Corporate Tax Should be Abolished

1) "I would argue that limited liability does not have as many economic benefits as usually claimed, and that it is a terrible idea, and should be done away with. .. " Limited liability is fundamentally important for a corporation to operate effectively. It has become apparent to me that my opponent, while claiming he wishes to 'help corporations thrive' wants to strip them of all of their privileges, which ironically would cause greater damage to them than the corporate tax ever could. I wholeheartedly agree that there should appropriate regulation of corporations to ensure that they are socially accountable, and the corporate tax DOES THAT. On one hand my opponent wants to 'free up' corporations by removing the corporate tax, yet on the other hand he wants to axe many of the fundamental aspect of corporatism, which would be far more devastating to the economy than the maintenance of such a tax. 2) " Again, corporations are made up of individual people. If one thousand people are able to do something as a corporation then they can do the same thing when they do not legally register as a corporation. " This is a logical fallacy. Such a process, of loosely tied individuals operating on a large scale without being incorporated, is very rare. Almost all operations of such a scale, with such an impact on infrastructure, can only be achieved with the systems in place with business structure, of which are obtained through incorporation. To your example of the 'dump truck' business, what you fail to recognize is that 500 businesses with 1 dump truck each would NOT BE LOCATED IN THE SAME PLACE. A corporation with 500 dump trucks would be placed in the same location, collectively. Therefore, it creates a localized strain on the infrastructure. Again, your hypothetical example fails. 3) "I am unaware of any shopping centers, manufacturing plants, or offices that are built for corporations by the government. " Of course the government doesn't construct the buildings, but they are typically forced to construct the infrastructure around such a venue to compensate. For example, the construction of a large stadium by a private organisation would require a revamp, and expansion, of the roads around it. The government would pay for this. This occurs everywhere, from shopping centers, to airports, to stadium, to residential estates. The governments must invest in the services surrounding a private venture, therefore further proving the necessity of the corporate tax. 4) "MY OPPONENT OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT THE UPPER AND UPPER MIDDLE CLASS ARE ALREADY PAYING THIS AMOUNT OF TAX THROUGH THE CORPORATE TAX. " Calm down, and again that is false. You are now contradicting what you previously said, "shareholders of corporations are from upper class, middle class and the poor class". So, obviously, the Upper and Upper Middle Class are NOT paying the same amount in corporate tax. If you compensate the removal of the corporate tax with the implementation of an income tax on the wealthiest Americans, they would ultimately be paying MORE tax than before, because originally revenue raised from the corporate tax came from all classes, as you said. 5) "States that wanted a share of the profit from its natural resources could implement a tax on natural resources. " But why do this when there is a perfectly good corporation tax to raise such revenue? In makes no sense, you want to remove one taxation measure and add dozens more, which would obviously create a more complicated tax code and have a much more negative impact on the economy. - It is inherently clear that the corporate tax is a fundamental measure of taxation. To remove it is both pointless, will harm the economy and will reduce the accountability of corporations. To suggest that somehow removing the corporate tax, and then raising the income tax elsewhere will carry economic benefits is ludicrous. Such an action would have a harsh effect on consumer spending, and would lead ultimately lead to the reduction in revenue raised by the government, because claiming income as 'corporate income' would be easy to achieve and evade taxation. My opponent's arguments have predominantly been based on logical fallacies. His desire to strengthen the economy by removing the tax is pointless when he suggests to remove corporate privileges such as personhood and limited liability. In a nutshell, the corporate tax works, and to remove it and place other taxes is a pointless measure and would ultimately cause more issues than what it would solve.