Government ownership as alternative to corporate income tax

[Hazir]

Didn't Hitler try that?

No, he didn't. You're thinking most likely of corporatism, which is a system that forces owners and workers to cooperate for the common good without actually changing anything in the ownership.

I don't see what's intrinsically bad about a system that replaces one tax with another tax. One practicle advantage would be the end of a whole lot of tax-reporting and/or auditing thereof. Another would be a quantitative measure of the piggy bag the state claims for its own use rather than the more fleety 'wealth of a nation'.

[Enoch the Red]

Well, I did indeed provide evidence if you'd have bothered to read the rest of the thread... Again, his statement was along the lines of "This won't ever work!"

Reading the thread is a good suggestion. By doing so you might notice that Loki made his claim before you provided your evidence. And to be perfectly honest I'm not sure the evidence you provided even supports your claim. To say that one company has had success while being partially owned by the state does not indicate that their success followed state ownership, or that their involvement was directly responsible for it. Your evidence falls far short of proving anything, or addressing Loki's critique.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yes, he made a claim. And? I could also claim that black holes are really purple. And your other arguments are equally shoddy. You're intellectually lazy here, my dear. Until you clean up your act I think I'll simply ignore what you're saying because it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Enoch the Red]

Yes, he made a claim. And? I could also claim that black holes are really purple. And your other arguments are equally shoddy. You're intellectually lazy here, my dear. Until you clean up your act I think I'll simply ignore what you're saying because it makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't think so Khend, my logic is sound. Your ad hominem attacks are not. Let's break it down. Minx asks a question - a jumping off point for the sake of discussion. Loki responds that he doesn't see any advantages to the system that Minx outlined. That is not a positive assertion, it is skepticism. In short, Loki was intelligently utilizing one of the axioms you claim to use. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I can only imagine that you would use a similar brand of skepticism if I claimed that we could have safe, clean, free energy from magnets. Then you replied saying that you know of at least one instance where a company with partial state ownership has apparently thrived.

Now, it stands to reason that the claim you are making is that state ownership is responsible for VW thriving, otherwise it wouldn't be relevant to the discussion at hand. If VW was merely succeeding despite this arrangement, (a distinct possibility) then it wouldn't fulfill Minx's stated purpose of finding a system that would benefit both private corporations and the public good. For your argument to have any merit whatsoever it would require that VW be successful because of that arrangement. You are making a positive assertion which requires evidence that you have thus far not provided.

So please, drop the haughtiness - the arrogant holier-than-thou attitude, and check your first principles.

[Aimless]

"merely succeeding despite this arrangement" would put it on par with other more conventional arrangements

[Aimless]

Here's a question: if a government bails a company out, should that government seek to get a significant stake in the company it bails out?

[Enoch the Red]

"merely succeeding despite this arrangement" would put it on par with other more conventional arrangements

I think the level of success might be an important parameter there, but I'll concede the point.

[GGT]

Government ownership makes sense when private citizens can't compete with corporations, or can't hold their own in a "Freee Market" that's rigged in favor of LLCs that control water, air, food, medicine, information (ie, monopolies).

That doesn't really answer the dilemmas surrounding public policy or taxation, or who's responsible for funding national infrastructure. I'm going to point to "ownership" as the crux of the debate. Who "owns" public policy?

[Dreadnaught]

If we want the government to profit from corporate success without corporate tax shenanigans, it would seem worthwhile to remove corporate taxes and only tax salaries, dividends and capital gains. What more of a stake in a rising tide does the government need?

[Being]

If we want the government to profit from corporate success without corporate tax shenanigans, it would seem worthwhile to remove corporate taxes and only tax salaries, dividends and capital gains. What more of a stake in a rising tide does the government need?

Yeah, let's make corporate employees foot part of the bill for the governmental protections their employer receives. Their employer is after all a person with no salary.

[Lewkowski]

Been to the DMV lately? Yeah let's not invite government to become an even more annoying intrusion.

Nearly every major 'free market disaster' is rooted in the action of the government.

[Dreadnaught]

Yeah, let's make corporate employees foot part of the bill for the governmental protections their employer receives. Their employer is after all a person with no salary.

Some part of me thought you would like this a bit, as it treats corporations less like people. In other words, only people are being taxed. I always try to make you happy.

Besides, our current setup is basically double taxation of corporate earnings when it's earned by the company and when it's paid-out to shareholders/employees.

[Being]

Some part of me thought you would like this a bit, as it treats corporations less like people. In other words, only people are being taxed. I always try to make you happy.

Besides, our current setup is basically double taxation of corporate earnings when it's earned by the company and when it's paid-out to shareholders/employees.

Arguing double taxation is a ploy to avoid taxes. Most every tax can be considered double taxation. I challenge you to name a tax that can absolutely be defined as not double taxation. BTW, since we are talking about corporate shit it seems convenient that you left out the word dividend when describing our current setup. Dividend is like you paying a tip at the bar for your drink. Did you already pay tax on the money you used to pay the tip?

[Dreadnaught]

Arguing double taxation is a ploy to avoid taxes. Most every tax can be considered double taxation. I challenge you to name a tax that can absolutely be defined as not double taxation. BTW, since we are talking about corporate shit it seems convenient that you left out the word dividend when describing our current setup. Dividend is like you paying a tip at the bar for your drink. Did you already pay tax on the money you used to pay the tip?

I very clearly did mention dividends

If we want the government to profit from corporate success without corporate tax shenanigans, it would seem worthwhile to remove corporate taxes and only tax salaries, dividends and capital gains. What more of a stake in a rising tide does the government need?

And I think there's a big difference between dividends and tipping at bars; one is optional, the other is merely polite.

[Being]

I very clearly did mention dividends

Not when you described our current setup. Corporate earnings include much more than the piddly dividends you are so worried about.

And I think there's a big difference between dividends and tipping at bars; one is optional, the other is merely polite.

I guess being polite isn't optional??

[Dreadnaught]

Huh?

[GGT]

Hang on. No one has sussed out what "ownership" means, let alone "government" ownership.

This is sounding a lot like corporations are people....but if people pay taxes, should corporations have exemptions or special protections?

Our respective governments "own" the responsibilities of making trade policies, setting monetary valuations, enacting taxes, tariffs (or boycotts), and are tasked with figuring out how to get enough dollars to *fund a Nation*. Legislation is always involved, but that doesn't mean a government "owns" an industry when it busts corporate monopolies, sets employment minimums, or evens-out the international playing field.

[GGT]

Besides, our current setup is basically double taxation of corporate earnings when it's earned by the company and when it's paid-out to shareholders/employees.

Actually, the US "setup" is full of so many loopholes that corporate earnings and shareholder dividends have a lower effective tax rate than most minimum wage workers. Anyone who has enough "coin" can afford to pay a CPA or tax attorney to find/exploit those loopholes, and ultimately pay less income taxes (as percent of income).

That might sound good at face value.....but there's still *a Nation* that needs funding. Basic infrastructure, R & D, public health and education, military and national "defense" don't happen on their own, and private sectors (aka Freee Markets) aren't reliable drivers of national policy.



Latest news reports say US Burger King is making a bid to buy Canada's Tim Horton's, which would make that one of the largest corporations in the world (with other commodity-related behemoths like McDonald's Corp, Con-Agra, Walmart, Exxon/Mobil, BP, GE, etc.) Many analysts say it's a tax-inversion profit strategy....to exploit national tax loopholes. Duh?

[Dreadnaught]

Really curious how shareholder dividends have a tax rate of negative $xx without someone selling shares at a loss.

Inversions are corporations way of voting with their feet.