5 ms·
Exactly this. Imagine a company that has makes X dollars and spends X dollars. So the company pays no tax. What that means is that all the other tax payers pay
by valenterry 5y ago
Exactly this. Imagine a company that has makes X dollars and spends X dollars. So the company pays no tax. What that means is that all the other tax payers pay for all the infrastructure.
And that's fine, but if such a company ever needs to call the police and go to court, etc., they then would have to pay all of that out of their pockets (i.e. the work of the police, the lawyers and judges, and so on).
- peoplefromibiza 5y agothe fact that streets are illuminate at night and pollice patrols them is using services provided by taxpayer's money. Uber benefits from streets more than the average citizen. if corporations had to pay per use, they would prefer to build their private infrastructures and police forces, while public infrastructure would lag behind chronically underfunded.
- lostcolony 5y agoI'm not entirely sure why you think what corporations -prefer- matters when it comes to a discussion on taxation?
- bumby 5y agoWell they have a right to petition the government in the US at least. Would you say the same about what citizens prefer does not matter in a representative democracy?
- lostcolony 5y agoCitizens tend to be all over the place when it comes to taxation. Traditional corporations are pure profit seeking entities. What they would -prefer- is to pay no taxes at all, while benefiting from all tax paid services they can. So I'm not really sure, given we're talking hypotheticals here anyway, that designing a system to tax corporations based on what they -prefer- is really going to get us anywhere. The current system, whereby many major corporations pay nothing in taxes, while benefiting from major government subsidies, directly and indirectly, is already pretty close to what they'd -prefer-.
- bumby 5y ago>would -prefer- is to pay no taxes at all, while benefiting from all tax paid services they can. I think you could probably preface the above with the word “citizens” and it would still be true. But both citizens and corporations have the right to lobby their representatives in their own interest. It’s the politicians job to try and create policy that balances the interests of all their constituents.
- lostcolony 5y agoI addressed citizens in the very first sentence. I, personally, would happily pay -more- in taxes, if it meant that, for instance, we stopped all fundraising for elections (and instead candidates had a set amount to spend per race), and also if we provided healthcare to everyone.
- bumby 5y agoAh, ok I didn’t realize context of “all over the place” meant in terms of reasons for taxation. I do think there is a growing movement in business to have a multi-dimensional focus. B-Corps are one example.
- valenterry 5y agoI don't think building "private infrastructure" in the sense of streets on public ground would make any sense or ever be allowed. The company could just pay for the usage of the road (in some way) and the government makes sure the roads exist. Besides the bureaucratic overhead, I don't see why that couldn't work.
- redler 5y agoI think you just described corporate taxes.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ahallock 5y agoI agree. Just charge everyone a monthly fee for essential gov services. And do I mean essential. If you want extra programs from the gov, you need to pay voluntarily.