[valuearb]

You should look at Berkshire Hathaway and evaluate your post in the context of that company. Let me do it for you.

BRK pays Buffett a relatively tiny salary ($100k, another $400k in benefits, probably NetJet flights). It doesn't pay any dividends. Every dollar of after tax profit is reinvested in new businesses. Those businesses pay many people salaries and wages and those people pay many billions in taxes every year. Because of the faster compounding of Berkshires value this policy creates, when shareholders sell shares they are able to pay substantial taxes as well.

What does society gain from taking more of those profits and consuming them, instead of allowing them to be invested in supporting more jobs and creating more economic output?

Your reference to taxing assets is evidence of how completely lost you are on this topic. If a business owner invests to buy better production equipment (assets) that will increase the productivity of their workers so they can make more things with the same amount of work, it should be taxed for this decision?

Or in the case of cash on hand, which is usually retained earnings, i.e. after tax earnings that have been retained by the company for investment purposes. You really think it should be taxed again and again just because the company has it sitting in a bank account?

Our tax system is set up to tax profits and gains for very good reasons. Your tax system would be setup to make it expensive and dumb for anyone to invest or run businesses under it. If you don't like US corporations keeping overseas profits overseas, wait till tax codes changes you like force them to just become overseas corporations.

The best tax system, for conservatives, progressives, liberals, etc, is one that defers taxation of gains and profits until they are converted into individual income. It's why our retirement plans (401ks, IRAs) don't pay tax until withdrawals. It ensures their values compound far faster and gives far more incentive for people to save.

Allowing operating profits to be reinvested tax-free would also allow our GDP to grow much faster, and that will produce more available funds for social programs and spending (important if you are a progressive) and more wealth for citizens (important if you are a conservative).

[random_comment]

> What does society gain from taking more of those profits and consuming them, instead of allowing them to be invested in supporting more jobs and creating more economic output?

Judging from e.g. Scandinavia, France, Germany etc, what they get from taxing companies is an excellent safety net for all citizens, healthcare available for all, good transport systems, good education systems etc and various other social goods. Basically, great and fair countries to live in.

You seem to be speaking as though the only possible social good is the productivity of businesses and that money that is taken in tax has effectively zero contribution to society. Standing in Europe [or Japan, or any developed economy outside the USA], that looks like a very strange thing to read.

You're basically arguing 'tax shouldn't exist because it slows companies down and generates no positive effect of it's own'. To which I will respond, "Nope. That's an ignorant argument."

Tax on companies should exist because it leads to strong public sectors that act as safety nets for societies (on an individual level, and also at corporate level during downturns).

Furthermore, companies want to stay alive by having continual government spending during a recession, they need to be putting some money in the public kitty gradually on an ongoing basis to pay for it.

I would add that your claim of reducing corporation tax provides more jobs is total junk: see the citations on the right hand side of this page: https://corporatetax.procon.org/

Job creation in the USA was highest under high corporate tax rates; and 'corporation tax holidays' are associated with massive job cuts. Still, 'facts have a well known liberal bias' so I suggest you do your own research.

Let's transfer a part of your argument to another situation and see what happens:

>If a business owner invests to buy better production equipment (assets) that will increase the productivity of their workers so they can make more things with the same amount of work, it should be taxed for this decision?

I'll rewrite this as:

>If a consumer invests to buy better equipment (assets) that will increase the productivity in their home, they should be taxed for this decision?

Yes. Because there are other needs in society beyond optimising the productivity of companies. The greatest benefits in the average citizen's life do not come from the tax efficiency or manufacturing efficiency of the companies they use products from, but from education and healthcare and policing and transport and environmental and 'safety net' and regulatory/standards systems. Stuff that needs tax.

[valuearb]

> Judging from e.g. Scandinavia, France, Germany etc, what they get from taxing companies is an excellent safety net for all citizens, healthcare available for all, good transport systems, good education systems etc and various other social goods. Basically, great and fair countries to live in

You realize these are countries with lower corporate tax rates than the US?

> You seem to be speaking as though the only possible social good is the productivity of businesses and that money that is taken in tax has effectively zero contribution to society. Standing in Europe [or Japan, or any developed economy outside the USA], that looks like a very strange thing to read. You're basically arguing 'tax shouldn't exist because it slows companies down and generates no positive effect of it's own'. To which I will respond, "Nope. That's an ignorant argument."

That's a false argument you made, I never said anything of the sort.

> Tax on companies should exist because it leads to strong public sectors that act as safety nets for societies (on an individual level, and also at corporate level during downturns).

Taxes should exist to fund strong public sectors. That's not an argument for corporate income tax, since we can fund them with different taxes. Taxing corporate income at the personal level enables a far more progressive tax system, and the deferral of capital gains creates much more money to tax.

> I would add that your claim of reducing corporation tax provides more jobs is total junk: see the citations on the right hand side of this page: https://corporatetax.procon.org/ Job creation in the USA was highest under high corporate tax rates; and 'corporation tax holidays' are associated with massive job cuts. Still, 'facts have a well known liberal bias' so I suggest you do your own research.

Job creation in the USA was highest in the 1800s and early 1900s, before corporate income taxes were invented. In the 1950s productivity slowed significantly. Corporate taxes were so onerous in the 1950s that a substantial portion of US businesses switched to partnerships that didn't have to pay corporate income taxes.

And that fact that a small number of companies cut jobs after repatriating money suffers from both a logic and sample size issue. If Apple repatriates it's profits, it will pay them to it's shareholders. If it lays off employees later, that's unconnected, and more people will be getting hired at companies Apple shareholders invest their dividends in.

> Yes. Because there are other needs in society beyond optimising the productivity of companies. The greatest benefits in the average citizen's life do not come from the tax efficiency or manufacturing efficiency of the companies they use products from, but from education and healthcare and policing and transport and environmental and 'safety net' and regulatory/standards systems. Stuff that needs tax.

The fact that we have and can pay for all these things is because of the massive increase in productivity society has gone through since the stone age. Productivity increases makes society wealthier and enables people to pay more taxes to fund more government programs.