Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Maybe roll it back up to 35 percent instead of letting republicans gain ground every fucking election and doing half assed measures that still result in net loss for the people? I mean it’s a step in the right direction but Jesus fucking Christ man.
Shit why not make it 50%, it was that way in 1950.
The Good Old Days, according to conservatives.
Back when there were numerous loopholes, deductions, and methods of evasion and nearly none paid that rate? And when they later lowered effective rates, closed loopholes, and ended up collecting more?
Yeah, let's do that. Let's incentive finding ways to avoid paying taxes.
This is exactly how you give incentives to higher CEO pay. Record profits? Give all of it to the CEO and you'll pay none of it to the government. You didn't mention a higher personal tax rate, so end of the day the CEO wins.
Own an S-Corp? Pass through all profits to yourself and pay 0%.
Corporations still find loopholes and pay nearly no taxes… If corporations and Billionaires paid their taxes just like common folks, the country would make a lot more in taxes.
Maybe roll it back up to 35 percent
let's go for 40% to account for inflation. and that's being generous lol
That's... Not how inflation works, lol. At that rate, they'll eventually be taxed more than 100%.
I like her, but man is it annoying to see the ratchet-effect happening once you are aware of it.
I like where your heads at
As someone who lives in Europe, I already pay this much on income taxes. Is this considered high?
Edit: actually like 30-33%
30-35% is about what Americans pay too in personal income taxes, but this is talking about taxes paid by businesses, which are unsustainably low in the states right now.
I blame Reagan. It's been historically really low ever since and every time it's tried to be raised Republicans scream that they're are coming for your money. Even if they are only trying to raise it for ppl making over 2 million or whatever.
I live in Canada and that’s what we pay too.
She advocated for that in 2020 and lost, so she rolled it back to be more moderate. You can’t sell shit that people won’t buy.
You can’t ~~sell shit~~ pass legislation against corporations that ~~people won’t buy~~ are legally allowed to bribe our representatives
Does it really matter what the rate is when they don't pay it anyway?
"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."
To be fair, this is about the corporate tax rate, not the income tax that corporations pay.
However, that article does mention the corporate tax rate and how corporations pay less than they are supposed to:
The watchdog report draws on recent research by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, another nonprofit, left-leaning think tank. That group found 342 large corporations that paid a cumulative effective tax rate of 14.1% over five years, well short of the statutory corporate tax rate of 21%.
Hopefully a Harris administration would close such loopholes as well.
This needs to happen. Also massive corps need to start paying minimum tax. No more tax free years.
But how else are they gonna ~~piss~~ trickle down on you?
This is not fair! Neoliberal economic theory isn’t just a pissing contest! It’s much more than that!
Any way we can tax advertising at 100%?
Added taxes can be more than 100%
I'm still stumped how ads make money. If your product ad interrupts my enjoyment, I am now fully aware of what I will not buy under any circumstance. How does that benefit anyone?
You're not the average person though. A lot of people do respond to ads. The average ROI (return on investment) for digital ads is 200-500%, meaning for every $1 the advertiser spends on ads, they make $2 - $5 back. Retargeting ads (the ones that show you products you've viewed before) are even more effective.
The reason ads are so prevalent is because people want stuff for free, and ads work well enough to cover the costs of providing a free service. I'm not saying they're bad or good, just that that's the state of things today.
I'm just like this. On principle, I'm never going to click through an ad nor purchase the advertised product.
That said, ads online have been so pervasive for so long that a lot of people just plain do not see any problem. In every thread about brave browser idiots try to make the use that "responsible" ads are actually good, like they're providing you a service by making you aware of some thing you wanted to buy.
Even in this thread, someone will probably be along shortly to tell us all about how the advertising revenue model is the only way to find the modern web. Vapid youtubers need to get paid somehow after all.
I suggest we tax being a billionaire asshole at 100%.
Taxing profit rather than revenue might be one of the reasons companies look for unlimited growth. If they had reasonable growth or were steady, they'd need to pay more in taxes since they'd be profitable. Instead if they spend all their money on regrowing and growing and growing and paying executives.
Encouraging unlimited growth is fine as long as there is robust anti monopoly work. Companies trying to grow is how we get better innovations and efficiency. But letting them grow infinitely is literally cancer.
Encourage growth. It's a good thing. But when a company gets too big, the government should hold a "yay, you won capitalism!" party, purchase every share of stock, give every worker a big bonus, and then break that company apart.
What is this tax on? Is it profits only? Or something else?
Important questions. Fiscal policy is wildly complex and what's that saying about the road to hell and best intentions?
I'm here for that conversation. What does tax hell out of them mean? Sounds good to me, but the idea deserves some talk.
I guess it means you send a lobbyist to Washington and invent ludicrous tax deductions so that your company pays a near zero effective tax rate. Just like Amazon!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2019/02/22/why-amazon-pays-no-corporate-taxes/
That's also because they don't make much or any profit, right? That's why I was asking whether they were taxing revenue or profit.
Maybe, but logically they should be taxed on revenue, right? I mean, that’s how we’re taxed as individuals. We don’t get to pay nothing because we took our whole salary and reinvested it into real estate or something. But they do.
We don’t get to pay nothing because we took our whole salary and reinvested it into real estate or something.
You literally described a 401k.
I get your point though. All of our income is considered profit, but if we were taxed like businesses we'd be able to exclude rent and groceries etc.
Except a 401k gets taxed on withdrawals, potentially at a higher tax rate than you were paying when you invested some or even most of it. Also, we can't invest our whole salary into a 401k, as there's a hard limit on contributions. Whereas a business never gets taxed on the assets they invested in to offset their profits (except maybe state/local property tax, but then they get to deduct that from federal tax...), plus they get to deduct the depreciation of said asset for years going forward.
You also don't want to put a huge burden on small growing companies though. I think they should transfer from a profit rate to adding on a revenue rate as the company gets bigger and the revenue increases.
Of course it's on profit, same as the existing corporate taxes. She's not proposing a new type of tax, just increasing existing rates.
Then it's mostly useless for the biggest business.
As it was mentioned here, issue is not the rate but the fact they don’t pay it.
Making the rate higher will not motivate/force them to pay it. Making it too high would only motivate them to find a hole in the system.
Fund the IRS?
Meh.
Fund the IRS to go after companies with >100 global employees. Yes!
Yeah, tax profits and revenue. Not at the same percentages ofc.
But taxing based on revenue means the money is taxed where the revenue is made. No more shell games with tax havens for that.
But someday I might be a corporation!
Everything you say already is
Honestly, unless we close the offshore tax loophole, reducing or increasing the corporate tax rate is basically symbolic, since the federal tax rate is functionally 0% for most cooperations.
Boo, but I am a job creator!
Just kidding, my company should pay more taxes. We can already write off so much anyway.
If only individuals could write off expenditures, only the rich would pay taxes.