Yes, and they've been rewarded with profits and a soaring stock price. Why shouldn't they pay taxes for that? It's undoubtable that they used federal and public infrastructure in the process of making and growing the company.
The impulse to see "soaring stock price and valuation" as a reward that can be drained is exactly the kind of sophomoric economic view i was referring to.
it's quite obvious that if you took all of the value of a company the company would cease to exist along with the benefit they bring to society. you don't want to take all of their value? you just want to take the "fair share"?
how do you know what the "fair share" is that doesn't harm the capacity of the company to continue to provide value? fairness would be they pay for the public goods and services they use. do they employ trucks to deliver their product? then they should pay gas taxes on their deliveries. but, wait, they already do that so we want something _more_ fair than being treated the same as everyone else.
that still leaves us with the unknown of "how much more_than_fair_taxes we should require of a company and be sure not hinder it's ability to provide value?"
If stock price and valuation isn't a reward, then why is executive compensation often tied to stock price?
> how do you know what the "fair share" is that doesn't harm the capacity of the company to continue to provide value?
I don't know, but it should pass a smell test at least. I can tell you that a company that was recently net negative only because of reinvestment using those negative years to not pay taxes during positive years doesn't pass the smell test.
Then again, why should the entity be punished for creating value and jobs and competition? Please tell.
I guarantee all the people involved were taxed. I would rest a lot easier knowing that the organization that employs me didn't have to worry about taxes. Instead it has to employ an army of people just pay them. Double taxed, everyone is.