3 ms·

You're missing the fact that corporations make tax law more complicated precisely because they benefit from the complexity.

crusso 11y ago
How do corporations make tax law? They influence tax law, but they don't have the power to pass laws.
- username223 11y ago
  You just answered your own question. For more, do a web search for ALEC.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Corporations all over the world have local politicians in their pockets. Who "signs" the laws is a technicality. In the US you even see the President after his term be openly welcomed to the Board of some large corporation or another that his regime benefited...
  - crusso 11y ago
    Meh, this argument is like those pictures where you see the old lady or the young lady depending upon the part of the image that you focus on. The reality is that some corporations and most all politicians (at least at the federal level) form a blob of power sharing that many people refer to as "cronyism". If you want to refer to the corporate/political amalgamation as the problem, great. But referring to corporations as "making tax law" is technically inaccurate and seems like an effort to push a particular anti-capitalism ideology.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >If you want to refer to the corporate/political amalgamation as the problem, great. Well, you effectively got halfway there in your description. only it goes beyond "cronyism" to direct influence on lawmaking. This is not something debatable and "subjective" like the old/young lady image -- it has been shown time and again in the courts, reporting and historical research. >and seems like an effort to push a particular anti-capitalism ideology. And that's bad because? Did anybody prove that capitalism, and especially as practiced now, with said corruption, cronyism etc, is the last and final word of politics and civilization?
      - crusso 11y ago
        to direct influence on lawmaking And whose fault is that, the huge and powerful government's for being so easily susceptible to corruption or much smaller and in no way as powerful businesses for seeking easily-obtained influence? Since the rules are set by those in government, it seems rather disingenuous to point the finger back at those using those rules to their advantage. If we were serious about dealing with this specific problem, we'd join hands in implementing term limits, lobbying regulations, much stronger limitations upon politicians' ability to enter the lobbying community after leaving office, stronger congressional ethics controls regarding prosecution for obvious quid pro quo relationships, etc. If we'd take the bait away, the corporations would wander off on their own. And that's bad because? It's a deception. It puts the blame on something that is only part of the problem. It refuses to even acknowledge the collusive nature of both business and government.
        coldtea 11y ago
        >And whose fault is that, the huge and powerful government's for being so easily susceptible to corruption or much smaller and in no way as powerful businesses for seeking easily-obtained influence? The government is not some Borg like entity. It's made of people, and each of these people are way less powerful than those other people -- the rich guys with the tons of money to bribe that run businesses. As to whose fault it is, besides the direct perpetrators, underneath it all it's the citizenry's fault for not being more vigilant about it. After all it's their interests those politicians and businesses are stomping on. >Since the rules are set by those in government, it seems rather disingenuous to point the finger back at those using those rules to their advantage. Like, it's not like those "using those rules to their advantage" don't know they're doing some wrong AND breaking the law, when they buy politicians. So, we can and we should blame them too.
SilasX 11y ago
They do, but it's mostly not via the mechanism, "hey we want more complex taxes to shove out the little guy". It's more like this: workers and employers benefit greatly when the workers can get paid in a way that doesn't count as income for them, but does count as a expense for the company. So there's an incentive to find ways to buy workers stuff they'd pay for anyway and claim it's an expense; the strength of this incentive increases with the tax rate. So you might have situations where employers buy "office supplies" and let employees walk away with them. That $1 pen gives $1 of consumption to the worker, when $1 of salary would only have bought say $0.65 worth of pens. Then if it becomes a big thing, the tax authority has to squash it with a rule that says "hey, you can't deduct more than $X per employee for pens, where a pen is defined as ... zzz ...". (A more common example is business travel and expense accounts, in which you're relabeling consumptive behavior as a cost of doing business that can't be used for consumption.) Most of the debate about tax rates is framed in terms of "gosh, how much do you really need", and completely bypasses the question of "how much are we incentivizing intelligent people to wastefully characterize consumption as expenses?"

crusso 11y ago

How do corporations make tax law? They influence tax law, but they don't have the power to pass laws.

username223 11y ago
You just answered your own question. For more, do a web search for ALEC.
coldtea 11y ago
Corporations all over the world have local politicians in their pockets. Who "signs" the laws is a technicality. In the US you even see the President after his term be openly welcomed to the Board of some large corporation or another that his regime benefited...
- crusso 11y ago
  Meh, this argument is like those pictures where you see the old lady or the young lady depending upon the part of the image that you focus on. The reality is that some corporations and most all politicians (at least at the federal level) form a blob of power sharing that many people refer to as "cronyism". If you want to refer to the corporate/political amalgamation as the problem, great. But referring to corporations as "making tax law" is technically inaccurate and seems like an effort to push a particular anti-capitalism ideology.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >If you want to refer to the corporate/political amalgamation as the problem, great. Well, you effectively got halfway there in your description. only it goes beyond "cronyism" to direct influence on lawmaking. This is not something debatable and "subjective" like the old/young lady image -- it has been shown time and again in the courts, reporting and historical research. >and seems like an effort to push a particular anti-capitalism ideology. And that's bad because? Did anybody prove that capitalism, and especially as practiced now, with said corruption, cronyism etc, is the last and final word of politics and civilization?
    - crusso 11y ago
      to direct influence on lawmaking And whose fault is that, the huge and powerful government's for being so easily susceptible to corruption or much smaller and in no way as powerful businesses for seeking easily-obtained influence? Since the rules are set by those in government, it seems rather disingenuous to point the finger back at those using those rules to their advantage. If we were serious about dealing with this specific problem, we'd join hands in implementing term limits, lobbying regulations, much stronger limitations upon politicians' ability to enter the lobbying community after leaving office, stronger congressional ethics controls regarding prosecution for obvious quid pro quo relationships, etc. If we'd take the bait away, the corporations would wander off on their own. And that's bad because? It's a deception. It puts the blame on something that is only part of the problem. It refuses to even acknowledge the collusive nature of both business and government.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        >And whose fault is that, the huge and powerful government's for being so easily susceptible to corruption or much smaller and in no way as powerful businesses for seeking easily-obtained influence? The government is not some Borg like entity. It's made of people, and each of these people are way less powerful than those other people -- the rich guys with the tons of money to bribe that run businesses. As to whose fault it is, besides the direct perpetrators, underneath it all it's the citizenry's fault for not being more vigilant about it. After all it's their interests those politicians and businesses are stomping on. >Since the rules are set by those in government, it seems rather disingenuous to point the finger back at those using those rules to their advantage. Like, it's not like those "using those rules to their advantage" don't know they're doing some wrong AND breaking the law, when they buy politicians. So, we can and we should blame them too.

SilasX 11y ago

They do, but it's mostly not via the mechanism, "hey we want more complex taxes to shove out the little guy". It's more like this: workers and employers benefit greatly when the workers can get paid in a way that doesn't count as income for them, but does count as a expense for the company. So there's an incentive to find ways to buy workers stuff they'd pay for anyway and claim it's an expense; the strength of this incentive increases with the tax rate. So you might have situations where employers buy "office supplies" and let employees walk away with them. That $1 pen gives $1 of consumption to the worker, when $1 of salary would only have bought say $0.65 worth of pens. Then if it becomes a big thing, the tax authority has to squash it with a rule that says "hey, you can't deduct more than $X per employee for pens, where a pen is defined as ... zzz ...". (A more common example is business travel and expense accounts, in which you're relabeling consumptive behavior as a cost of doing business that can't be used for consumption.) Most of the debate about tax rates is framed in terms of "gosh, how much do you really need", and completely bypasses the question of "how much are we incentivizing intelligent people to wastefully characterize consumption as expenses?"