^ this

---

I miss YaHey

Once JT gets through with me I will be paying alot more in taxes I know that.


The thing that bugs me is that JT always talks about fairness and making things equal. He says small business owners pay lower taxes than individuals but he ignores the risk that small business owners take, the lack of things like sick days, paid holidays and pension plans. He and all politicians never consider making things "fairer" by lowering taxes, it's always by raising them. If he feels individuals pay more, why not lower personal tax instead of depriving small business owners some incentives to start a business.


The other issue that is kind of ignored is why, despite a strong economy, does the Federal government need more tax revenue? I don't hear them talking about cutting spending, they simply keep growing government departments. The CRA received over $1 Billion in the last few years so our tax increases are going to fund more government departments. It's way out of control.


What is worse is I have used the current system to plan my retirement and now I have to go back to using RRSPs but have lost ten plus years of that. On the flip side it now makes alot of sense to buy recreational property instead of hold money in my corp so I am going to enjoy that.


The government is also very misleading about holding money in a CCPC. They keep saying small businesses benefit by investing within a corporation but that is simply not true. The small business rate is only on active business income, any investment income earned in a corporation is already taxed higher as it's not eligible for the small business deduction. You pay a higher tax on investment income and then if you pay it out of the corporation in wages or dividends, the combined tax rate is higher than if you earned the investment income personally. There can be a deferral of tax if you don't pay it out but when you do, the advantage is lost. We generally discourage companies from investing in a small business corporation for that reason.

No, it's the corporations who really pay all taxes They have to pay higher labor rates in order to attract workers and re-establish labor market equilibrium after a consumer tax rate change.

I'm being somewhat facetious. But money goes in a big circle and is siphoned off at various points in that circle. Claiming that one part of the circle is paying and another isn't, in my opinion, doesn't really describe the situation well.



Is it possible to criticize government-corporate behavior related to taxes in any way without histrionics about devils and lunacy?

I think it actually describes it very well. Any tax the corporation pays ends up being an operating cost for the business. If they hire someone and have to pay 10k in taxes for having the additional person, that 10k needs to come from somewhere.

They may let that just lower their profit margin to a point but at some point they’ll most likely raise prices. So end of day that tax cost is absorbed by the person paying for the product.

Obviously this is majorly simplified, but a decrease in the corporate tax rate should allow for lower prices to consumers as companies profit margin opens up some.

I wasn’t critizing Corp/gov behavior. I was critizing the very vocal group of people that’s have no understanding that a higher tax rate for corporations hurts them more a consumer than it does the corporation.

Disagree. Sure, the corporation raises prices to compensate. And when they raise prices there are effects. The most obvious one is that people buy less product. So your revenue drops. And if the corporate tax increase is pervasive and the cost of a lot of products is increasing, consumers have less discretionary income. So if your product is discretionary, then not only could your revenue drop because of simple movement along the supply-demand curve, but the entire curve could shift because the demand for your product could drop relative to essential products.

So your company shrinks. Or, if you were already on the edge, goes out of business. Tax increases don't simply get passed. They have cause real structural changes to producers as well, the same way the they cause real, structural changes to the standard of living of a household.

(And there's the whole labor market side which I'll skip for now).

There was the advantage of funneling income to my kids but I only got to do that for 2 years. I'll be okay but as you say I have to fund my own pension, disability insurance etc etc. Gov't sure knows how to waste money which I have seen first hand in Ontario with the implementation of the family health teams.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Gov't sure knows how to waste money which I have seen first hand in Ontario with the implementation of the family health teams.

I'm moving back to Ontario soon so now I have something else to look forward to...

Corporations pay "tax" in different ways. Just because something is not in the tax code doesn't mean they aren't paying a "tax". Regulations are taxes. Some regulations are good and some bad. OSHA for example has some horrendous regulations that tax companies in the form of forcing them to do something that costs a lot of money for negligible return. Rent Control is another form of a tax.

Good luck with that. In the end you'll end up taking it in the ass just like the rest of us.

---

I have a personality disorder, I don't drink coffee...

To follow your logic.


I don't really pay income taxes. My employer cares that burden by having to increase my salary, which I need because I am paying the corporate taxes for the products I purchase.

So if prices go down due to corporate taxes being cut I expect my salary to decrease since my cost of living goes down so my employer will have to pay less of my income tax.

The circle of life.

If corporate taxes go down, the price of goods won't come down, the corporations will make more. They might hire more people if the demand is there (a good thing) and they might pay more in dividends to shareholders (good for investors) but it wouldn't help the average worker as much as a lot of people assume.

It’d depend. As Trail mentioned it’s not as simple as I said but I find it hard to believe most companies that are in close competition with others selling the same product won’t have price drops.

Take TVs let’s say the margin goes up from 5 to 10 percent, with a tax decrease. If the bean counters come back and say if we drop the price down to make the original profit margin, we’ll sell x more units. Youre going to see a price drop.

If it’s a Ferrari, it’s unlikely they’ll drop their price since it’s really unlikely that’s going to change their volume.

A drop in corporate rates I think would significantly help people who are buying everyday items. But then that tax theoretically needs to be made up somewhere so someone else is gonna get hit. But this is the US gov we’re talking about so increasing revenue to cover spending, or decreasing spending with a decrease in revenue really isn’t in their wheelhouse.

I would agree in non-competitive markets such as cable companies. But this is not true for companies that are existing in a market with fierce competition. A drop in corporate rates, with theoretically, more money being kept by the company will allow margin flexibility and thus lower prices. Now depending on where the company is in the value chain, the end customer might not see it but in some cases they may. Its easy to be cynical and I don't blame you but it would allow companies to compete a little better.

I am a big proponent of a reduction in corporate tax rates (and all tax rates) but I don't think the impact on a reduction in corporate tax rates is as big as often claimed. In Canada, we have a small business deduction, which means a 13% tax (in B.C but it varies a little in each province) on the first $500,000 on corporate taxable income. On anything over that, for a private corporation, the tax would be about 26%. It's kind of hard to determine the impact of the reduction but it certainly increased the number of people setting up Corporations here. I'm just not sure if that translated to cheaper goods or just tax savings for some people.

I agree with Paul Ryan who things Trump's proposal to lower the corporate tax rate so much may not be needed but it does seem there is a lot of room to bring it down. I think that proposal is a good one.

Actually, I think we should have NO deductions and get to even lower rates. Well, actually, I would do away with income taxes and move to sales tax.

Another way to think of this...a foreign company can come into the US and invest each dollar at a 35% discount to US companies. Its a disadvantage, no matter how you net it out. We should strive to be the lowest or at least competitive.

Gotta to be a pile of crap if coming from trump and repubs....ask kansas

Just picking up on the tax reform debate again, a few weeks on.

So on the revenue side, Trump was potentially counting on (over the next ten years):
- $1tn from border adjustment tax (never likely but was once on the table)
- $1tn from healthcare reform
- $1.5tn from removal of state and local tax deductions

Looks like none of those revenues will happen, which leaves significantly less room for tax cuts. Maybe the corporate tax rate is reduced to 25%, but what ever it is it will be a far cry from Trump's original 15% goal.

So do stocks finally fall when everyone realizes major tax reform simply isn't going to happen? Stocks keep posting record highs and bitcoin is trading at $5,700 (up 350% since April)... just seems there's an awful lot of capital sloshing around with nowhere to park it.

Stocks will fall at some point due to normal business cycles...we are due for a recession.

The more I read about the Trump plan, the more I like it over what we have now. We need to get rid of most of the deductions...why should the Federal govt subsidize people that live in high tax states? It makes no sense and they will adjust. As to the corporate tax rate, its too high, period.

I'm with Kay. It's only been a couple weeks, but the "radio silence" on discussion of details (like what income levels each of the proposed new brackets kick in) is a little worrisome. Hopefully there's more of that in the Senate discussions this week.

But about that Senate...

It doesn't help that Trump's "tax team" is led by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and Bannon is over running the presses at full speed declaring a "season of war" with those two as primary targets. How motivated are those two going to be to help Trump? Of course I don't envy Trump since he has eff-all control of Bannon.

Trump's in a Catch-22 on this and just about every major issue going through the Senate. He needs either 1) Almost every GOP vote in the Senate, or 2) Democratic support.

For 1) he almost certainly needs to play nice with Senators. There are at least 3 leaving (McCain, Corker, probably Collins) who give zero fucks about threats of getting "primaried" from the Bannon crowd. Probably more than three. Those are just off the top of my head.

For 2) he's going to have to massively compromise. And that has all kinds of implications. DACA, wall, ACA funding. Etc. It ain't going to come cheap.

And that's before we even talk about all the lobbyists for each threatened deduction/credit that come crawling out of the woodwork.

Couple points:

• I distinctly recall more than a few threads here in which every single conservative and moderate adamantly rejected the idea that a reduction of a high tax was a subsidy, since "It's our money anyway".
• Federalism. The deduction on state/local tax was specifically to give states more leeway in funding programs tailored to their own priorities, thereby passing power to the states.
• Deficits. Since states can't print money, they theoretically were forced to be more fiscally prudent than the federal government. While that isn't true for some states (Illinois, cough, cough) the deficits are still small in comparison with the US debt, which is going to blossom (not that anyone really cares).

The upshot of this is that "conservatives" are abandoning principles of federalism and states'rights and deficit control for a short-term perceived gain when federal government happens to more conservative than many states. This is mostly a rearranging of deck chairs, and a host of taxpayers who already pay more will subsidize tax cuts for others. At some point in the future when the federal government swings leftward, I suspect that conservatives will rue abandoning the convenient principle of federalism.

It was my thought so I will own them - I want to get rid of ALL deductions. Yeah its our money, but we are going to fund the govt, why don't we get rid of complexity. My preference is no income taxes and move to a sales tax, but if I have to deal with it, I prefer fewer deductions and a much purer system.