That’s senseless unless you see the government as a profit-seeking entity, which is also senseless. A purchase has a buyer and seller who are making an exchang

That’s senseless unless you see the government as a profit-seeking entity, which is also senseless. A purchase has a buyer and seller who are making an exchange, both of whom in the United States and the majority of the States are already paying tax on their income. The sale itself may be subject to sales tax. The surplus from the sale at a price agreed upon by buyer and seller, after expenses are accounted for, is profit. This profit becomes taxable income to the seller, and the tax rate set in advance of the reporting period by elected representatives in respectable countries. The State, both the State of the sale and the United States but referred to generically and collectively as “the State” so as to keep this discussion open to other countries and jurisdictions p, is responsible for its own revenues to cover costs (military, education, or whatever) which include taxes. So when a seller’s tax obligations are satisfied, which is revenue to the State to cover the government’s costs, what obligation does the seller retain to the buyer beyond warranty and prior agreed-upon support service? If you want to discuss tax rates, that’s a whole other discussion and definitely not one I’m keen on. What I’m getting at is your idea that profitable businesses remain indentured to their customers beyond the point that their prior obligations are satisfied. They do not.