4 ms·

I think the parent's point was that individual income tax is the employee's share of the tax, and that a company can't point to that and say "look, we pay tax t

I think the parent's point was that individual income tax is the employee's share of the tax, and that a company can't point to that and say "look, we pay tax through our employees!" It is fair for everyone who uses the infrastructure to pay for it. Employees use it, and they pay income tax. Corporations use it, they should pay tax too, but they can't point to an employee's income tax and claim that contribution as their own. Edit: Clarification

humanrebar 12y ago
I'm not following. How does a corporation use infrastructure except through people (employees)? And if there are particular imbalances, why can't they be resolved through more fair (and economically sensible) fee-for-use sort of taxation?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Think of the employee taking a commuter train or driving to work, vs operating a freight train or driving a semi truck for work. I'm not taking an ideological position here, just pointing out the difference between the employee as individual economic actor vs as agent of a corporation.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    If semi trucks aren't paying for their infrastructure, raise taxes or fees on semi trucks. It's very non-obvious to me that raising corporate taxes (including on companies that rarely ship things) is a good way to make sure that highways and weigh stations are paid for. And, again, these actions are still discrete and still being taken by individuals. So taxes on the actions still apply whether the MASTERCARD paying the bill is owned by the citizen or her employer.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      Please read the second sentence in my comment above.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  Infrastructure includes: Political decisions on spending (which are influenced by corporations already) Public education (Do you really want to employ people who don't have basic literacy and numeracy? More than that, nothing drives growth like high quality free education) Many elements of transportation, which make it possible to move people, goods, and services around reliably at reasonable cost. Big-project blue sky research (The space program, the Internet, many of the Mk 1 computer models, and not a little aviation have all been gov-sponsored) Enforceable law, including contract law, and justice (You really don't want to privatise these or put them up for sale) Healthcare (in sensible countries, anyway) Military protection Keynesian pump-priming (and no, bank bailouts were never useful pump-priming) Basically corps that offshore profits to avoid tax get a massive free ride on all of this, while private citizens have to contribute a share. I don't know how 'sensible' applies to 'fee for use', because I don't know how you would calculate a realistic social value. Most suggestions I've seen are literal-minded in a not terribly bright way ('Use a bridge - pay a toll') which is totally inadequate for quantifying or paying for the true social value they add. The argument really comes down to people who understand gov spending can generate huge social and commercial benefit multipliers, and people who think you can reduce gov spending to a catalog of services with neat little one-to-one costs you can count like beans and stick price tags on.
curun1r 12y ago
> individual income tax is the employee's share of the tax, and that a company can't point to that and say "look, we pay tax through our employees!" Except that individual income tax is only part of the tax paid as a result of an employee's employment. The other half is payroll taxes. When arguing that corporations don't pay income taxes, people often act like corporations pay no taxes at all, which simply isn't true.

humanrebar 12y ago

I'm not following. How does a corporation use infrastructure except through people (employees)? And if there are particular imbalances, why can't they be resolved through more fair (and economically sensible) fee-for-use sort of taxation?

anigbrowl 12y ago
Think of the employee taking a commuter train or driving to work, vs operating a freight train or driving a semi truck for work. I'm not taking an ideological position here, just pointing out the difference between the employee as individual economic actor vs as agent of a corporation.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  If semi trucks aren't paying for their infrastructure, raise taxes or fees on semi trucks. It's very non-obvious to me that raising corporate taxes (including on companies that rarely ship things) is a good way to make sure that highways and weigh stations are paid for. And, again, these actions are still discrete and still being taken by individuals. So taxes on the actions still apply whether the MASTERCARD paying the bill is owned by the citizen or her employer.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Please read the second sentence in my comment above.
TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
Infrastructure includes: Political decisions on spending (which are influenced by corporations already) Public education (Do you really want to employ people who don't have basic literacy and numeracy? More than that, nothing drives growth like high quality free education) Many elements of transportation, which make it possible to move people, goods, and services around reliably at reasonable cost. Big-project blue sky research (The space program, the Internet, many of the Mk 1 computer models, and not a little aviation have all been gov-sponsored) Enforceable law, including contract law, and justice (You really don't want to privatise these or put them up for sale) Healthcare (in sensible countries, anyway) Military protection Keynesian pump-priming (and no, bank bailouts were never useful pump-priming) Basically corps that offshore profits to avoid tax get a massive free ride on all of this, while private citizens have to contribute a share. I don't know how 'sensible' applies to 'fee for use', because I don't know how you would calculate a realistic social value. Most suggestions I've seen are literal-minded in a not terribly bright way ('Use a bridge - pay a toll') which is totally inadequate for quantifying or paying for the true social value they add. The argument really comes down to people who understand gov spending can generate huge social and commercial benefit multipliers, and people who think you can reduce gov spending to a catalog of services with neat little one-to-one costs you can count like beans and stick price tags on.

curun1r 12y ago

> individual income tax is the employee's share of the tax, and that a company can't point to that and say "look, we pay tax through our employees!" Except that individual income tax is only part of the tax paid as a result of an employee's employment. The other half is payroll taxes. When arguing that corporations don't pay income taxes, people often act like corporations pay no taxes at all, which simply isn't true.