Hacker News Reader

Comment by polyfractal | Hacker News Reader

As others have said, many people think that corporate tax should be abolished completely. I'm fairly liberal (socially and fiscally), but I also support this.

Ultimately, I want corporations to be as profitable as possible, because that is good for our economy. Profitable companies buy and sell goods, hire individuals, the usual talking points. If we want to give more money to public education, increase income/capital gains tax (e.g. individuals)...not corporate tax.

Besides, you can make the case that only a small portion of the taxes Google pays actually improves the roads or public education. A large percentage will go towards things like defense research, healthcare, bridges in Alaska, any number of things that have no bearing on Google at all.

(I'm not a Google apologist, this would apply to any company.)

View on HN

I want corporations to be as profitable as possible, because that is good for our economy

What if they spirit all of that money out of the country to somewhere else? Surely it benefits the host country more to tax profits rather than just let them escape entirely?

This is a fair point. But why would a company spirit the money away if there wasn't corporate tax? Wouldn't it be wiser to let it sit in country that doesn't tax it?

I honestly have no idea, but if the company is owned abroad by a company listed on a stock exchange in that foreign country, by institutional stockholders also in that country, one would assume that they'd be trying to move some proportion of it back 'home', if there is such a place.

I'll freely admit my knowledge of corporate finance falls apart somewhere around here.

That makes sense. I flounder when it comes to money moving across borders, not something that I have a solid grasp on.

So corporations should be able to use all infrastructure provided by taxing individuals and make no contribution? Should they pay, for example, local property tax?

I'm not sure I understand how those two are equivalent. If you want to tax a company for using public infrastructure...tax them for using the infrastructure (property tax, tolls, etc).

Collecting a portion of their profit just because it's another place to add a tax doesn't seem to make sense. Imagine Google compared to a trucking company. Google makes 100x the profit of this particular trucking company. Does Google add 100x the wear and tear on roads that the trucking company does? Why should they be liable for a larger portion of maintenance on said roads simply because they have a larger profit?

Good points - I actually misread the OP and didn't see the word "corporate" tax - need more coffee!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com