The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
america's corporate tax rate -- is it high or not
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 27th, 2012 9:19 PM Author: talented canary whorehouse give it to me straight brehs. i understand that the statutory rate of 35% is high, but is the effective rate also high? so much contradictory info i hear about the effective rate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1885121&forum_id=2#20069173) |
 |
Date: February 27th, 2012 9:22 PM Author: Boyish International Law Enforcement Agency Read the treasury department framework that was released last week. The us effective rate is 29 percent. There is also a good industry breakdown. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1885121&forum_id=2#20069200) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2012 9:25 PM Author: talented canary whorehouse link?> (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1885121&forum_id=2#20069237) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2012 9:37 PM Author: Boyish International Law Enforcement Agency http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1427.aspx
Link at the bottom of page. Don't worry about the proposals, the first 10 pages contain the facts. |
|
Date: February 27th, 2012 9:41 PM Author: talented canary whorehouse interesting. thanks bro (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1885121&forum_id=2#20069419) |
Date: February 27th, 2012 9:22 PM Author: insanely creepy lemon multi-billionaire main people the only one of the largest companies that actual pays any taxes is fed ex which pays like 7%. GE, for example, as a +45% tax rate. that means they don't get pay anything and get rebates and shit that equals 45% of their profits. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1885121&forum_id=2#20069203) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2012 9:26 PM Author: talented canary whorehouse i want aggregate numbers, not anecdotes from companies in a big net carryover year (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1885121&forum_id=2#20069247) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2012 9:40 PM Author: greedy ruby hunting ground philosopher-king It's a nonsensical question. The effective rate depends on how you define income. Given that neither GAAP nor tax accounting are necessarily what anyone would consider real income, there's no good way to answer the question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1885121&forum_id=2#20069402) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2012 10:25 PM Author: ebony tripping chapel but tax accounting/GAAP do "reflect" (but do not identically mirror) real income. Is there a magic number to it? No. But they do reflect your income even if it is just what the liquid value of the org is in terms of the capital accounts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1885121&forum_id=2#20069783) |
|
Date: February 27th, 2012 10:27 PM Author: talented canary whorehouse (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1885121&forum_id=2#20069794) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2013 1:09 PM Author: Nubile Gas Station Round Eye (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1885121&forum_id=2#22668500) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2013 1:11 PM Author: Navy garrison messiness yeah man. the corporations are hurting. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1885121&forum_id=2#22668511) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2013 3:09 PM Author: Plum twisted meetinghouse http://www.aei.org/files/2011/02/09/TPO-2011-01-Table-2.jpg
http://www.aei.org/files/2011/02/09/TPO-2011-01-Figure-3.jpg
Not the highest, but still uncomfortably on the wrong side of the distribution. A bigger issue is probably how haphazard and loophole ridden it is.
There's plenty of research on the incidence of corporate taxation. Probably about 25% (average of empirical estimates off the top of my head) of the burden falls on groups other than the owners of the corporation. Creates a weird dynamic. No burden shifting=high incidence on capital owners=higher true taxation on the wealthy=less of an argument that the rich aren't paying their "fair" share. High burden shifting=lower incidence on owners=lower true taxation on the wealth=more of an argument that they aren't paying their "fair" share, but at the same time by raising corporate taxes you would be taxing the poor and middle class as well. For each side it strengthens one half of the argument while weakening the other. |
|
Date: February 19th, 2013 9:27 PM Author: zombie-like aromatic hissy fit stag film If you think you can draw real conclusions about corp tax incidence you have been bamboozled. Economists have no fucking clue because there is no way to measure it and their models are not at all realistic in this area. Before there was a corporate tax, consumers, workers and capital reached some arrangement to split the surplus of business activity. With the corporate tax, they reach some different arrangement to account for the government's cut. Anyone who tells you anything more specific than that is talking out of their ass.
Secondly, the U.S. tax rate is high on businesses based on observable and immobile U.S. activity (Walmart, oil extraction except to the extent that loopholes walk it back to low levels, construction). It is high on financials that avoid tax complexity (community banks that have huge interest streams coming in the door every year) and erratic on tax-aggressive/international financials (they might pay very low taxes at times, but they also get absolutely fucked on audit sometimes when the bullshit that past accountants sold to past management to goose reported earnings and minimize cash taxes gets scrutinized). Finally, it gives MNCs who can play games with offshore subs, royalties, and transfer pricing a huge edge over U.S.-centric smaller manufacturers who are stuck paying at the statutory rate on the earnings from their fully-depreciated old plants and can't raise the capital or afford the necessary advisors and expertise to move overseas. |