• breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    259
    ·
    edit-2
    4 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-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      94
      ·
      edit-2
      4 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        4 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.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        4 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          4 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.

          • Communist_Synthesizer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            That used to be the case until 2017. Highest bracket was 39%, but they had a weird system where it went UP until about 350Kish, (Income between 100K~350K) and then the variable rate started dropping again for income past that, back down to 35%. Would have been fair to assume any fortune 500 company not doing shady shit would have paid an effective rate of 35%.

            Trump’s tax cuts drastically decreased that, down to 21% flat for everyone. 28% would still be a tax cut over what it was up til 2017.

            • x00z@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              From what I know, most of the big international companies can bypass almost all taxing anyways because they simply move their profits trough tax havens. We should be looking to fix that first.

            • AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              4 months ago

              Good?

              Smaller businesses have better wages and hire more people. Smaller businesses are more nimble, flexible, and they’re never too big to fail. Smaller businesses, mean more options, more ideas, and variety is good for the marketplace, consumer, and the country as a whole.

              Less consolidation is good! Competition is good!

              • nikaaa@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Competition is good!

                I wonder when AI “competition” will crush the free market.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Smaller businesses are more nimble, flexible, and they’re never too big to fail.

                Some of this is questionable and other bits are flat wrong. Small businesses have bigger lending costs and less slack in their workforces, so they’re often contained to focusing on a niche field.

                And after a break up or spin off or outsourcing effort, certain components of the old business can become lynchpins for the rest.

                That’s basically the story of Cloud Strike. Much smaller than it’s clients, but still too critical to be allowed to fail.

                And just because a business administration is broken up doesn’t mean it’s revenues are. Modern conglomerates - Berkshire Hathaway, and Citadel Investments being the most notorious - have big stakes in enormous swaths of private industry. They control enough board seats to function as economic central planners.

                Buffet doesn’t really care if he owns one big Coca-Cola or a thousand little ones, just so long as he continues to extract that sweet sweet labor value.

              • nikaaa@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                yeah but you could do that with one big company just as well. that has nothing to do with them splitting up

  • Anissem@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    4 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.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      4 months ago

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

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      Same here. I was exhausted with his run in 2015/2016 and being the king of the birthers and hoped his loss would put his stupid name behind us and he could go back to trying to make a name for himself with morning zoo DJs or wrestling or whatever the fuck.

      I despised the guy even before he was given that stupid game show. It got even worse when he “won” in 2016.

    • penquin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I just can’t wait to never hear of this dude ever again, or see his name or his anus mouth. It’s been a fucking agonizing 8 years with this mother fucker.

  • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    4 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      4 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 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.

        • Evrala@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yes it would be ideal for the government to do all that, I’m just saying that increased corporate tax rates lead to increased reinvesting into the companies themselves which is generally good for workers. Part of them avoiding paying taxes would lead to working at those companies being better because pushing pure profit margins wouldn’t be as effective for gathering wealth. There are so many companies where it is downright miserable working for them due to rampant cost cutting to make record breaking profits, so tax the fuck out of those profits and stupid choices like that become less fiscally appealing.

          For instance In order to boost profit margins at the end of last year 7 Eleven put a halt to all preventative maintenance. If it is no longer cost effective to do that due to high taxes on those profits that maintenance would have been done which would have seen a higher retention in maintenance staff. (As well as less money spent replacing equipment in 2024)

          I’m not saying one change will fix everything, but it’s a start.

          • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I understand you now. I’ve automatically assumed that “reinvest in the company” is just shorthand for stock buybacks lol. I was like wtf how is that good for the average person haha.

      • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Rents have gone so insane that (assuming everything goes smoothly and we close) we will spend like $500 less per month by moving from our 2 bedroom apartment into a 4 bedroom 1800sqft townhouse. It’d be even less if interest rates weren’t dog water right now haha. But there was only one other family competing to go under contract, so the high interest rate is how we got ahead of the upcoming gold rush. Houses are about to go for much higher than right now.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    4 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      4 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.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            As much as I like the idea it aint exactly a clean cut rule, a lot of companies operate on slim marjins due to loans or just that being how it is so taxing income could fuck over way more than just the greedy assholes. I do think taxing based off of stock prices should be a thing, the stocks reflect the physical value right? That means they should be able to pay the taxes.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              I mean, when I pay my taxes, it’s based on how much money I earned, not how much money I have left over at the end of the year.

              If the argument is “Corporations are people, my friend” they should be paying an income tax, same as anyone else.

              • DeanFogg@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                Holy shit if a corporation is a person…

                …does this mean a person is a corporation?

            • ultramaven@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Man it’s so fucking straightforward for the IRS to see that Mom’s fettuccine restaurant is a little bit different from fucking Amazon, Meta, Ford etc from just putting all of it’s money into itself and calling it a loss.

              • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Oh certainly but heres the thing we live in a legalistic society and the sons of bitches would figure out some way of fucking up that type of tax.

                • ultramaven@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Well you brought up like the most manipulatable resource as a means of taxation, so I see why you feel they’d always win. I mean Trump’s entire career has been made simply lying about the value of his assets when it suited him. That’s not a “loophole”, inasmuch as it’s fraud that isn’t caught.

                  You want it to end? Give the IRS more money. Allow the FEC to attack monopolies and monopsonies. The rich simply lie and print advertisements convincing rubes to destroy the system. Regulate the news, advertising. “Ohh but mah freeze peach”, well then you get unregulated, untaxable, unrestrained capitalistic greed.

      • schema@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        It makes sense. More income, more bonus. It would also prevent companies from handing out bonuses while operating at a loss.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 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.

    • ultramaven@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      What’s your conclusion? That we shouldn’t tax anyone at all?

      Why isn’t your conclusion that we should find these husks of supposed humans and turn them inside out? Why isn’t your conclusion that chunks of SpaceX, chunks of Amazon, chunks of Google, should be rightfully owned by the American public?

    • bamboo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      For an individual in 2024 to pay 28% of income in federal taxes, you’d have to make $500,000 according to this calculator.

      • Landless2029@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        State plus federal tax tho?

        Not to mention health insurance and 401k (to replace pensions).

        Our take home percentage is much lower than a few decades ago. Not to mention cost of living: housing and food.

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    4 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.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 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!

  • coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago
    Title

    :::Unless there is a global minimum tax this will just move headquarters to Ireland or whoever is cheapest. This type of stuff is just to get votes. Sorry to be a negative Nancy 😕

    If you disagree pls explain why. Genuinely interested in learning. I promise to discuss in good faith. I am also not an expert on most things. Just a person who has had some experience in broken promises 😉

      • coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Thank you! I like this.

        To be clear: I do not think we should do nothing. That was not what I was trying to suggest. I’ve just been around a while and seen this type of promise before. I am worried that some people are maybe over optimistic about these types of promises and how it might play out.

        Re: your last paragraph: would you be willing to pay more for goods or have US based companies perform worse in your 401k? (I do not have any money in my 401k to be clear I’m pretty poor, but I know that people care about that 😂) I will continue being negative and assume they’d pass that cost onto us

      • coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        One thing I will mention. GMT above focuses on 15% of profits. It is trivial to manipulate that number. Which is why I am also for…

        Openly transparent auditable money

          • coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Well. Amazon didn’t make a profit for a long while. Maybe still not? EBITDA? Idk their current numbers, but I’m assuming there’s a lot of Hollywood Accounting happening.

            I think closing those types of loopholes is the place we should start. Circling around: these campaign promises are easy to make, hard to keep.

            It requires knowledge of accounting, economics, law, tech, politics…few people, if any, have that breadth of knowledge and connections.

            I would be impressed with a politician if they had a solid how on these items. Otherwise: talk is cheap.

            • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Congress has access to the brightest economic consultants to navigate everything, that’s not a problem. Closing loopholes is a logical next step. Just need to overcome the narrow margins and procedural fuck you manuevers to actually get things done.

              • coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                I agree, with the caveat that your last sentence is a little hand-wavey. The word “Just” makes it seem easier than it is. People are easily swayed & bought. It’s wrong, but it is a thing.

    • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      I saw a video about this. I think the next step would be heavier taxes on the corporations that do this kind of stuff.

      Then a nationalization of the physical means of that corporation that the entity leaves behind.

      “If they leave we just make it work without them, we are American, we can do anything.” -some dude on the internet

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        Force companies that want to operate in your country to report sales made in your country so they’re taxed on the revenues, kick em out if they don’t report them.

      • coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Thanks for the reply! Would this work for tech companies? Biggest part of our Sp500. They’re mostly “in the cloud” right? So it’s pretty easy to move. And physical resources they leave behind would just be some data centers or whatever

        Would love to see the video you mentioned if you can find it

        • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I imagine it would work much the same way taxing any service industry would.

          I wont pretend to understand how the sp500 calculates its value. I personally think the stock market is all smoke, mirrors & vibes. Tech still needs patents and copyrights, a likely vector of attack for a willing government I imagine.

          Unfortunately, I have a vague memory of the video maybe its this one?

        • coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          This thread has been tough for me tbh. A lot of the things I’m reading here were like what I would say when I was back in college.

          I guess I’m the old man now haha

          • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            It’s rough. It’s a great solution on its face, but people don’t like to discuss its weaknesses. It’s an issue that seems particularly bad in the United States since they only have two functional political parties. It’s constantly “us vs them” for them, so anything that is seen as threatening their team results in backlash, even if it’s constructive criticism. They’re very much a “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” people. It’s pretty sad.