| > 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. |