3 ms·

I guess I'm thinking that the primary purpose of a company is to make money - and the primary way in which this leads to social utility is through taxes. Obvio

I guess I'm thinking that the primary purpose of a company is to make money - and the primary way in which this leads to social utility is through taxes. Obviously, some companies provide useful and socially beneficial services, but many (most?) do not, or even provide socially destructive services (e.g. tobacco industry). Even in the case where they do provide social utility through their products, it strikes me that a company that doesn't pay income taxes is essentially taking away customers from one that does, and so, all of the usefulness is kind of amortized. I guess the limitation here is that companies are not all fungible - if TSMC didn't want to pay taxes, you couldn't just replace them with another semiconductor company - they do sometimes bring unique utility to the table. But on balance, I think TSMC is a unusual case, and even there, the expertise and utility is almost entirely in the skilled workers and machinery, which would survive the company's dissolution (be picked up by competitors, etc).

sokoloff 7y ago
Competition tends to lower costs for consumers and profits for companies. Lowered profits results in lower corporate income tax. Shall we restrict competition, in order to maximize corporate income taxes paid? I’m not opposed to corporate income taxes or making an “is theft” argument, but I don’t see maximizing corporate income tax paid to be a first-principles good outcome to seek.
- pasabagi 7y ago
  That's a good point. I was more thinking in response to the conventional idea that there is a 'race to the bottom' when it comes to corporate taxes - which rests on the idea that a corporation operating in a given country is inherently good, no matter whether they pay taxes or not. In general, though, I would argue simply that regardless of the specific tax revenue figures, if a company doesn't pay taxes, they get free access to a lot of services other people have to pay for. That is in essence a subsidy. There's no compelling reason why the public should subsidize a private concern. This goes double for a competitive marketplace, where companies that aren't subsidized in this way will suffer (and have suffered - try competing with amazon on price while paying taxes!)
nybble41 7y ago
> I guess I'm thinking that the primary purpose of a company is to make money - and the primary way in which this leads to social utility is through taxes. The social utility of making money lies in the fact that in order to persuade people to give you money you have to satisfy their wants and needs. Taxation has nothing to do with it. The social utility of taxation lies entirely in the proposition that the government can better decide how that money should be spent than the people that earned it. It is unclear that this "utility" is actually positive when considering the system as a whole. (The proceeds of theft obviously benefit the thief, but when you consider the cost to the victim as well it turns out to be a net loss.)
- pasabagi 7y ago
  >you have to satisfy their wants and needs I don't think this is true at all, even if we accept that all wants and needs are good ones (opiods, for instance). I pay a substantial portion of my income in rent. That's not because my landlord is satisfying my wants or needs. Far from it. Actually, he's the most miserable, difficult person I regularly have to deal with. However, because land is a natural monopoly, I have to suck it up. There are many, many companies that work like this. The social utility of taxation is simply that in a democracy, the people can decide what they need. Notable achievements of this system include stuff like courts, roads, and (in some countries) efficient, affordable healthcare.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    > I pay a substantial portion of my income in rent. That's not because my landlord is satisfying my wants or needs. If you don't need or want shelter then why are you paying the rent? Clearly the landlord is providing something of value to you. > The social utility of taxation is simply that in a democracy, the people can decide what they need. Nonsense. People can decide what they need perfectly well in the absence of taxation. It isn't a prerequisite for fair arbitration, travel, or health care either—all of these things have at one point or another been provided without any government involvement whatsoever.
    - 7y ago

sokoloff 7y ago

Competition tends to lower costs for consumers and profits for companies. Lowered profits results in lower corporate income tax. Shall we restrict competition, in order to maximize corporate income taxes paid? I’m not opposed to corporate income taxes or making an “is theft” argument, but I don’t see maximizing corporate income tax paid to be a first-principles good outcome to seek.

pasabagi 7y ago
That's a good point. I was more thinking in response to the conventional idea that there is a 'race to the bottom' when it comes to corporate taxes - which rests on the idea that a corporation operating in a given country is inherently good, no matter whether they pay taxes or not. In general, though, I would argue simply that regardless of the specific tax revenue figures, if a company doesn't pay taxes, they get free access to a lot of services other people have to pay for. That is in essence a subsidy. There's no compelling reason why the public should subsidize a private concern. This goes double for a competitive marketplace, where companies that aren't subsidized in this way will suffer (and have suffered - try competing with amazon on price while paying taxes!)

nybble41 7y ago

> I guess I'm thinking that the primary purpose of a company is to make money - and the primary way in which this leads to social utility is through taxes. The social utility of making money lies in the fact that in order to persuade people to give you money you have to satisfy their wants and needs. Taxation has nothing to do with it. The social utility of taxation lies entirely in the proposition that the government can better decide how that money should be spent than the people that earned it. It is unclear that this "utility" is actually positive when considering the system as a whole. (The proceeds of theft obviously benefit the thief, but when you consider the cost to the victim as well it turns out to be a net loss.)

pasabagi 7y ago
>you have to satisfy their wants and needs I don't think this is true at all, even if we accept that all wants and needs are good ones (opiods, for instance). I pay a substantial portion of my income in rent. That's not because my landlord is satisfying my wants or needs. Far from it. Actually, he's the most miserable, difficult person I regularly have to deal with. However, because land is a natural monopoly, I have to suck it up. There are many, many companies that work like this. The social utility of taxation is simply that in a democracy, the people can decide what they need. Notable achievements of this system include stuff like courts, roads, and (in some countries) efficient, affordable healthcare.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > I pay a substantial portion of my income in rent. That's not because my landlord is satisfying my wants or needs. If you don't need or want shelter then why are you paying the rent? Clearly the landlord is providing something of value to you. > The social utility of taxation is simply that in a democracy, the people can decide what they need. Nonsense. People can decide what they need perfectly well in the absence of taxation. It isn't a prerequisite for fair arbitration, travel, or health care either—all of these things have at one point or another been provided without any government involvement whatsoever.
  - 7y ago