this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
797 points (99.0% liked)

News

23259 readers
3386 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The vice president is rolling out her first revenue-raising policy proposal as the Democratic presidential nominee and drawing a contrast with GOP opponent Donald Trump.

Vice President Kamala Harris is calling for raising the corporate tax rate to 28%, her first major proposal to raise revenues and finance expensive plans she wants to pursue as president.

Harris campaign spokesman James Singer told NBC News that she would push for a 28% corporate tax rate, calling it “a fiscally responsible way to put money back in the pockets of working people and ensure billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share.”

If enacted, the policy would raise hundreds of billions of dollars, as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that 1 percentage point increases in the corporate rate corresponds to about $100 billion over a decade. It would also roll back a big part of former President Donald Trump’s signature legislation in 2017 as president, which slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.

Trump, meanwhile, recently said he would cut taxes even further if elected president, including on businesses.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 170 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Maybe roll it back up to 35 percent instead of letting republicans gain ground every fucking election and doing half assed measures that still result in net loss for the people? I mean it’s a step in the right direction but Jesus fucking Christ man.

[–] Gigasser@lemmy.world 93 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Shit why not make it 50%, it was that way in 1950.

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 54 points 2 months ago

The Good Old Days, according to conservatives.

[–] Lowpast@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Back when there were numerous loopholes, deductions, and methods of evasion and nearly none paid that rate? And when they later lowered effective rates, closed loopholes, and ended up collecting more?

Yeah, let's do that. Let's incentive finding ways to avoid paying taxes.

This is exactly how you give incentives to higher CEO pay. Record profits? Give all of it to the CEO and you'll pay none of it to the government. You didn't mention a higher personal tax rate, so end of the day the CEO wins.

Own an S-Corp? Pass through all profits to yourself and pay 0%.

[–] IamAnonymous@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Corporations still find loopholes and pay nearly no taxes… If corporations and Billionaires paid their taxes just like common folks, the country would make a lot more in taxes.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] big_slap@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Maybe roll it back up to 35 percent

let's go for 40% to account for inflation. and that's being generous lol

[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That's... Not how inflation works, lol. At that rate, they'll eventually be taxed more than 100%.

[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

I’m fine with this

[–] big_slap@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

hmm, true lol. I just want gigantic companies to pay their fair share, and 28% is just too low for my taste when we were getting way more from big businesses back during the 50s and 60s.

I understand lowering the rate helps businesses grow, but come on, there are way more shittier companies taking advantage of the lower tax rate than it's helping.

[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 23 points 2 months ago

I like her, but man is it annoying to see the ratchet-effect happening once you are aware of it.

[–] WhyDoYouPersist@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

I like where your heads at

[–] snek@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

As someone who lives in Europe, I already pay this much on income taxes. Is this considered high?

Edit: actually like 30-33%

[–] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 20 points 2 months ago

30-35% is about what Americans pay too in personal income taxes, but this is talking about taxes paid by businesses, which are unsustainably low in the states right now.

[–] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

I blame Reagan. It's been historically really low ever since and every time it's tried to be raised Republicans scream that they're are coming for your money. Even if they are only trying to raise it for ppl making over 2 million or whatever.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago

I live in Canada and that’s what we pay too.

[–] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

She advocated for that in 2020 and lost, so she rolled it back to be more moderate. You can’t sell shit that people won’t buy.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

You can’t ~~sell shit~~ pass legislation against corporations that ~~people won’t buy~~ are legally allowed to bribe our representatives

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 52 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Does it really matter what the rate is when they don't pay it anyway?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/13/companies-spend-more-executive-salaries-than-taxes/72941207007/

"The analysis names 35 corporations, including Tesla, Netflix and Ford, that each reportedly spent more on compensation to their five highest-paid executives than they paid in federal income taxes over five years.

Collectively, the 35 corporations spent $9.5 billion on their top executives over that span, the report said, while their combined federal tax bill came to -$1.8 billion: a collective refund."

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

To be fair, this is about the corporate tax rate, not the income tax that corporations pay.

However, that article does mention the corporate tax rate and how corporations pay less than they are supposed to:

The watchdog report draws on recent research by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, another nonprofit, left-leaning think tank. That group found 342 large corporations that paid a cumulative effective tax rate of 14.1% over five years, well short of the statutory corporate tax rate of 21%.

Hopefully a Harris administration would close such loopholes as well.

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 42 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This needs to happen. Also massive corps need to start paying minimum tax. No more tax free years.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But how else are they gonna ~~piss~~ trickle down on you?

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago

This is not fair! Neoliberal economic theory isn’t just a pissing contest! It’s much more than that!

[–] credo@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Any way we can tax advertising at 100%?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Added taxes can be more than 100%

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm still stumped how ads make money. If your product ad interrupts my enjoyment, I am now fully aware of what I will not buy under any circumstance. How does that benefit anyone?

[–] dan@upvote.au 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You're not the average person though. A lot of people do respond to ads. The average ROI (return on investment) for digital ads is 200-500%, meaning for every $1 the advertiser spends on ads, they make $2 - $5 back. Retargeting ads (the ones that show you products you've viewed before) are even more effective.

The reason ads are so prevalent is because people want stuff for free, and ads work well enough to cover the costs of providing a free service. I'm not saying they're bad or good, just that that's the state of things today.

I'm just like this. On principle, I'm never going to click through an ad nor purchase the advertised product.

That said, ads online have been so pervasive for so long that a lot of people just plain do not see any problem. In every thread about brave browser idiots try to make the use that "responsible" ads are actually good, like they're providing you a service by making you aware of some thing you wanted to buy.

Even in this thread, someone will probably be along shortly to tell us all about how the advertising revenue model is the only way to find the modern web. Vapid youtubers need to get paid somehow after all.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

I suggest we tax being a billionaire asshole at 100%.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 30 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Taxing profit rather than revenue might be one of the reasons companies look for unlimited growth. If they had reasonable growth or were steady, they'd need to pay more in taxes since they'd be profitable. Instead if they spend all their money on regrowing and growing and growing and paying executives.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

Encouraging unlimited growth is fine as long as there is robust anti monopoly work. Companies trying to grow is how we get better innovations and efficiency. But letting them grow infinitely is literally cancer.

Encourage growth. It's a good thing. But when a company gets too big, the government should hold a "yay, you won capitalism!" party, purchase every share of stock, give every worker a big bonus, and then break that company apart.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 months ago (3 children)

What is this tax on? Is it profits only? Or something else?

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Important questions. Fiscal policy is wildly complex and what's that saying about the road to hell and best intentions?

I'm here for that conversation. What does tax hell out of them mean? Sounds good to me, but the idea deserves some talk.

[–] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

I guess it means you send a lobbyist to Washington and invent ludicrous tax deductions so that your company pays a near zero effective tax rate. Just like Amazon!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2019/02/22/why-amazon-pays-no-corporate-taxes/

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] samokosik@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (3 children)

As it was mentioned here, issue is not the rate but the fact they don’t pay it.

Making the rate higher will not motivate/force them to pay it. Making it too high would only motivate them to find a hole in the system.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Fund the IRS?
Meh.
Fund the IRS to go after companies with >100 global employees. Yes!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah, tax profits and revenue. Not at the same percentages ofc.

But taxing based on revenue means the money is taxed where the revenue is made. No more shell games with tax havens for that.

[–] fpslem@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Clent@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But someday I might be a corporation!

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago

Everything you say already is

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Honestly, unless we close the offshore tax loophole, reducing or increasing the corporate tax rate is basically symbolic, since the federal tax rate is functionally 0% for most cooperations.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Boo, but I am a job creator!

Just kidding, my company should pay more taxes. We can already write off so much anyway.

[–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

If only individuals could write off expenditures, only the rich would pay taxes.

load more comments
view more: next ›