[thaumasiotes]

This sort of thing is one reason you might want to tax revenues over profits.

Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting , in which all movies show a formal loss and the concept of "profit" as opposed to revenue exists only to scam parties who agree to be paid out of profits.

[valuearb]

Or you might prefer not to tax corporations at all, only distributions to shareholders. “Profits” or “cash flow” kept in the corporation is reinvested capital. It’s creating jobs and growing businesses, even if it’s kept in an interest bearing bank account.

[hpoe]

So I've always been confused by this argument of just start taxing the money that goes to shareholders because the business will reinvest it and create jobs and what not.

What keeps the company from reinvesting in the form of company luxury cars for the executives, a company home that they let the CEO live in, and executive compensation. Essentially redirecting the money that would've at least gone to index holders to the shareholders that we felt were getting too much of the pie to begin with.

Can someone explain this to me?

EDIT: just to clarify I don't mean they actually sign over the deed to the house to the ceo but rather the company maintains the house as an "executive" hq that the CEO just happens to live in, and the company doesn't give the execs luxury cars they have company cars that the executive just happen to have they keys to and only the execs. Things like that, the company claiming as corporate assets that are really only used by execs. And I am sure there are baskc laws to try and prevent something like this but there are also highly motivated CFOs to find loopholes.

[herge]

> company luxury cars for the executives, a company home that they let the CEO live in, and executive compensation

All those should be taxed like the equivalent of income for those executives, which is a higher rate than the corporate tax rate. If these benefits in kind are not taxed as income, then it is fraud.

[pingpongchef]

Barring fraud, lavish expenditures that you describe would be counted as compensation not investment and thus the picture changes dramatically.

[nthj]

Lodging must meet specific rules, or the fair market value of the lodging must be declared as W2 income.

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/taxability-employerprovided-...

[thaumasiotes]

It's not so easy to establish the fair market value of something that never goes on the market.

[gwright]

True, but I don't think that lodging is "something that never goes on the market". In this example, the mortgage or rental payments for an equivalent property would be pretty straightforward to determine.

[thaumasiotes]

I disagree. Lodging goes on the market all the time, but its market value is highly specific. There is no equivalent property to compare the corporate housing to.

[coldcode]

Until the business just uses the cash flow to buy back their stock, making everything look great until the day a pandemic hits and they need government bailouts.

[aidenn0]

We need to tax capital gains as income as well then, because stock-buybacks become a tax-loophole otherwise.

[valuearb]

I’m a big fan of taxing both capital gains and dividends at ordinary income rates to help restore fairness and progressivist to the tax code.

But to do this you absolutely need to index capital gains for inflation. That’s the reason they get special tax rates in the first place, because when inflation is high a significant part of capital gains are illusionary and you don’t want effective rates to reach over 100% in real use.

So don’t tax profits if reinvested. Task them as income if returned to shareholders (or used as excess compensation).

[aidenn0]

I'm actually fine with effective rates approaching 100% in higher brackets in real use. Inflation is a sunk-cost. If the investor were instead to put their money under their mattress, they have negative real returns, so effective tax rates of 100% would still incentivize investments to offset inflation.

Other than that, I completely agree with you.

[valuearb]

You are right about the sink cost, but ignoring a very real risk. Taxing capital gains to the point where the investor has negative returns drives capital offshore to places where it will be taxed far less or not at all. It turns honest citizens into tax cheats, and we already have too many of those.

[sokoloff]

Long-term capital gains and qualified dividends (most of them) are taxed the same. The closest alternative to share buybacks is declaring dividends IMO, so share buybacks are not a loophole otherwise.