If we really want to soak the rich, we should abolish the corporate income tax

National Post ^ | 07/08/2014 | Andrew Coyne

[SeekAndFind]

Why do we tax corporations? No, seriously — why? If you’re like most people and all New Democrats, your response will be “because that’s where the money is,” or some variant thereon. Corporations have lots of money, the thinking runs, and are unlikely to mind if the government helps itself to some of it. And since they don’t vote, it doesn’t much matter if they do mind.

An economist, on the other hand, would point out that, one way or another, all of the income earned by a corporation finds its way back to the people who financed it, whether in the form of interest on debt or dividends on shares or, in the event the corporation opts to hold onto the cash, in an appreciating share price.

In which case, why not simply tax those individuals directly? Especially since, notwithstanding the name, it’s not the corporation that pays the corporate tax. Just as all of a corporation’s income ultimately accrues to its investors — the “corporation” merely describes the legal relationship among them — so, in the end, all taxes are paid by people.

Ah, but which people? It might be thought from the foregoing that it’s those same investors. Indeed, that’s why Canadian tax law provides individuals a tax credit on the dividends they received, while taxing only one-half their capital gains: in recognition of the tax that has already been levied on the same income at the corporate level. (Since corporations can deduct their interest expenses from income, bondholders are entitled to no such offset.)

But in fact the evidence suggests that shareholders do not bear the bulk of the tax. Capital is highly mobile these days, and shareholders are unlikely to tolerate after-tax returns that are less than they can obtain elsewhere.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Corporations don’t pay taxes, they collect them from their customers (just like they do the sales tax) as a cost of doing business and pass them on to the government.

[kcvl]

James Andrew Coyne (born December 23, 1960) is a Canadian political columnist with the National Post and a member of the At Issue panel on CBC.

Coyne was born in Ottawa, Ontario, the son of Hope Meribeth Cameron (née Stobie) and James Coyne, who was governor of the Bank of Canada from 1955 to 1961. His paternal great-grandfather was historian and lawyer James Henry Coyne. His sister is actress Susan Coyne. He is also the cousin of constitutional lawyer Deborah Coyne, who is the mother of Pierre Trudeau's youngest child. Coyne studied at the University of Manitoba where he was editor of The Manitoban and worked as a reporter for two summers at the newly launched Winnipeg Sun.

[LucianOfSamasota]

If we really wanted to soak the rich, we would tax assets or net worth.

Income is what a person earns. Assets are what they possess.

A tax on income is a tax on earners, which prevents them from acquiring assets, which preserves the status quo. Those who start on top will always be on top because earners are penalized.

A tax on assets affects hereditary wealth and stored possessions, forcing those at the top to earn if they wish to stay at the top. Earners on the other hand retain their earnings and develop the ability to acquire possessions and wealth.

This is why those with great wealth (think Warren Buffet) can advocate increased income taxes with impunity, because it actually hinders their competition.

I am not in favor of soaking the rich, but neither am I in favor of taxing the productive members of society into abject slavery. Minimum taxation based upon limited government would be my goal.

But make no mistake, income taxes (and sales taxes) are designed to preserve the status quo, providing inertia for those on top to stay there, and preventing those working their way to the top from getting there.

[Taxman]

Well, when one reads the article, one finds that the author is talking about Canada.

This is a “teachable moment,” however. Canada already has a more favorable corporate tax structure than the US. In fact, most countries in the world have have a more favorable corporate tax environment than the USA.

The take-away FRom this article is that the USA should simplify its tax code and reduce the burden of corporate taxation. In other words, replace the income tax with the FairTax and abolish the IRS.

FairTax, among other features and benefits, eliminates the corporate income tax and thereby will initiate an economic renaissance in America.

For more information about the FairTax, see http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers

[Dick Bachert]

FAIR TAX BTTT!!!!!

[Dick Bachert]

This is a radio commentary I did in 1994. It is as current today as it was then – and as you’ll see in a moment, over 2,000 years ago.

*********
A remarkable essay appeared in the August 31st (1994)edition of the Wall Street Journal. Entitled “A Higher Authority on Taxes”, it is a unique assessment of the just passed Clinton tax package. The author, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, does something the “dominant media culture” would have hammered a Christian for doing. The Rabbi states his conclusion in the very first paragraph: “The (tax)plan won’t work because it contradicts specific and timeless principles expressed in the Bible”.

WHOA!!

He rather methodically recites the Biblical laws of taxation, telling the reader that the Bible is the key to understanding the historically valid principle which states that, regardless of the level of taxation, folks will so arrange their affairs as to hold the
national average government tax take UNDER approximately 19.5%! It’s the same 19.5% the Egyptians paid to Pharaoh over 3,500 years ago – and for the same reasons. And it’s the same 19.5% a recent study indicates is STILL CURRENT!!

People have always resisted what they believe to be confiscatory taxation rates.

What does Scriptures have to say about OUR current tax rates? Quoting from Rabbi Lapin’s essay:

“Evidently, even the cruel scenario depicted by Samuel (earlier in the piece) could not envision a legitimate king claiming more than 10% of his own people’s produce (1st Samuel 8:15). A king would impose higher taxes only upon his conquered enemies.

“Sure enough, in Joshua 17:13, the idea is put forth that heavy taxation is to be imposed only upon people for whom you do not care much.”

The Rabbi concludes with this timely warning to us all:

“Finally, consider Proverbs 12:24. It declares that ‘the hands of the diligent shall produce wealth but the lazy will be subject to taxation.’ According to an 11th century sage these words warn that excessive taxation hinders productivity and comes to pass only through the laziness and indifference of citizens who decline to resist the oppression. In other words, resisting a government’s instinct to tax requires vigilance and energy. As the prophet Samuel warned, if we fail to
exert the necessary vigilance and energy, we shall have only ourselves to blame for the consequences.”

THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR: IF GOVERNMENT WISHES TO REMAIN AT ITS CURRENT SIZE OR EXPAND (TWO THOROUGHLY DETESTABLE OPTIONS!), IT SHOULD LOWER TAX RATES IN ORDER TO GROW THE GDP SO THAT ITS 19.5% “TAKE” (AS BY FORCE!) REPRESENTS A LARGER ABSOLUTE NUMBER!

Let me add an epilogue to this 1994 essay by asking why we continue to allow ourselves to suffer under a MARXIST INCOME TAX better suited to a third world dictatorship?

There are several proposals to scrap the current politically corrupt and abusive income tax and REPLACE IT with a flat tax or, my favorite, a national sales tax on CONSUMPTION. Visit WWW.FAIRTAX.ORG to get the FACTS about the Fairtax and don’t fall for the lies being broadcast by the friends and beneficiaries of the INCOME TAX.

All that said, unless and utill we get back to honest money, we will NEVER return to anything resembling honest government. Having struggled through the terrible period when the phrase “Not worth a continental”(look it up at the site shown) came into common usage, the Founders understood the dangers of unbacked, fiat paper currency. Roger Sherman and others obligated the states to keep us from our current plight by inserting a now ignored MANDATE in the Constitution at Article 1, Section 10. The words in question are now on the screen. Let them burn into your brain.
(pause)

Here are the words of Thomas Jefferson on this subject:
“When the servants of the people are paid in something OTHER than that which they themselves produce, the roles of master and servant will be reversed.” I
(pause)

By those words, Mr. Jefferson meant that if those who supported the operations of government had to do so with REAL, SWEAT OF THE BROW EFFORT AND/OR EQUIVALENT VALUE IN SOME HONEST MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE (“MONEY”), THE INCLINATION WOULD BE FOR THE PEOPLE TO REFUSE TO ALLOW MORE THAN THEY FELT REASONABLE AND PROPER TO BE EXTRACTED FROM THEM BY THEIR CIVIL SERVANTS.

Because we have stupidly allowed elected and unelected civil servants in the states to IGNORE their Constitutional mandate at Art.1 Section 10, the servants at the federal level are now creating all the “money” to fund their misbehavior, allowing them to become markedly UNCIVIL and OUTRIGHT ABUSIVE.

The current toboggan ride into tyranny is the price for that neglect!