4 ms·

This is a fair point. I would also call to attention the ability of the big players to avoid paying a large portion of their taxes. The double irish etc. This g

This is a fair point. I would also call to attention the ability of the big players to avoid paying a large portion of their taxes. The double irish etc. This giving them a unfair advantage vs small competition that can’t afford the overhead of complex tax structures.

personomas 3y ago
This is actually a great point to illustrate how true my argument is. One reason those companies have succeeded building amazing products and services, that now rake in billions of taxes dollars every month, is because many years ago they were able to get around paying taxes. As a result, they built amazing stuff for us, that we are benefiting both as consumers and as a society, because now they generate tax money for us from all over the world. You see, when we relieve companies of the unbelievable burden of taxes, what do we get in return: these companies produce tremendously more value for society (via better products and services) which then generate more revenue over the long-haul via taxes for us. It doesn't make sense to tax companies! They are unselfish entities designed to serve society, why would we tax them?????? It's f****** crazy. Of course, now those tax loops have been filled, and other companies can't build products to competitive with Amazon/Google. But is that Amazon's fault? NO. It's the shitty legislators. You can't punish Amazon for that - insane. Amazon/Google were able LEGALLY get around paying taxes, that is not illegal, and it's definitely not immoral. Punishing them for that is crazy.
- klyrs 3y ago
  > They are unselfish entities designed to serve society, why would we tax them?????? It's f*** crazy. This is about the most outlandish claim I've ever seen made in defense of big tech. They literally are not charitable organizations. They serve the selfish desires of their respective CEOs, boards, and shareholders. Second tier consideration to advertisers, then employees and users in distant third. "Society" doesn't factor in, until they arrive at the gates with pitchforks.
  - personomas 3y ago
    I'm not talking about big tech, I'm talking about all businesses/corporations (except for obvious sex/drug/alcohol businesses). Businesses and corporations are always predetermined with a purpose, that purpose is always and unequivocally (barring extremely unusual businesses) to provide some sort of service or product to society. That by definition is an unselfish entity. A corporation is not even a human being, so it cannot be selfish; only when money has been extracted for a business can it become selfish. Humans, on the other hand, have selfish purposes: I want to become rich, I want to own fast cars, I want to travel the world, I want to eat good food. Businesses build services and products to earn a profit based on creating value for society. Businesses should not be taxed, only when money is extracted to individually should it be taxed!!
    - klyrs 3y ago
      This idealistic claptrap has zero relation to reality. The purpose of a great many corporations is to extract maximum rent with minimum (often negative) value added. Businesses are not human: agreed. Businesses are a legal mechanism to execute on behalf of its owners, while shielding them from liabilities, tax included. This is enshrined in supreme court cases involving Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, etc: corporations enjoy a freedom of speech because otherwise the freedom of the corporations' controllers would be infringed. They have more rights than you and I, and in many regards, less responsibility. The corporations may not be selfish, but their controllers are selfish human beings. Private jets are a great example. If you buy one, that's expensive! If you start a corporation, the corporation buys a jet, and you make a symbolic effort to rent it out to a friend once and a while, you can write down all of the expense as a loss. Those get deducted from capital gains made in other ventures. Voilá, instead of paying tax, your money goes to luxury expenses instead! And if you're not going to tax the actual profit-making companies, then you get zero taxes from the people extracting the most rent from society. Free market capitalism has been infected with a mind virus that rents are awesome for society and regulation, liability, and tax are a detriment. You're entirely turned around.
      - personomas 3y ago
- nwellinghoff 3y ago
  I think your forgetting that the way the tax avoidance system got into the law is because the large players paid lobbyists and funded campaigns to get the tax code changed such that they could do it. It is "legal" but its also corrupt.
- Atreiden 3y ago
  > It doesn't make sense to tax companies! They are unselfish entities designed to serve society why would we tax them?????? What world are you living in? These companies are absolutely selfish, by definition. Publicly traded companies have a "fiduciary duty" to their shareholders to act solely in the companies interest (i.e. maximizing profits). They are not "designed to serve society" - that is the purpose of democratic government - they are designed to make as much money as possible. Any beneficial-to-society effects are secondary. Or only intended insofar as to generate further profit. And so we're clear, this is the mechanism behind this popular new "enshittification" term. The name of the game is Money, or Power if you prefer. Google doesn't provide Maps for free to benefit society, they provide it because it's an enormous engine driving their digital moat (not to mention their immediate ad business revenue). These companies are not your friends. And by this I don't mind that they are a priori your enemy, only that their actions are not intended for your benefit, and they can easily turn hostile if it is in their interest to do so. If you place implicit trust in them, and do nothing to curtail their acquisition of power, nobody will be able to oppose them when they take actions that are harmful to society.
- gopher_space 3y ago
  I introduce all of my male relatives to Ayn Rand when they hit 15. Libertarianism is an attractive idea at that age and this gives them a chance to explore it with actual adults. It’s an inoculation. Three years later they’ll see how disconnected from reality it is and then I can spring On Walden Pond on them. “Aha!” I say. “It turns out that Libertarianism works as a personal philosophy!”

personomas 3y ago

This is actually a great point to illustrate how true my argument is. One reason those companies have succeeded building amazing products and services, that now rake in billions of taxes dollars every month, is because many years ago they were able to get around paying taxes. As a result, they built amazing stuff for us, that we are benefiting both as consumers and as a society, because now they generate tax money for us from all over the world. You see, when we relieve companies of the unbelievable burden of taxes, what do we get in return: these companies produce tremendously more value for society (via better products and services) which then generate more revenue over the long-haul via taxes for us. It doesn't make sense to tax companies! They are unselfish entities designed to serve society, why would we tax them?????? It's f****** crazy. Of course, now those tax loops have been filled, and other companies can't build products to competitive with Amazon/Google. But is that Amazon's fault? NO. It's the shitty legislators. You can't punish Amazon for that - insane. Amazon/Google were able LEGALLY get around paying taxes, that is not illegal, and it's definitely not immoral. Punishing them for that is crazy.

klyrs 3y ago
> They are unselfish entities designed to serve society, why would we tax them?????? It's f*** crazy. This is about the most outlandish claim I've ever seen made in defense of big tech. They literally are not charitable organizations. They serve the selfish desires of their respective CEOs, boards, and shareholders. Second tier consideration to advertisers, then employees and users in distant third. "Society" doesn't factor in, until they arrive at the gates with pitchforks.
- personomas 3y ago
  I'm not talking about big tech, I'm talking about all businesses/corporations (except for obvious sex/drug/alcohol businesses). Businesses and corporations are always predetermined with a purpose, that purpose is always and unequivocally (barring extremely unusual businesses) to provide some sort of service or product to society. That by definition is an unselfish entity. A corporation is not even a human being, so it cannot be selfish; only when money has been extracted for a business can it become selfish. Humans, on the other hand, have selfish purposes: I want to become rich, I want to own fast cars, I want to travel the world, I want to eat good food. Businesses build services and products to earn a profit based on creating value for society. Businesses should not be taxed, only when money is extracted to individually should it be taxed!!
  - klyrs 3y ago
    This idealistic claptrap has zero relation to reality. The purpose of a great many corporations is to extract maximum rent with minimum (often negative) value added. Businesses are not human: agreed. Businesses are a legal mechanism to execute on behalf of its owners, while shielding them from liabilities, tax included. This is enshrined in supreme court cases involving Hobby Lobby, Citizens United, etc: corporations enjoy a freedom of speech because otherwise the freedom of the corporations' controllers would be infringed. They have more rights than you and I, and in many regards, less responsibility. The corporations may not be selfish, but their controllers are selfish human beings. Private jets are a great example. If you buy one, that's expensive! If you start a corporation, the corporation buys a jet, and you make a symbolic effort to rent it out to a friend once and a while, you can write down all of the expense as a loss. Those get deducted from capital gains made in other ventures. Voilá, instead of paying tax, your money goes to luxury expenses instead! And if you're not going to tax the actual profit-making companies, then you get zero taxes from the people extracting the most rent from society. Free market capitalism has been infected with a mind virus that rents are awesome for society and regulation, liability, and tax are a detriment. You're entirely turned around.
    - personomas 3y ago
nwellinghoff 3y ago
I think your forgetting that the way the tax avoidance system got into the law is because the large players paid lobbyists and funded campaigns to get the tax code changed such that they could do it. It is "legal" but its also corrupt.
Atreiden 3y ago
> It doesn't make sense to tax companies! They are unselfish entities designed to serve society why would we tax them?????? What world are you living in? These companies are absolutely selfish, by definition. Publicly traded companies have a "fiduciary duty" to their shareholders to act solely in the companies interest (i.e. maximizing profits). They are not "designed to serve society" - that is the purpose of democratic government - they are designed to make as much money as possible. Any beneficial-to-society effects are secondary. Or only intended insofar as to generate further profit. And so we're clear, this is the mechanism behind this popular new "enshittification" term. The name of the game is Money, or Power if you prefer. Google doesn't provide Maps for free to benefit society, they provide it because it's an enormous engine driving their digital moat (not to mention their immediate ad business revenue). These companies are not your friends. And by this I don't mind that they are a priori your enemy, only that their actions are not intended for your benefit, and they can easily turn hostile if it is in their interest to do so. If you place implicit trust in them, and do nothing to curtail their acquisition of power, nobody will be able to oppose them when they take actions that are harmful to society.
gopher_space 3y ago
I introduce all of my male relatives to Ayn Rand when they hit 15. Libertarianism is an attractive idea at that age and this gives them a chance to explore it with actual adults. It’s an inoculation. Three years later they’ll see how disconnected from reality it is and then I can spring On Walden Pond on them. “Aha!” I say. “It turns out that Libertarianism works as a personal philosophy!”