4 ms·

> Or not to tax them at all. Agreed. I challenge anyone who complained that Congress should not have 'default' back in 2013 (in other words, continue to issue

> Or not to tax them at all. Agreed. I challenge anyone who complained that Congress should not have 'default' back in 2013 (in other words, continue to issue debt forever) to explain why the tax rate ought to be nonzero? I mean, if people continue to purchase Federal bonds, why tax corporations (or anyone)? If you want to tax people and corporations to 'reduce inequality', consider your position on fairness...

wavefunction 11y ago
Because corporations use _and require_ a disproportionate amount of government regulatory protection/oversight and bureaucracy, as well as government spending. For example, our navy is mighty and far-flung across the globe, and it's not because we're proud of our maritime traditions but because the force of the US Navy ensures stability for commerce. The average American benefits to a small degree from this international commerce, but the corporations (and by extension the wealthy who own the corporations) benefit far more. This is why we have progressive taxation schemes where the wealthy pay more, at more levels. Or they're supposed to, at least.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  If this is true, lets just levy an international shipping tax on goods shipped under the protection of the US Navy. Anyone who doesn't pay their (purely voluntary) Navy tax will also be left to the pirates if that situation arises. This tax will then be added to the cost of shipped goods. If the wealthy are actually the people consuming those shipped goods, then they will in fact be the ones to pay. If you are wrong, and the primary beneficiaries of international trade are actually middle class consumers, then middle class consumers will pay.
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    The military cannot be a transactional service, no more than the justice system can be. It's in our national interest to be protected against the aggression of other nation states. My original point was that we have a system today where a significant portion of the economy is devoted to calculating taxes. I'm not saying don't tax corporations. I'm saying tax corporations on a basis that can be enforced in a reasonable way.
  - someguydave 11y ago
    Indeed, in general it strikes me as a good principle to align risk with benefit (skin in the game).
Spooky23 11y ago
I don't really care about equality in this context. That's a different problem for a different day. I do care about the overall integrity of the system. The notion that my uncle's carwash probably pays more in income tax than General Electric undermines the integrity of the system as a whole.

wavefunction 11y ago

Because corporations use _and require_ a disproportionate amount of government regulatory protection/oversight and bureaucracy, as well as government spending. For example, our navy is mighty and far-flung across the globe, and it's not because we're proud of our maritime traditions but because the force of the US Navy ensures stability for commerce. The average American benefits to a small degree from this international commerce, but the corporations (and by extension the wealthy who own the corporations) benefit far more. This is why we have progressive taxation schemes where the wealthy pay more, at more levels. Or they're supposed to, at least.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
If this is true, lets just levy an international shipping tax on goods shipped under the protection of the US Navy. Anyone who doesn't pay their (purely voluntary) Navy tax will also be left to the pirates if that situation arises. This tax will then be added to the cost of shipped goods. If the wealthy are actually the people consuming those shipped goods, then they will in fact be the ones to pay. If you are wrong, and the primary beneficiaries of international trade are actually middle class consumers, then middle class consumers will pay.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  The military cannot be a transactional service, no more than the justice system can be. It's in our national interest to be protected against the aggression of other nation states. My original point was that we have a system today where a significant portion of the economy is devoted to calculating taxes. I'm not saying don't tax corporations. I'm saying tax corporations on a basis that can be enforced in a reasonable way.
- someguydave 11y ago
  Indeed, in general it strikes me as a good principle to align risk with benefit (skin in the game).

Spooky23 11y ago

I don't really care about equality in this context. That's a different problem for a different day. I do care about the overall integrity of the system. The notion that my uncle's carwash probably pays more in income tax than General Electric undermines the integrity of the system as a whole.