5 ms·

> put an upper cap on the size of companies How would you measure “size”? EDIT: What do you mean by "cap" then? Would you force the company to be broken apar

> put an upper cap on the size of companies How would you measure “size”? EDIT: What do you mean by "cap" then? Would you force the company to be broken apart into smaller independent companies if it exceeded whatever cap is defined?

choeger 4y ago
Simple. Revenue. Tax a company's revenue progressively. (Of course it's complicated to implement this with companies owning companies, but you get the gist.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- alberth 4y ago
  In the US at least, corporate taxes are progressive. Taxes are on earnings though, not revenues (you could be unprofitable and as such, pay no taxes). Question: so are you suggesting then that just because a company's revenues (I think you mean "earnings") have exceeded X, that they should be completely broken up as a company?
  - choeger 4y ago
    > so are you suggesting then that just because a company's revenues (I think you mean "earnings") have exceeded X, that they should be completely broken up as a company? Yes. But I meant revenues. If we want companies to become smaller, taxing their revenue progressively would compell their owners to split them up into independent entities. Think about it as a progressive VAT.
hestefisk 4y ago
Revenue or balance sheet
- alberth 4y ago
  What happens if the company is unprofitable? Do you mean "earnings"?
amelius 4y ago
Number of people employed. If you can rake in billions using a team of 50 people, that is great, and should be allowed. Also, a company like Apple should be allowed. What should not be allowed is for Apple to own its entire supply chain (which would not be possible if company size was limited by number of people).
- alberth 4y ago
  Employee as the metric doesn't work. Consulting businesses are literally in the business to resell their employed talent. Their "product" is their employees. As such, they type of business by its very nature have a disproportionately large number of employees. E.g. Accenture employees 700,000 people, Tata Consulting 600,000.
  - amelius 4y ago
    Consulting businesses could be an exception.

choeger 4y ago

Simple. Revenue. Tax a company's revenue progressively. (Of course it's complicated to implement this with companies owning companies, but you get the gist.)

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
alberth 4y ago
In the US at least, corporate taxes are progressive. Taxes are on earnings though, not revenues (you could be unprofitable and as such, pay no taxes). Question: so are you suggesting then that just because a company's revenues (I think you mean "earnings") have exceeded X, that they should be completely broken up as a company?
- choeger 4y ago
  > so are you suggesting then that just because a company's revenues (I think you mean "earnings") have exceeded X, that they should be completely broken up as a company? Yes. But I meant revenues. If we want companies to become smaller, taxing their revenue progressively would compell their owners to split them up into independent entities. Think about it as a progressive VAT.

hestefisk 4y ago

Revenue or balance sheet

alberth 4y ago
What happens if the company is unprofitable? Do you mean "earnings"?

amelius 4y ago

Number of people employed. If you can rake in billions using a team of 50 people, that is great, and should be allowed. Also, a company like Apple should be allowed. What should not be allowed is for Apple to own its entire supply chain (which would not be possible if company size was limited by number of people).

alberth 4y ago
Employee as the metric doesn't work. Consulting businesses are literally in the business to resell their employed talent. Their "product" is their employees. As such, they type of business by its very nature have a disproportionately large number of employees. E.g. Accenture employees 700,000 people, Tata Consulting 600,000.
- amelius 4y ago
  Consulting businesses could be an exception.