unemployed for them to vote them into office.
>>68110667
>Taxing the first 15,000 at 50% would be a hardship of greater proportion than taxing 100,000+ at 50%
How about taxing everyone at 0% for the income they get from work.
Why tax people in the first place for CONTRIBUTING to society?
If we want tax revenue, how about we tax the consumption of assets and services instead? If someone leads a frugal life eating his tomatoes and mozzarella, not having a TV or car but still working hard to buy food and clothing, why the hell should we tax this person the same way as a consumer whore who has 3 iPhones, goes on vacation to Turkey 2 times a year and spends a lot on cars, while having a mid-level office job?
>>68110596
>>68110362
>>68109325
>nationalist
>sucks gov dicks
classic bootlicker
>>68110677
>It cannot be changed because the right to ownership and sell assets you own is constitutional protected. No country will ever interfere with that.
Which says nothing about being able to deduct those losses from income taxes.
>And the decades of not doing anything against this practice shows that it is impossible to do anything against it.
I recall when people talked about how new oil drilling would take a decade to come online. Well that decade was over... 6 years ago.
>Not to mention that we don't need the whole shitty system in the first place - let us just get rid of corporation income tax and nothing of value will be lost. It is the actual people who are indirectly taxes through corporate income tax anyway - so why not just directly tax people in the first place and leave out corporations?
Again because corporations consume government spending in their operations.
If you just want to make taxes only apply to people what happens when the owners of your companies move to tax havens and suck trillions in taxable income from their companies leaving nations with only the working class to tax?
Or is that actually your goal, just taking the working plebs?
>>68110667
And all you do is take resources from people who are able to create jobs and prosperity, and throw it into the economic and social black hole that is the social benefits.
>>68110667
also we don't have a minimum wage in Denmark, leafposter.
>>68110667
ALSO the calculations are made by the governments own "beskæftigelsesministerie"
>>68110889
>Which says nothing about being able to deduct those losses from income taxes.
if you don't deduct them, then it is not a corporate income tax anymore, but basially a VAT.
Which was my point above, if you don't want a corporate income tax (which includes deducting expenses and losses), then you should introduce a VAT on revenue. That works.
>>68110431
I don't wish to see my country leave the EU. The EU has a lot of faults, but we are better to try to stay and fix them, than abandon the EU to struggle on as is. I think a strong EU is necessary over the coming decades with the power of the US, China, and then Russia, maybe India etc... Europe will be left out.
>>68110816
>If we want tax revenue, how about we tax the consumption of assets and services instead?
Because of the handful of people that will take half the wealth of the nation and spend it in another nation, leaving me to fund the government that allows their company to make their profit while they pay nothing at all in support of the government.
Here's a better question why are we taxing anyone to start with? Why doesn't the government just buy profitable industry and operate the government from those profits?
Why not cut government expenses instead?
>>68110889
>Again because corporations consume government spending in their operations.
When has a corporation ever consumer any government spending?
Let's say a truck owned by a corporation uses a road in Canada. And that corporation makes money through this truck business. If you tax the income of the shareholder of that corporation you also get money for the streets - and taxed the people who actually benefited through the truck business. There is no reason whatsoever to first tax the truck business and likewise also tax the shareholders' income.
>>68110898
>And all you do is take resources from people who are able to create jobs and prosperity, and throw it into the economic and social black hole that is the social benefits.
Maybe, but that doesn't have to be true. You can still have a progressive income tax system without a social benefit system.
>>68111219
>Because of the handful of people that will take half the wealth of the nation and spend it in another nation, leaving me to fund the government
How would that work? Are you saying corporations can just transfer dividends abroad without an exit tax? Not possible, has never been possible.
>>68111092
>if you don't deduct them, then it is not a corporate income tax anymore, but basially a VAT.
I didn't say nothing can be deducted. Keep the system mostly in check. Allow people their constitutional right (the EU constitution? LOL) to sell shit.
But when it's clear the intent is to avoid taxes that's not a valid deduction.
>>68110813
>Low economic growth greece etc
Yea but your countrymen are rated the happiest in the world you fucking traitorous scum.
>Social benefits some shit about parking metres
Abolish social benefits and you will lower the standard of living dramatically and doing crime goes up x1000. Fucking traitor
>The government doesn't want low unemployment, especially not socialists. THEY NEED the unemployed for them to vote them into office.
No not true. You're a capitalist shill
>>68111339
>How would that work? Are you saying corporations can just transfer dividends abroad without an exit tax? Not possible, has never been possible.
Under the suggestion that a government only collects sales taxes, as an owner or shareholder you could collect all your income and then spend it in a nice tax haven. Or does your suggestion now have a tax on money removed from the nation? Humm I bet I could get around that by having my company buy my 'art work' for the amount of money I want as a dividend in my untaxed nation of residence. Or do we now apply an income tax on corporate imports?
>>68098201
>Tax rate at which revenue is maximized[edit]
>A possible asymmetric Laffer curve with a maximum revenue point at around a 70% tax rate, based on Trabandt and Uhlig (2011).[13]
>The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics reports that a comparison of academic studies yields a range of revenue maximizing rates that centers around 70%.[2] Economist Paul Pecorino presented a model in 1995 that predicted the peak of the Laffer curve occurred at tax rates around 65%.[14] A draft paper by Y. Hsing looking at the United States economy between 1959 and 1991 placed the revenue-maximizing average federal tax rate between 32.67% and 35.21%.[15] A 1981 article published in the Journal of Political Economy presented a model integrating empirical data that indicated that the point of maximum tax revenue in Sweden in the 1970s would have been 70%.[16] A 2011 paper by Trabandt and Uhlig published in the Journal of Monetary Economics presented a model that predicted that the US and most European economies were on the left of the Laffer curve (in other words, that raising taxes would raise further revenue).[13]
>>68111684
>as an owner or shareholder you could collect all your income and then spend it in a nice tax haven.
Fine with me. You do understand what a trade deficit and a trade surplus are and why spending dollars abroad has a direct impact on the money's worth and that spending dollars elsewhere are essentially paying indirect taxes?
>>68111409
>But when it's clear the intent is to avoid taxes that's not a valid deduction.
So essentially the current system... in which you have an army of tax lawyers creating systems in which all transactions are at arm's length legally and still ends up optimizing your tax payments.
Gotchya.
>>68111339
>Are you saying corporations can just transfer dividends abroad without an exit tax?
They rig their holdings such way that profits never enter country with high tax. Simple example.
Firm A located on low tax country produces product with $50 expenses.
Firm A sells product for $100 to the firm B in the country with high tax.
Firm B sells product for $100 on the consumer market.
Firm B got no profit to tax.
BUILD WALL RISE TARIFFS
>>68112215
>Firm A located on low tax country produces product with $50 expenses.
>Firm A sells product for $100 to the firm B in the country with high tax.
>Firm B sells product for $100 on the consumer market.
>Firm B got no profit to tax.
And that is why you need a VAT and excise taxes and eliminate all other taxes.
As a result only consumption is taxed in a country. Everything consumed, built and services rendered in a country are taxed and that is it. Problem solved.
>>68112312
>As a result only consumption is taxed in a country. Everything consumed, built and services rendered in a country are taxed and that is it. Problem solved.
Other than the wealthiest people that make the most heavy use of government services by means of their businesses paying nothing and living in other nations without 50% sales taxes.
Here's how it works. Each nation collects a set amount of taxes that can be expressed as a % of GDP. Where that amount comes from and how it's collected doesn't change the basic calculation which is that a government takes x% of the GDP each year.
Most of these tax suggestions are just ways for a select group of people to avoid paying some or any taxes. Their is no real way to avoid the taxes so long as the government doesn't earn income on it's own, or has a different monetary policy.
The sales tax only suggestion is popular with the wealthy that expect to avoid most of that by living out of country most of the year.
>>68112722
>Other than the wealthiest people that make the most heavy use of government services by means of their businesses paying nothing and living in other nations without 50% sales taxes.
How is that supposed to work? Are you saying that someone might build a business in Canada, have that company extract oil and sell it to Canadians and then keep his or her dividends in the US without taking them?
So? Employees of that company would still get paid in Canada and be taxed on their consumption. The people who buy the oil would still be taxed.
I don't see your point?
Corporation tax is just one part of the economic pie. You don't see any corporations headquartered in the Cayman islands. The more important element is how workers are taxed. If the country has high personal income tax rates the corporation wont be able to attract the talent necessary to make a profit. England lowered the corporation tax to 17% in the recent budget but more importantly they raised the rate you pay higher income tax to 45k. I think a lot of corporations will move there in the coming years as it will be seen as more attractive for middle management and other skilled workers.
>>68098201
You're overlooking several things:
1. Tax revenue is not the only way to fund government. Not even the only major way to fund government.
2. The nature of taxes levied are varied- and do different things to the actors in the economy.
0% may be ideal for some taxes currently in place.
100% is not possible. There would be no economy.
In Europe the level of taxation (thanks to bloated, bureaucratic government and socialism) exceeds the optimal point quite significantly. As high as 15-30% as a proportion of GDP in some cases.
>>68113165
>1. Tax revenue is not the only way to fund government. Not even the only major way to fund government.
You WAT?
Taxes make up 99% of government funds. the other 1% are tariffs, which are pretty much taxes. And then you have public companies which... on average... make losses, not profits.
>2. The nature of taxes levied are varied- and do different things to the actors in the economy.
Which is a problem. Taxes are varied because of special interests. The more complicated a tax system the easier it is to protect special interests.
>>68098767
Many companies are coming back anon. Overseas shit is shit quality and ends up costing more in the long run.
>>68098767
Laffer is one study. Rahn is another:
http://ime.bg/uploads/335309_OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf
I believe that the very upper limit of govt. expenditure is about 35% as a proportion of GDP. Anything beyond that is sure to be wasteful and will swallow jobs and prosperity.
Why can't it be 0? It's not like the only tax there is is corporate tax. Boosting business will enhance other taxes
>>68099125
Name one successful comapny that matches this.
Profits are at an all time high, you are brainwashed anon.
Reeeeeeeee
You can't tax corporations for fucks sake. You tax PEOPLE. Everytime you tax a business do you think they're gonna pay from their own pockets, or do they raise the prices and pass it down to the consumer? There should be no corporate tax ffs.
>>68113328
Governments also extract seniorage and interest (in some cases, like the US and the UK- I am not specifically sure about Germany) from citizens too.
There are also minor wealth transfers like the state lotteries and so on.
>>68113328
Also:
>Which is a problem. Taxes are varied because of special interests. The more complicated a tax system the easier it is to protect special interests.
Getting a socialist vibe here. Are you referring to corporations now?
>>68105063
Oh look a moron.
Every state that is trying this in the US is going bankrupt.
Now the ones that are doing 0% income tax, those are working fine.
>>68113465
Worth repeating.
States in the USA are trying this and are going bankrupt.
0% Income tax works, 0% corporate tax does not.
>>68098907
Yes but the two issues can be seperated as well. Assuming everyone has no tarrifs the laffer curve still applies. Or to make it simpler, assume only one government/nation exists. Laffer curve still applies, although yes other factors likely do affect the shape of the curve.
Its much simpler to instead be on the left side of the peak and not have a huge government though; especially since government spending and government size, and hence corruption are all correlated. So you "return on investment" only gets worse the more government you have.
>>68113465
Thinking about it, it actually makes sense. If corporations raise their prices to offset taxes, and sell their products overseas, essentially foreigners are paying our taxes
>>68105063
The most "fair" types of taxes are indirect taxation. So VAT. This tax is levied on all people within the economy.
Businesses in Europe are taxed on payroll, taxed for corporate tax. They are also regulated which requires payments to rent-seeking (non-productive) elements of society like notaries, accountants etc.
This is why prosperity is evaporating fast in Europe. The business environment is not even remotely competitive.
Corporation tax is a red herring tax, as other anons have pointed out. It is extracted from the end consumers (you and me) or the employees. The question is which employees shoulder it- the management or the low-level workers.
Keep in mind companies, can, and will, automate processes if the cost of hiring people is so high that machinery will be cheaper.
Capital gains tax is something you fail to address.
Income tax will soon become an irrelevance. Historically income tax was needed to recover coins in circulation (gold, silver, copper- genuinely valuable coinage). Now most of the physical money supply (which is a very small proportion of overall money) is paper notes, and they are even trying to eliminate these.
This would make income tax a meaningless formality. However, good luck EVER convincing governments to remove income tax because it would mean their jobs.
This could be done though. There are other ways to structure public finances.
>>68113751
See >>68113352
>>68112930
>I don't see your point?
That they can extract profit from the nation while using services of the government and pay nothing in return.
>>68114442
>That they can extract profit from the nation while using services of the government and pay nothing in return.
Ah, so you don't understand how things work.
How can you extract any profit without selling anything in that country or rendering services there... thus creating taxable revenues which are taxed via a VAT?
>>68113544
>Getting a socialist vibe here. Are you referring to corporations now?
I am referring to special interests. There are lots of special interests. There is the agribusiness lobby, the fisheries lobby, the military defense lobby, the aircraft lobby, the truckers lobby, the real estate lobby etc.
Everyone wants the tax system to work for them...while screwing over the masses which has no lobby.
>>68114258
VAT is good in theory but the issue is, it hides the tax from visibility of the consumer, and typically it is used in conjunction with other taxes anyways so we rather not have it, as to keep things simple instead of giving politicians yet another tool. If they totally gutted other taxes I might agree with you though.
US govt used to be financed entirely through tariffs interestingly.
>>68114895
On one hand lobbies are necessary, much like how its impossible to get rid of political parties or trade unions.
Though the issue is these lobbies (including those for unions), have become entangled into the govt. Its gone from representation to corruption.
>>68114896
>VAT is good in theory but the issue is, it hides the tax from visibility of the consumer, and typically it is used in conjunction with other taxes anyways so we rather not have it, as to keep things simple instead of giving politicians yet another tool.
I don't see your point. Why should taxed be visible to the consumer? They just need to be levied, that is it.
And why should e.g. VAT not be added together with tobacco tax or alcohol tax or gasoline tax? Better, of course, would be to just have different VAT tax rates for different products... and that would be transparent to everyone to check whether politicians are assholes (example giving exempting VAT for luxury goods) or nice people (example exempting VAT for rent of social housing).
>>68098201
>I want you to lower taxes so I will pay more taxes
The most retarded argument ever.
The rich want to have all of the control and make somebody else pay all of the bills. End of story.
>>68111226
Start by firing "private" sector contractors. The government hires way too many lousy IT companies for a massive premium over union-protected and pensioned employees.
>>68115202
Normies are stupid, have multiple rates and it just goes out the mind of most people.
Hell most people here think gasoline is cheaper in TX due to "durr TX is gasoline land", when really its mostly their state taxes their gasoline more.
So, rather than change the fact that most people are simple.. I rather assume it and work from there.
Anyways, a little complexity always ends up becoming a bloated mess easily in government, no matter how well intended.
>>68114896
>If they totally gutted other taxes I might agree with you though.
Yes. This would need to be in conjunction with a removal of income tax.
Keep in mind that illegal immigrants do not pay income tax. Whereas both illegals and legally employed people pay indirect taxation (VAT).
In the event that jobs become fully automated, corporation tax could be done away with and capital gains tax should be hiked. Of course, with both taxes the issue remains with respect to overseas safe havens, tax treaties and so on.
>>68115202
Taxes should be transparent. Wealth transfer should always be transparent. It's too nefarious otherwise.
Most of the socialists have no idea how the monetary system works, or why they are poor in the first place. They just point blame at businesses (or industrialists)- which is literally the fastest way to impoverish everyone.
