• sysop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    23 days ago

    After all the price gouging gains and PPP loans going to lining the pockets of owners buying themselves ferraris, let’s up it to 85%. They’ll manage. Since corporations are people, they can just pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

    Not our problem.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    24 days 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."

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      24 days 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
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      24 days 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?

      • vga@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        24 days ago

        Because socialism generally speaking works really really badly? Taxation should ideally be zero, but since there are obvious things 99% of us agree that should be funded in a centralized way, we have to have taxes.

        The point of taxes is not to make everyone equal, the point is to fund those important things. For instance: police, military, education, basic healthcare (perhaps), charity for the less fortunate and certain natural monopolies like utilities.

        • ultramaven@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          23 days ago

          Lmfao “sOcIaLiSm bAd” “taxation is theft”

          Socialist policies would bake those “important things” into centralized structures owned and managed by the people. You’re beyond propagandized if you believe the people should own fucking natural utilities but also believe “socialism is bad”. Like fucking pants on head retarded

          And before you say “I’m socialist cause I argued companies should be owned by the government” — I’m saying that these companies have become monopolies at the behest and funding of their state and federal governments. They should be ripped apart and absorbed, like you argue “natural monopolies” should be.

    • scarabine@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      24 days ago

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

    • MagicShel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      24 days 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.

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

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

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            24 days 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
              ·
              24 days 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
                ·
                23 days 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
              ·
              24 days 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
                ·
                24 days 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
                  ·
                  24 days 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.

  • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 days 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.

      • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        24 days 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.

    • Evrala@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      24 days 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
        ·
        24 days 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
          ·
          24 days 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
            ·
            24 days 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.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        23 days 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
          ·
          23 days 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.

              • nikaaa@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                22 days ago

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

            • AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              23 days 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!

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                23 days 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.

          • Communist_Synthesizer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            23 days 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
              ·
              23 days 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.

      • Ritsu@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        23 days ago

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

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

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

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

        • grepe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          23 days ago

          that is fascinating… do you have some longer easy to read source to learn about this topic?

          also, you say those earning 100k in 1950’s only carried 20% of tax burden and now they carry 80%… what exactly is tax burden and is that number inflation adjusted? how big fraction of income distribution are we talking about?

        • Halosheep@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          23 days ago

          Are you including the fact that $100,000 in the 1950s is more than $1million after accounting for inflation?

          According to some quick googling, $1,300,000 is the modern equivalent of $100,000 in 1950. That would put you in the top 5% earners (and very nearly in the top 1%). According to the IRS, the top 5% contribute about 65% of the tax burden.

          The top 25% make up about 90% of contributions, but that starts around $70,000 annual income.

  • Anissem@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

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