5 ms·

"In other words, it is because the tax code allows those with a greater investment in studying the tax code and in playing stupid accounting shell games to pay

"In other words, it is because the tax code allows those with a greater investment in studying the tax code and in playing stupid accounting shell games to pay less in taxes." No. It means, you don't pay taxes on a loss. "You end up only taxing the winners in the economy--those who are getting richer--and never more than they could reasonably afford to lose." You mean the people making a profit? Yes, this is how it should work...and who really cares if they can 'reasonably afford' to lose it? Taxes aren't punishment..but the tone of your post makes me feel like that's what you think it is. The US already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. If many corporations are trying to subvert it, it's a message to lower that rate. The top 10% pay ~90% of the all the federal taxes. I'm not sure why there continues to be complaints about not paying a person's "fair share". It's already more than fair.

logfromblammo 11y ago
Your GE defense doesn't mean much without referencing the tall pile of pages from the tax code that redefine the dictionary meaning of "loss" to a specific set of circumstances that a business can satisfy via accounting tricks. GE pays less in taxes because they employ a legion of experts that know the code and can follow the proper rituals. They are not taxed proportionally to their ability to pay, or the degree to which they enjoy the benefits of a well-funded government, but proportionally to their ignorance of the tax code. They know it well, so they pay relatively little in taxes. They are acting appropriately in the interests of their business in light of the circumstances they face. It isn't GE's fault that they can legally pay so little. Nor should we shame them for doing so. They are merely an illustrative example that the US corporate tax code is broken beyond any reasonable expectation of repair. The "fair share" of taxes is zero. All taxation is inherently unfair, as a violation of one's right to property. The unfairness is [sometimes] justified by spending the tax revenue upon preservation of the commons and projects that serve the common good. But collection is more often motivated by whether it can be done rather than whether it should be done. There is no absolutely fair way to levy a tax, but some taxes are still more unfair than others. Taxation is not necessarily similar to punishment. It is merely an economic discouragement, with an unavoidable deadweight loss from economic distortion. The net effect is largely the same. People avoid doing the thing that triggers the tax, because the tax makes it more costly or less beneficial. Income taxes and sales taxes punish useful commerce. Property taxes punish land improvements. Liquor taxes punish recreational drug use. Poll taxes punish being black in the South. Congestion taxes punish driving downtown at the wrong time. Recreation taxes punish having fun in Chicago. Hotel room taxes punish tourism. So what behaviors would everyone want to discourage by levying a tax? Which of those could actually yield a significant amount of revenue? Those would be the "fairer" taxes. I'm not sure why you're talking about the top 10% at all. The breakdown of who pays the most is not relevant to what I was saying.

logfromblammo 11y ago

Your GE defense doesn't mean much without referencing the tall pile of pages from the tax code that redefine the dictionary meaning of "loss" to a specific set of circumstances that a business can satisfy via accounting tricks. GE pays less in taxes because they employ a legion of experts that know the code and can follow the proper rituals. They are not taxed proportionally to their ability to pay, or the degree to which they enjoy the benefits of a well-funded government, but proportionally to their ignorance of the tax code. They know it well, so they pay relatively little in taxes. They are acting appropriately in the interests of their business in light of the circumstances they face. It isn't GE's fault that they can legally pay so little. Nor should we shame them for doing so. They are merely an illustrative example that the US corporate tax code is broken beyond any reasonable expectation of repair. The "fair share" of taxes is zero. All taxation is inherently unfair, as a violation of one's right to property. The unfairness is [sometimes] justified by spending the tax revenue upon preservation of the commons and projects that serve the common good. But collection is more often motivated by whether it can be done rather than whether it should be done. There is no absolutely fair way to levy a tax, but some taxes are still more unfair than others. Taxation is not necessarily similar to punishment. It is merely an economic discouragement, with an unavoidable deadweight loss from economic distortion. The net effect is largely the same. People avoid doing the thing that triggers the tax, because the tax makes it more costly or less beneficial. Income taxes and sales taxes punish useful commerce. Property taxes punish land improvements. Liquor taxes punish recreational drug use. Poll taxes punish being black in the South. Congestion taxes punish driving downtown at the wrong time. Recreation taxes punish having fun in Chicago. Hotel room taxes punish tourism. So what behaviors would everyone want to discourage by levying a tax? Which of those could actually yield a significant amount of revenue? Those would be the "fairer" taxes. I'm not sure why you're talking about the top 10% at all. The breakdown of who pays the most is not relevant to what I was saying.