3 ms·

That money being untaxed means the government has to be funded on the backs of workers instead. We have a progressive tax on labor, we squeeze the crap out of s

That money being untaxed means the government has to be funded on the backs of workers instead. We have a progressive tax on labor, we squeeze the crap out of specialists and management, and then we leave owners alone. This is crazy.

roenxi 6y ago
Corporations aren't a real thing, they're an abstraction. You'll noted that the money isn't being spent by the very wealthy (otherwise they'd be paying CGT or Income tax). In the financial world, the money will be coming from them. In the real world, the money is coming out of systems that support the lifestyle of workers. Look at it this way - you can't point to something that the business owners had to give up (because they didn't access the money, if they had they'd be paying CGT or Income tax). But the government is diverting real resources somewhere. In practice, those resources are going to be coming from the workers! Which is why taxing corporations is not the best idea, once you follow the real flows of goods and services. It is a stealth tax on income, a bit like payroll tax. Better to make these taxes direct so people understand what they are paying.
- maybelsyrup 6y ago
  > Corporations aren't a real thing, they're an abstraction. Margaret Thatcher is that you
- ablekh 6y ago
  > Corporations aren't a real thing, they're an abstraction. Sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement. If corporations are an abstraction, how come they are allowed to have and use millions and often billions of real U.S. dollars (or relevant equivalents in other currencies) in/from their cash reserves?
- closeparen 6y ago
  The virtue of voters knowing what they’re paying is that this awareness can inform policy. And indeed it has. They want to “tax the rich.” That’s how we arrive at this question. I agree that it’s not without side effects - the rich are capital, taxing away capital means less good cheap stuff to buy. But we can also quite reasonably decide that there is more than enough good cheap stuff to buy, and not nearly enough healthcare. Or education, or housing, or whatever else. And that we need to tap the wealth associated with providing iPhones and cheeseburgers and handbags, in order to afford those things.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > And that we need to tap the wealth associated with providing iPhones and cheeseburgers and handbags.. Well, we could do that by adjusting the income tax rate and capital gains tax rate. That is going to my central point here, the outcome looks a lot like an income tax, except instead of targeting rich people we're targeting the systems that support people who eat cheeseburgers and think iPhones & handbags are signs of being classy. You're describing a world here where resources are directed towards healthcare and I'm pretty sure the rich aren't actually going to give anything up from their lifestyles. Where are these resources coming from? It is better to stick to CGT and income tax. And a land tax if you want to soak the rich. Maybe the low hanging fruit of stopping the printing of money and giving it the the rich too, most everyone agrees on that point in practice.
    - closeparen 6y ago
      Income tax soaks the cohort of "rich people" who make hundreds of thousands as Apple engineers, but not the people who make hundreds of millions as Apple shareholders.

roenxi 6y ago

Corporations aren't a real thing, they're an abstraction. You'll noted that the money isn't being spent by the very wealthy (otherwise they'd be paying CGT or Income tax). In the financial world, the money will be coming from them. In the real world, the money is coming out of systems that support the lifestyle of workers. Look at it this way - you can't point to something that the business owners had to give up (because they didn't access the money, if they had they'd be paying CGT or Income tax). But the government is diverting real resources somewhere. In practice, those resources are going to be coming from the workers! Which is why taxing corporations is not the best idea, once you follow the real flows of goods and services. It is a stealth tax on income, a bit like payroll tax. Better to make these taxes direct so people understand what they are paying.

maybelsyrup 6y ago
> Corporations aren't a real thing, they're an abstraction. Margaret Thatcher is that you
ablekh 6y ago
> Corporations aren't a real thing, they're an abstraction. Sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement. If corporations are an abstraction, how come they are allowed to have and use millions and often billions of real U.S. dollars (or relevant equivalents in other currencies) in/from their cash reserves?
closeparen 6y ago
The virtue of voters knowing what they’re paying is that this awareness can inform policy. And indeed it has. They want to “tax the rich.” That’s how we arrive at this question. I agree that it’s not without side effects - the rich are capital, taxing away capital means less good cheap stuff to buy. But we can also quite reasonably decide that there is more than enough good cheap stuff to buy, and not nearly enough healthcare. Or education, or housing, or whatever else. And that we need to tap the wealth associated with providing iPhones and cheeseburgers and handbags, in order to afford those things.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > And that we need to tap the wealth associated with providing iPhones and cheeseburgers and handbags.. Well, we could do that by adjusting the income tax rate and capital gains tax rate. That is going to my central point here, the outcome looks a lot like an income tax, except instead of targeting rich people we're targeting the systems that support people who eat cheeseburgers and think iPhones & handbags are signs of being classy. You're describing a world here where resources are directed towards healthcare and I'm pretty sure the rich aren't actually going to give anything up from their lifestyles. Where are these resources coming from? It is better to stick to CGT and income tax. And a land tax if you want to soak the rich. Maybe the low hanging fruit of stopping the printing of money and giving it the the rich too, most everyone agrees on that point in practice.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    Income tax soaks the cohort of "rich people" who make hundreds of thousands as Apple engineers, but not the people who make hundreds of millions as Apple shareholders.