Yellen Wants to Raise Corporate Taxes and This Time I Agree

[James_Madison_Lives]

Wait wait. Hear me out. A fiscal conservative first and foremost wants to balance the books. We need to come up with about $5 trillion to signal that we are going to pay for these stimuli, rather than go further into debt and print more money. Right now I fear a hyperinflation way more than higher taxes, this place will look like Venezuela for our grandchildren. Higher corporate tax rate will hit the richest hardest because it will come straight out of their dividends, and they can afford it. I know I may be stripped of my Ron Paul Kid's Club shoulder patch but these are extraordinary times.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...rnment-trough/

[nikcers]

The dollar has a high demand right now. Nations all around the world are going broke. Increasing taxes during a global recession caused by a pandemic will lead to a slower recovery which will lead to higher interest rates.

[Pauls' Revere]

Governments should cut spending, that saves money like it does with my household budget.

[James_Madison_Lives]

Governments should cut spending, that saves money like it does with my household budget.

Yes we should close bases in Germany and Europe where we are just helping their economies. And pull out of Middle East 100%. That would save the big money, and the dollar.

[Pauls' Revere]

Yes we should close bases in Germany and Europe where we are just helping their economies. And pull out of Middle East 100%. That would save the big money, and the dollar.

And reduce foreign aid.

[phill4paul]

Wanna pay for it? Cancel any debt to China. Trumps correct.

[oyarde]

Yellen wants to raise taxes . This time , again , as always , I disagree . What I find most disturbing is James Madison thinks they would use these paper dollars against the debt. They will use them for graft ( global warming payoffs , welfare and other commie $#@! ) .

[Pauls' Revere]

Yellen wants to raise taxes . This time , again , as always , I disagree . What I find most disturbing is James Madison thinks they would use these paper dollars against the debt. They will use them for graft ( global warming payoffs , welfare and other commie $#@! ) .

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to oyarde again.

Exactly. No mention or accountability of how these taxes would be allocated. And of course for that to happen would require more government oversight to regulate the regulators who are watching the other regulators regulate.

[Krugminator2]

Corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes. If you lowered the corporate tax rate to zero only three things can happen.

1. Return money to shareholders either as a dividend or buying back shares which are taxable to the shareholders

2. Reinvest the money which will be taxable to shareholders as a future capital gain.

3. Pay workers more which will be taxable

Tax havens should be celebrated. They create competition and help keep taxes lower in the United States because if taxes are too high that money will just move to a tax haven.

You need some taxes but they are a dead weight loss and a drag on growth. I have no desire to see the budget balanced as the original post says should happen. Ultimately spending is what matters most. I would much rather see a two trillion dollar deficit with two trillion in spending than zero deficit with six trillion in spending.

[tebowlives]

Yes we should close bases in Germany and Europe where we are just helping their economies. And pull out of Middle East 100%. That would save the big money, and the dollar.

Welfare is where our money is going. Moreso than the war machine.

[Invisible Man]

JML says "this time I agree" as if they haven't always agreed with it.

[Invisible Man]

You don't raise taxes to pay for stimulating the economy.

You stimulate the economy by cutting taxes.

Yes, it's imperative to cut spending, since total taxation ultimately always equals total spending. But you'll never cut spending if you keep giving the government more to spend. You have to starve the leviathan.

[James_Madison_Lives]

You don't raise taxes to pay for stimulating the economy.

You stimulate the economy by cutting taxes.

Yes, it's imperative to cut spending, since total taxation ultimately always equals total spending. But you'll never cut spending if you keep giving the government more to spend. You have to starve the leviathan.

No more time for supply-side voodoo economics. We cannot print money forever. Once hyperinflation starts, it will never end. Social chaos will result as the price of bread doubles every week. You do not want to live in that country.

[The Gold Standard]

No more time for supply-side voodoo economics. We cannot print money forever. Once hyperinflation starts, it will never end. Social chaos will result as the price of bread doubles every week. You do not want to live in that country.

We're long past the point where any of their tricks will work. Which is fine with me. I didn't borrow the money, so I sure as hell shouldn't be paying back the loan. The point is to be in position to stop using dollars when that time comes. Silver coins and bitcoin and bullets will be the money at that point.

[Invisible Man]

No more time for supply-side voodoo economics. We cannot print money forever. Once hyperinflation starts, it will never end. Social chaos will result as the price of bread doubles every week. You do not want to live in that country.

Of course it will end. If something can't go on forever, then it won't. Hyperinflation has happened before, a bunch of times, and one thing they all have in common is that they end.

Granted, it's economically devastating. But that doesn't change the fact that the root problem is runaway government spending, and you don't fix that by taxing more.

If the choice is between what you call "supply side voodoo economics" and raising taxes, then the former must always be preferred to the latter.

[CaptUSA]

Wait wait. Hear me out. A fiscal conservative first and foremost wants to balance the books. We need to come up with about $5 trillion to signal that we are going to pay for these stimuli, rather than go further into debt and print more money. Right now I fear a hyperinflation way more than higher taxes, this place will look like Venezuela for our grandchildren. Higher corporate tax rate will hit the richest hardest because it will come straight out of their dividends, and they can afford it.

The idea that the rich will be "hit the hardest" may be a useful platitude for votes, but it's not reality. Ok, let's tax those dividends... That means more of that dividend money goes to the government. You know, instead of where they'd otherwise invest it. And what about the businesses and jobs that relied on those investments?? Screw 'em, eh?!

Understand this: SPENDING IS THE TAX.

Any way you take money out of the private economy to pay for that spending, either through taxation, devaluing the currency, or bake sales, the lower classes will always be hit the hardest. Because the resources have been misallocated.

[Invisible Man]

The idea that the rich will be "hit the hardest" may be a useful platitude for votes, but it's not reality. Ok, let's tax those dividends... That means more of that dividend money goes to the government. You know, instead of where they'd otherwise invest it. And what about the businesses and jobs that relied on those investments?? Screw 'em, eh?!

Understand this: SPENDING IS THE TAX.

Any way you take money out of the private economy to pay for that spending, either through taxation, devaluing the currency, or bake sales, the lower classes will always be hit the hardest. Because the resources have been misallocated.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CaptUSA again."

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Corporations don't pay taxes. People pay taxes.

This is what marxists ignore. There are no corporate buildings with wallets to pay taxes. The people inside pay them.

But it's easier to vilify when you can point to abstractions like "corporations" and "rich people."

[Madison320]

Wait wait. Hear me out. A fiscal conservative first and foremost wants to balance the books. We need to come up with about $5 trillion to signal that we are going to pay for these stimuli, rather than go further into debt and print more money. Right now I fear a hyperinflation way more than higher taxes, this place will look like Venezuela for our grandchildren. Higher corporate tax rate will hit the richest hardest because it will come straight out of their dividends, and they can afford it. I know I may be stripped of my Ron Paul Kid's Club shoulder patch but these are extraordinary times.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...rnment-trough/

Raising rates and raising revenue are two different things. Considering that corporations are already bailing out of the US, raising corporate taxes is almost certainly going to REDUCE revenue.

Question for you: Do you want the tax rate raised for your tax bracket?

[James_Madison_Lives]

Raising rates and raising revenue are two different things. Considering that corporations are already bailing out of the US, raising corporate taxes is almost certainly going to REDUCE revenue.

Question for you: Do you want the tax rate raised for your tax bracket?

No I want to raise it on the Bezos - Gates - Warren Buffets - who could alone balance the budget with a 5% wealth tax. They don't pay any income tax so they should have to help the society which has made their wealth possible, to paraphrase Republican trustbuster President Teddy Roosevelt.

[Invisible Man]

No I want to raise it on the Bezos - Gates - Warren Buffets - who could alone balance the budget with a 5% wealth tax. They don't pay any income tax so they should have to help the society which has made their wealth possible, to paraphrase Republican trustbuster President Teddy Roosevelt.

See, this is the main place where we differ.

I don't consider putting more money in the hands of the federal government "helping the society which has made their wealth possible."

I see it as the exact opposite of that.

[Krugminator2]

No I want to raise it on the Bezos - Gates - Warren Buffets - who could alone balance the budget with a 5% wealth tax. They don't pay any income tax so they should have to help the society which has made their wealth possible, to paraphrase Republican trustbuster President Teddy Roosevelt.

Morally I don't agree with you at all and am completely opposed to this idea. But look at the economics of this in theory and in practice. You think a 5% wealth tax will balance the budget?

Jeff Bezos is worth 190billion, Musk 153 billion Buffett 107 billion

5% of those three numbers is about $23 billion. The budget deficit was $3 trillion last year. Lets say it gets back to a more normal $1 trillion deficit. A 5% wealth tax on every billionaire doesn't even come close to balancing the budget. It gets you less than 10% of the way to balancing it.

And then how are you going to collect on that? Bezos and Buffett have their money in publicly traded stock so they can sell shares to pay the bill. But what about if you are Elon Musk? How do you value Space X? It isn't publicly traded and doesn't make money. How do value everything Charles Koch has as a private company? And where does he get the money to pay that 5% bill being a private company? It isn't like he can just sell stock.

It will cost a huge sums to audit these people and there will be endless court fights on valuations. You won't be able to collect. You will discourage the most productive people from being US citizens. And worst of all, you won't even sniff making a dent in the budget in even a perfect scenario where you collect 100% of what you think should be paid.

[TheCount]

No I want to raise it on the Bezos - Gates - Warren Buffets

Do you want to tax them because you think it's a good idea or because you've been convinced that they're evil?

[osan]

Wait wait. Hear me out. A fiscal conservative first and foremost wants to balance the books. We need to come up with about $5 trillion to signal that we are going to pay for these stimuli, rather than go further into debt and print more money. Right now I fear a hyperinflation way more than higher taxes, this place will look like Venezuela for our grandchildren. Higher corporate tax rate will hit the richest hardest because it will come straight out of their dividends, and they can afford it. I know I may be stripped of my Ron Paul Kid's Club shoulder patch but these are extraordinary times.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...rnment-trough/

This is the deepest FAIL I've read in a long time.

There IS NO DEBT. The ignorance here is stupefying.

Repudiate the false debt in toto and be done.

Damned kids...

[Brian4Liberty]

We can’t allow a “race to the bottom” in taxes. That would be terrible! - Janet Yellen and friends paraphrased.

Just today, a talking point on the Sunday Morning Propaganda shows was that we must raise corporate taxes to pay for all of the wonderful things that government does.

[Krugminator2]

We can’t allow a “race to the bottom” in taxes. That would be terrible! - Janet Yellen and friends paraphrased.

Just today, a talking point on the Sunday Morning Propaganda shows was that we must raise corporate taxes to pay for all of the wonderful things that government does.

Here is what is amusing about all of these soak the rich articles. It is true the absolute wealthiest people pay little in tax mostly because they hold shares of stock which is only taxable when sold.

But NO ONE. Not one person in the media points of this FACT. The United States has the most progressive income tax system in the developed world. The top 10% of wage earners pay a far larger share of total tax receipts in the United States than any other developed country.

America’s taxes are the most progressive in the world. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ong-the-least/



U.S. Taxes Really Are Unusually Progressive https://www.theatlantic.com/business...essive/252917/


Countries like Norway, Sweden, and Israel have more billionaires per capita than the United States. And what no one points out about their tax rates is they don't get their money from the wealthiest. They get it from the middle and upper middle class. Denmark's top marginal tax rate is 60%. It starts on incomes over 60k. https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandi...2060%20percent.

[Brian4Liberty]

Here is what is amusing about all of these soak the rich articles. It is true the absolute wealthiest people pay little in tax mostly because they hold shares of stock which is only taxable when sold.

But NO ONE. Not one person in the media points of this FACT. The United States has the most progressive income tax system in the developed world. The top 10% of wage earners pay a far larger share of total tax receipts in the United States than any other developed country.

America’s taxes are the most progressive in the world. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ong-the-least/



U.S. Taxes Really Are Unusually Progressive https://www.theatlantic.com/business...essive/252917/


Countries like Norway, Sweden, and Israel have more billionaires per capita than the United States. And what no one points out about their tax rates is they don't get their money from the wealthiest. They get it from the middle and upper middle class. Denmark's top marginal tax rate is 60%. It starts on incomes over 60k. https://taxfoundation.org/how-scandi...2060%20percent.

Realistically, it is hard to go to a flat income tax from a highly progressive income tax, as it would result in the top tiers paying much less. It would be an extremely unpopular proposal.

The biggest problem is the difference between individual taxes and corporate taxes. If there is to be an individual income tax, which I oppose, it should have all of the same deductions as corporate taxes. Corporate and individual income taxes should be essentially the same (once again, with the caveat that I oppose all individual income taxes).

What would happen if individual income taxes were eliminated?

[nikcers]

Changing the tax code so corporations are taxed 100% of all government funded profit and removing all deductions would be one thing. The tax percentage argument is a false argument. I certainly don't want democrats to do something stupid that will hurt the country just so they look bad.

[Invisible Man]

Raising rates and raising revenue are two different things. Considering that corporations are already bailing out of the US, raising corporate taxes is almost certainly going to REDUCE revenue.

Reducing revenue to the federal government would be one point in favor of raising taxes if we really could be sure that would be the effect.

But not enough of one to win me over to it.

[Krugminator2]

Reducing revenue to the federal government would be one point in favor of raising taxes if we really could be sure that would be the effect.

But not enough of one to win me over to it.

Reducing revenue to the government by shrinking the economy doesn't seem like a very good strategy.