SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the wish-we-were-in-the-one-percent dept.
Due to completely messed up U.S. tax policies, some even got a rebate check. Only small businesses pay taxes. Big companies often pay nothing at all.
Look at a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice ( http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/fifteen_of_many_reasons_why_we_need_corporate_tax_reform.php#.VSbihhPF8QY ), a Washington, D.C. group. It finds that some of nation's most famous brands have paid remarkably little to the government over the last five years. In fact, many actually enjoyed a negative tax rate: They received a nice rebate check from the U.S. Treasury.
The 15 giants highlighted by CTJ were chosen to represent a wide range of industries among Fortune 500 companies. They include CBS, Mattel, Prudential, and the California utility PG&E. Together, they paid no federal income tax in 2014, despite profits totaling $23 billion. CTJ's point is that these companies are not anomalies, they are examples.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:04PM
Or should the farmers, store owners, and transportation people pay all of those road taxes?
Not only they should - they do. They do so currently through the licensing and taxation imposed on vehicles and the fuel. Then they include these expenses into the cost of products, and when you buy a loaf of bread you pay your small share of road repair fees.
This is not only the current practice - it is also a logical and fair (IMO) practice. A farmer may choose to not sell anything, sit on his property and only sustain himself off of his land. It's his right - and then he doesn't need to pay for roads that he isn't using. A remote worker, a telecommuter, does not need to pay road tax as he is rarely visiting the office. If the store sets up a teleport and receives products via hyperspace then the store doesn't need to pay the road tax either.
At the same time the property tax that the hermit farmer is forced to pay is not fair because it is not a mutually beneficial contract. The hermit does not benefit from libraries, schools, theaters, stadiums, and whatever else that local governments are so eager to spend the tax money on. He would buy police and fire protection, but that would be at most 10% of his current property tax. He hasn't paid for the library? No library card for him. He hasn't paid for the theater or the stadium? Can't buy tickets; or if he can, they'd cost much more. And so on. Every service, every expense, conveniently bundled into several packages, should be individually offered to taxpayers, with clear explanation what exactly it buys you, and what are your options if you choose to not purchase. For example, if you choose to not buy a "public schools" package *and* have children of school age, then you will be required to provide those children with a private school, or to homeschool them (as the law requires children to be educated.) A few services (fire, animal control) protect not a specific individual, but the community, so they would have to be mandatory. The rest - even the police - is optional.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:54AM
Congratulations. You can construct an argument relying on a crazy edge case that makes up .1% of the population. If a hermit is the only counterargument you can come up with I guess we've won this debate.
And as previously mentioned above, a better-educated population benefits everyone (except the rulers).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday April 16 2015, @04:16AM
Congratulations. You can construct an argument relying on a crazy edge case that makes up .1% of the population
*/me shrugs his own shoulders* This is a typical proof by counterexample [wikibooks.org]. It does not matter how many farmers are hermits, because all those that are will be injured by this taxation. My point is that it's not necessary to paint the population with a wide brush anymore, as modern computers can easily manage individual subscriptions to government services (that are paid for by yearly contributions that we call taxes.) Those services that do not gather enough subscribers should be abolished altogether, as the vox populi is the final arbiter.