I think Berkshire keeps a lot of money parked in T Bills and other Dividend paying investments so they get a lot of cash. They don't seem to play the Tax evasion game as much as some other companies IMO.
Imagine if a household was only taxed on the money they managed to put away in savings and could count housing expenses, food expenses, education costs, healthcare, entertainment, vacations, vehicle purchases, etc. 100% against their income.
That's what the standard/itemized deduction is supposed to represent. The problem is that we obviously can't let you deduct everything, because if you can deduct everything there would be nothing to tax, aside from savings. And you really don't want to tax savings because savings (also known as "investment") is what makes the modern economy possible.
I most certainly cannot deduct housing, food, entertainment, vacations, or large purchases.
> The problem is that we obviously can't let you deduct everything, because if you can deduct everything there would be nothing to tax, aside from savings.
This is the point the parent poster is making. We say that it's ok for corporations to deduct everything, but not the people? Why are we ok with that?
>This is the point the parent poster is making. We say that it's ok for corporations to deduct everything, but not the people? Why are we ok with that?
Because companies, to some approximation, are pass-through entities, so it doesn't make sense to tax them. Most of the stuff you buy are for own use/consumption. Food is an obvious one, but so are movie tickets TV and last year's European vacation. Companies don't do any of that. It doesn't need food, movie tickets, or European vacations. It might buy flight tickets for its employees to go on sales trips or whatever, but it's not for the company itself. Moreover if you're buying stuff for business purposes (eg. you're a contractor and need a flight ticket to go meet your client), you can deduct it too.
More practically, taxing revenue or not allowing companies to deduct expenses would heavily encourage vertical integration. A vertically integrated widget factory will only have to pay such a tax once, but a widget factory that buys its sheet metal from a foundry, which gets its ores from a miner will have to pay the tax 3 times. That's bad for the economy because it discourages specialization and division of labor, which is basically the other pillar of the modern economy.
> Companies don't do any of that. It doesn't need food, movie tickets, or European vacations.
And yet they sure seem to cater a lot of lunches and dinners, pick up the costs for large corporate events, pay for suites at event venues, and fly executives around the world in private jets.
> That's what the standard/itemized deduction is supposed to represent.
If they wanted you to deduct housing costs they'd just let you deduct housing costs. Instead they play games about mortgage interest deductions because they want to incentivize certain kinds of living arrangements over others and give handouts to some voters but not others.
I agree the idea of only having households pay taxes on savings is pretty much untenable with existing revenue structures and would be disencentivizing things we want to incentivize. Just pointing out how corporate taxes just seem pretty absurd from what households pay in comparison.
Let's imagine two groups of people. One group gets a bonus and takes that money to go on a cruise. Easily 30%+ of that money gets taken by income taxes (including FICA). The other group gets their company to just pay for them to go on that cruise as a team building exercise/corporate summit/planning meeting/whatever you want to call it. That's negative taxes in the end, the cost of the business operating, it's a cost that offsets revenues. Good luck getting that audited and declared taxable.
> Instead they play games about mortgage interest deductions because they want to incentivize certain kinds of living arrangements over others and give handouts to some voters but not others.
Your "they" is doing a lot of work here.
In reality, this system isn't top-down; it's bottom-up. Influential groups of voters (corporations, sure, but also just various stripes of "rich people" — and even upper-middle-class people at the municipal level) go out and lobby their local and regional representatives to get exceptions carved out for them (and, mostly coincidentally, people like them.)
The voters who don't get handouts are the ones who have no political influence.
(Fun fact: our current situation with capital-gains taxes, was an attempt to "rationalize" a system that was previously similarly cronyist in shape. It used to be that there were particular exceptions carved out for investment classes A and B and C that rich-and-influential people invested in, and none carved out for your regular Joe. People got mad, and the government's solution — rather than removing the carve-outs — was to just make them equally accessible to everyone.)
>That's negative taxes in the end, the cost of the business operating, it's a cost that offsets revenues. Good luck getting that audited and declared taxable.
How is that negative taxes? At best it's tax free, but calling it negative tax (because it's lower than the alternative?) is double-counting. Moreover AFAIK this sort of tax evasion mostly happens at the small business level (eg. a plumber buying a pickup truck and then using it to go to the grocery store and pick up his kids from soccer practice), but it doesn't really happen at the corporate level because 1) such spending will almost be in contravention of corporate governance policies and be flagged by auditors and 2) you need so many people in on the conspiracy that it's impossible to keep a lid on it. Plenty of companies get flak for their subsidiaries in tax havens, but I'm not aware of any serious allegations of corporate tax evasion by the way of fringe benefits.
Unironically yes. The reason people want taxes on profits is they think large, powerful companies are a threat... but if you think that, why tax money that large, powerful companies don't waste?
The other reason is to tax the rich, but you can do that by simply taxing the rich directly. If we fear powerful companies, we can put some sort of scaling size tax on the largest ones.
A lot of companies are essentially on the welfare of their investors, who may or may not be stupid. Many companies purposefully do not turn a profit, because they're aiming to cheat the market and sell at a loss to push competitors out. A lot of very successful companies operate or have operated this way, and it's incredibly dangerous for the market. It causes the erosion of small businesses and further promotes monopolization. We can try to disincentive that by saying, "hey, you don't want to turn a profit, that's fine, but you still have to pay up".
This is part of the reason why if you look around America today it's going to be 99% big corporate players dominating markets and 1% small businesses barely staying afloat.
Yes! That's the VC funded model - money injection while you burn cash and run on losses until you're big enough for a huge return. Which incentivises all sorts of bad behaviours. Same with Hollywood accounting. Just tax a bit less on revenue.
Most of my health expenses, sure. Not necessarily all of them, unless I play games and live within allowed limits of tax advantaged savings accounts which might just eat my money at the end of the year.
My vacations, car payments, food expenses, and housing expenses are absolutely not able to be written off. One part of my housing expenses may be able to be written off, but not anywhere near all of them. Some education expenses, but not nearly all. I get $5k of untaxed income for childcare for the year. How many weeks do you think $5k covers for two kids?
Pareto optimality would be ideal, but across an entire economy, that's almost impossible to measure.
In reality, there is no objective definition of "a fair share", there is only the intent expressed in the tax code (and people of course argue over what the intent "really is"). If people and/or corps. are paying taxes following that intent, then for all practical purposes, they are paying their "fair share".
A realistic fair share is probably some colloquial measure of people and corporations being equally angry about their taxes and equally angry about others not paying their fair share. It's my personal opinion that corporations have it way too good in the current system, specifically because they've spent millions to find ways to save billions, which people cannot reasonably do, and because they've also spent millions buying our political processes off to ensure tax laws don't meaningfully change.
Yes, and in fact the entire purpose of a progressive marginal tax system is that "everyone feels the pain of taxation" equally. It recognizes that a fixed percentage, even with a threshold, feels very different if you earn poverty-level wages than if you earn 10000 times that.
And that's what our tax system is designed around.
Corporations, and specifically their status (or otherwise) as "persons" complicates the picture quite a bit.
What counts as a loophole though? IRA, almost by design is a way to shelter your investments from taxes. Is it a loophole to put your investments in an IRA to avoid taxes? What about when Peter Thiel puts his paypal stock in an IRA, and paid no taxes on his paypal exit?
Can you say why employees of large and well funded businesses get to save $23k+ per year in 401k, but employees of small and less well funded businesses can only save $7k per year in an IRA?
You don't have to be large and well funded. You do have to have your own SEP-IRA, rather than a regular IRA, and almost any self-employed person could do that. I am self-employed, my business is essentially a sole proprietorship, and I get the higher limits because of the type of IRA.
So the question is really: why do some people only get to save $7k a year in an IRA and others get to save much, much more?
Well I can pull up exactly what proponents of The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which introduced the Roth IRA, stated their intentions were since this is very easy to find and widely documented but I strongly suspect you don't actually give a fuck about reality.
"intended use-case" is just more fuzzy language. They probably thought everyone would buy mutual funds, rather than 3X leveraged Nvidia ETFs. Does that mean buying such ETFs (and making bank) mean you're not paying "your fair share"? Or for something more down to earth, what about meme stocks and bitcoin treasury companies, both of which are technically companies, but are definitely not what the authors of the bill had in mind.
The purpose of IRAs is clear from the name - Individual Retirement Account. It was intended to allow individuals to save more effectively for their own retirement, and the justification for it centered around providing incentives for people who might not otherwise save enough.
At least, that was the publicly delivered account.
For a billionare who can already retire in comfort few will ever know to be using any kind of IRA for any purpose is outside of the publicly given justification for their existence.
> Food conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland enjoyed $438 million of U.S. pretax income last year and received a federal tax rebate of $164 million.
> The delivery giant FedEx zeroed out its federal income tax on $1.2 billion of U.S. pretax income in 2020 and received a rebate of $230 million.
> The shoe manufacturer Nike didn’t pay a dime of federal income tax on almost $2.9 billion of U.S. pretax income last year, instead enjoying a $109 million tax rebate.
If you think this is the same as someone putting $7k into a 401k then you are acting in bad faith and we have nothing productive to discuss.
Some loopholes are an accident. Some are intentionally put in place by parties interested in traveling through the loophole, benefiting from doing that, and then claiming they would be stupid not to do so.
Those cases are different, even though the legal status of them may be the same.
Fair means the same playing field, the same rules, the same consistent outcomes from all the corporations subject to these laws and regulations, and not just one of them who does the right thing. Exercizing loopholes is the opposite of fair. It puts those with the best cheating strategies ahead of those who play by the rules. Because you can catch the ref with his back turned doesn't make you a fair player.
"A way of avoiding or escaping a cost or legal burden that would otherwise apply by means of an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law." - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
What they're describing is corporations using legal strategies to mitigate their tax burdens that you or I cannot do. Lobbying is legal, but you or I cannot lobby to any useful degree. Big-box store companies build their stores to be short-lived buildings, then will only sell them with a contract that says the next occupant cannot be a big-box store, then argue that since value is determined by what someone else will pay and nobody will pay much for the end of life of a short-lived store intended to be a shop but which now cannot be a shop, so their stores are low value and comparable to empty stores, therefore they shouldn't pay much tax on them. "In Wisconsin, new Gov. Tony Evers says his budget proposal will close the dark stores loophole in the state"[1].
> "Legally avoiding taxes isn't cheating."
Try arguing that you would only sell your houses with a stipulation that nobody can live in it, therefore you should pay the same taxes and rates that an empty lot would pay, and see if you still think that "legal is the same as right and fair".
Loopholes are the definition of playing by the rules.
Laws are not enacted in spirit, they are drafted, voted on, and enacted in text. What the law says is what matters, not what people assume it wants to achieve.
To claim that complying with the law exactly as it is written is unfair is, quite frankly, undemocratic and an outright rejection of the rule of law.
No, criticising the laws for being written in such a way that allow loophole behavior is not undemocratic. In any reasonable democracy you're allowed to criticise laws however much you please
It’s very easy. If I think I pay a lot then I’m paying more than my fair share. If I think you’re not paying enough then you’re not paying your fair share.