• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Corporate Wealth Growth should fund Infrastructure Improvements

Should corporate wealth growth fund infrastructure improvements?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 12 85.7%
  • No.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Maybe/Don't Know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    14

Suave

Simulated character
Infrastructure improvements ( i.e.- the American Jobs Plan) will greatly improve the cost efficiency as well as reducing the carbon footprint of large corporations distributing goods and services to their consumers. I'd like there to be a two percent tax on the market valuation growth of large cap companies. A large cap company is defined as a corporate entity whose market valuation exceeds ten billion dollars. Assuming eight percent annual growth from the total market valuation of 40 trillion dollars of the largest 1000 U. S. Companies, a 2 percent tax on this increase of wealth would generate over two trillion dollars of revenue over the course of 15 years in order to fund infrastructure improvements ( i.e.- the American Jobs Plan) I intend to forth this tax plan to Department of Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg as well as to Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Congress person Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Do you favor having large corporate wealth growth fund improvements of our nation's infrastructure ( i.e.- American Jobs Plan )?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The problem is that with all that money, they are able to buy off all our politicians with big corporate bribes, and thereby render themselves immune to taxation. Leaving the rest of us stuck with the bill.

The only way to stop this is for the American people to unite against the politicians and vote them out of office in every election unless and until they ACT to stop the legalized bribery that currently controls them. But the media is busy keeping the American people divided against each other, and successfully so. So that it's doubtful we will ever unite against the criminals in our government, to remove them.

Sadly, the future does not look good for us.
 

Suave

Simulated character
The problem is that with all that money, they are able to buy off all our politicians with big corporate bribes, and thereby render themselves immune to taxation. Leaving the rest of us stuck with the bill.

The only way to stop this is for the American people to unite against the politicians and vote them out of office in every election unless and until they ACT to stop the legalized bribery that currently controls them. But the media is busy keeping the American people divided against each other, and successfully so. So that it's doubtful we will ever unite against the criminals in our government, to remove them.

Sadly, the future does not look good for us.

Giant corporations like Amazon have avoided paying income taxes for years, my proposed wealth tax would have obligated Amazon to pay over $30 billion in taxes on $1.5 trillion of acquired wealth since its market cap had reached over $10 billion. Giant companies might elude paying income taxes, but there's no way they could escape paying wealth taxes on their market valuation growth.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I favor taxing income.
Not wealth.
How would it even be measured...appraisals....equity....stock price?
Would it be adjusted for increase in dollar value due to inflation, ie,
loss of the dollar's value?
 

Suave

Simulated character
I favor taxing income.
Not wealth.
How would it even be measured...appraisals....equity....stock price?
Would it be adjusted for increase in dollar value due to inflation, ie,
loss of the dollar's value?

A wealth tax on publicly traded large-cap corporations could easily be assessed on the growth of their stock prices. I'd consider a two percent wealth tax to be a modest amount of taxation imposed on their wealth growth, therefore they would not require tax relief by having this growth indexed for the modest amount of inflation we have consistently experienced.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
A wealth tax on publicly traded large-cap corporations could easily be assessed on the growth of their stock prices. I'd consider a two percent wealth tax to be a modest amount of taxation imposed on their wealth growth, therefore they would not require tax relief by having this growth indexed for the modest amount of inflation we have consistently experienced.
What happens when the stock price declines?
Are losses carried forward or backward?
Is it based upon yearly, quarterly, or instantaneous value?
What about companies that aren't publicly traded?

I foresee a problem....
What if a company has no profit in a year, yet its stock
increases in value. This happened for many years with
Amazon, which was a money pit, but a long term investment
in the future. Taxing (taking) wealth could hobble a company
lacking income to pay it. It would appear to be a disincentive
in long term investment.
 

Suave

Simulated character
What happens when the stock price declines?
Are losses carried forward or backward?
Is it based upon yearly, quarterly, or instantaneous value?
What about companies that aren't publicly traded?

I foresee a problem....
What if a company has no profit in a year, yet its stock
increases in value. This happened for many years with
Amazon, which was a money pit, but a long term investment
in the future. Taxing (taking) wealth could hobble a company
lacking income to pay it. It would appear to be a disincentive
in long term investment.

I suppose market valuation declines could be carried forward in order to offset future market valuation increases. In the event there is a large cap company non publicly traded, its wealth growth could be assessed on the basis of its book value. If a large publicly traded company lacks the funds to pay a wealth tax, it could sell more stock to acquire this needed capital to pay its tax obligations. If a non publicly company does not have enough cash on hand to pay a modest 2 percent wealth growth tax, I suppose it could either liquid a small fraction of its assets or get a bank loan to pay its tax obligations.

Edited: Here is a very informative short article with regards to Why the U.S. needs a corporate wealth tax.
Why the U.S. needs a corporate wealth tax
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In regards to the OP, the answer with me is yes, although only in part as we all tend to benefit from infrastructure improvements.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Giant corporations like Amazon have avoided paying income taxes for years, my proposed wealth tax would have obligated Amazon to pay over $30 billion in taxes on $1.5 trillion of acquired wealth since its market cap had reached over $10 billion. Giant companies might elude paying income taxes, but there's no way they could escape paying wealth taxes on their market valuation growth.
They avoid it by making sure such a tax never becomes law.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I suppose market valuation declines could be carried forward in order to offset future market valuation increases. In the event there is a large cap company non publicly traded, its wealth growth could be assessed on the basis of its book value. If a large publicly traded company lacks the funds to pay a wealth tax, it could sell more stock to acquire this needed capital to pay its tax obligations. If a non publicly company does not have enough cash on hand to pay a modest 2 percent wealth growth tax, I suppose it could either liquid a small fraction of its assets or get a bank loan to pay its tax obligations.

Edited: Here is a very informative short article with regards to Why the U.S. needs a corporate wealth tax.
Why the U.S. needs a corporate wealth tax
Looking at the link it starts off with....
"For years, many corporations have abdicated their civic duties and have paid little or no tax. There are several reasons for this phenomenon: globalization enables corporations to assign profits to low-tax offshore jurisdictions; the Tax Code provides robust write-offs for capital expenditures; and adroit advisors devise clever strategies that enable corporations to navigate around otherwise onerous tax burdens. The combination of these factors has greatly eroded the corporate tax base."

It signals some problems.
- Depreciable capital expenditures must be expensed in some manner, eg, Schedule 179, depreciated over time. Without
this, income would be inflated by not recognizing costs.
- It ignores a prominent reason some corporations don't
pay income taxes in some years, ie, no profit.
- There's no analysis of the claimed tax situations.
- It ignores taxes that corporations pay even when they
don't pay income tax, eg, property tax. Note also that
their property taxes aren't discounted, as are primary
residences. Also they pay property taxes not only on
real estate, but also on machinery, furniture, etc.
- It doesn't fully address the possible incentives &
effects on the corporation's behavior.
- It addresses only companies with the corporate
form of ownership.
- It doesn't address the government sham of collecting
tax on the increase in value based upon dollars...but
those dollars fall in value every year, so some portion
of that value rise is not economic, ie, it's just more
dollars representing the same value.

A wealth tax could be workable...offsetting the alternative
of increasing the income tax. But bear in mind that
corporations are already doubly taxed, ie, the company
pays tax on income, & from the remaining money, the
shareholders receive dividends upon which they pay
income tax.
 
Last edited:

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
The problem is that with all that money, they are able to buy off all our politicians with big corporate bribes, and thereby render themselves immune to taxation. Leaving the rest of us stuck with the bill.

The only way to stop this is for the American people to unite against the politicians and vote them out of office in every election unless and until they ACT to stop the legalized bribery that currently controls them. But the media is busy keeping the American people divided against each other, and successfully so. So that it's doubtful we will ever unite against the criminals in our government, to remove them.

Sadly, the future does not look good for us.

They don't need to bribe politicians when the tax code allows them to pay zero taxes.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
The only way to stop this is for the American people to unite against the politicians and vote them out of office in every election unless and until they ACT to stop the legalized bribery that currently controls them.
Running an election campaign is an expensive operation that costs a lot of money and needs a lot of (wo)manpower. Why should we assume that the new crop of politicians wouldn't take corporate money to support their political career?

You can't solve problems you can't legislate away by electioneering.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Running an election campaign is an expensive operation that costs a lot of money and needs a lot of (wo)manpower. Why should we assume that the new crop of politicians wouldn't take corporate money to support their political career?
Many will. But when it becomes clear to them they are are a one-term wonder if they take the bribe money, or do nothing to stop others from taking it, they'll begin to take action. People in power will do anything to keep it; even if it means being honest!
You can't solve problems you can't legislate away by electioneering.
We have only two means of dealing with all this political corruption. We either vote the criminals out of office, every time, regardless of party, until we get someone in there who is willing to act to stop it. Or we resort to revolution. Revolutions are very messy and often result in a bigger mess than the mess it was intended to resolve. And either of these courses of action require that we be united. Which we very clearly are not.
 
Last edited:

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Many will. But when it becomes clear to them they are are a one-term wonder if they take the bribe money, or do nothing to stop others from taking it, they'll begin to take action. People in power will do anything to keep it; even if it means being honest!
We have only two means of dealing with all this political corruption. We either vote the criminals out of office, every time, regardless of party, until we get someone in there who is willing to act to stop it. Or we resort to revolution. Revolutions are very messy and often result in a bigger mess than the mess it was intended to resolve. And either of these courses of action require that we be united. Which we very clearly are not.
People are on the historical record complaining about the corruption of elected officials since the invention of elected officials. If we can solve the problem of political corruption simply by electing the correct people into office, then you'd have to come up with a pretty convincing argument why people, despite clearly not liking corruption one bit, were seemingly incapable of electing the correct kind until now.

Or, perhaps, the solution to a problem that is interlinked with the economics of doing politics in a modern capitalist world - and here, specifically, the economic cost of getting elected to public office - cannot simply be done away by finding the right kind of philosopher-king to get elected, but rather necessitates a meaningful and fundamental change to the political system.,
 

PureX

Veteran Member
People are on the historical record complaining about the corruption of elected officials since the invention of elected officials. If we can solve the problem of political corruption simply by electing the correct people into office, then you'd have to come up with a pretty convincing argument why people, despite clearly not liking corruption one bit, were seemingly incapable of electing the correct kind until now.

Or, perhaps, the solution to a problem that is interlinked with the economics of doing politics in a modern capitalist world - and here, specifically, the economic cost of getting elected to public office - cannot simply be done away by finding the right kind of philosopher-king to get elected, but rather necessitates a meaningful and fundamental change to the political system.,
Telling ourselves that corruption is eternal, and inevitable, only serves to condone it. It is not eternal, nor inevitable, and it has not been nearly this bad in this country, in the past. Stop making excuses for it.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Telling ourselves that corruption is eternal, and inevitable, only serves to condone it. It is not eternal, nor inevitable, and it has not been nearly this bad in this country, in the past. Stop making excuses for it.
Where did I make excuses for corruption, or told you that it was "eternal and inevitable"?

It very much appears to me like you are skipping over the actual arguments I presented and are simply using my posts as a sounding board for your rants. If that's an accurate assessment, then I ask you to please stop that, as I find this a serious irritant.

If I am mistaken, then I would still ask you to engage with the arguments I actually presented in my post, instead of one you find simply convenient to engage with.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Where did I make excuses for corruption, or told you that it was "eternal and inevitable"?

It very much appears to me like you are skipping over the actual arguments I presented and are simply using my posts as a sounding board for your rants. If that's an accurate assessment, then I ask you to please stop that, as I find this a serious irritant.
Reread your own post and it should be fairly obvious to you what I was commenting on. You claim that people have never been capable of cleaning up the ever-present political corruption by voting for better candidates. This is false. Such corruption is not ever-present, nor is it impossible to eliminate it through concerned voting.

I agree that our capitalist economic system causes and feeds the current runaway political corruption. But that's the 'tail wagging the dog'. The purpose of government was never supposed to be to serve the whims of commerce (human greed). It was supposed to be to oversee the whims of commerce, so as to protect us all from each other, economically. Capitalism gives all commercial control to the capital investors, exclusively, which rewards wealth with more wealth. And that means that the wealth piles up under the control of the most aggressive and greedy few among us, enabling them to use some of that massive wealth to corrupt and control the government. Hence, the 'tail wagging the dog'.

The solution is to end or limit capitalism so that the wealth cannot pile up under the control of the most aggressive and greedy few, but that can't happen until the dog gets control of it's tail. And since it will not do so of it's own accord (the politicians can't or won't refuse the bribery) we have to do it for them. And the ONLY means we have of doing that is through the vote, or through violent overthrow.

We can still do it through the vote, but we will have to unite to be effective. And we'd better do it soon because the republicans are working hard at corrupting our election process to the degree that it will no longer be functional. Our votes will have no effect. And that will leave only a violent overthrow as an option. And that's a very dangerous option.
 
Top