Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by alexbiet 1898 days ago
You make some good points, however every company should find a way to be sustainable and pay their fair share of taxes to society. If that's really not possible, then perhaps that business should go bankrupt. Breaking monopolies and monopoly-like structures will create many opportunities for SMEs / SMBs to flourish.

> All these billionaires aren't really making that much money

I'm sorry, I can't tell if what you are saying is sarcastic, naive or perhaps you work as an Amazon Ambassador (throwaway account, 3 mo. old?).

What's the alternative? Don't tax corporations, allow them to form monopolies and starve SMBs? Don't tax billionaires, allow them to hoard power and give them a free pass on everything? Trust that somehow power cannot corrupt them?

2 comments

> You make some good points, however every company should find a way to be sustainable and pay their fair share of taxes to society. If that's really not possible, then perhaps that business should go bankrupt.

This sounds nice in theory, but in practice there is always the option to just not do business. You can get away with high taxes if you have something to offer in return, but at some point you just damage or destroy the economy.

> Breaking monopolies and monopoly-like structures will create many opportunities for SMEs / SMBs to flourish.

Fair enough, but as a consumer, perhaps I would prefer not to shop at the SMB equivalent of Amazon? Perhaps I like the fact that AWS is cross-subsidizing my deliveries?

Amazon isn't really much of a monopoly if you consider that it really competes on price and there isn't much of a barrier of entry to their market. They have little competition because it's not profitable, not because they're so powerful. Of course Amazon knows this, which is why they attempt to build a moat with regulation and taxation.

> I'm sorry, I can't tell if what you are saying is sarcastic, naive or perhaps...

Perhaps you did not quite understand what I am saying: These people are not earning money, they own assets. Owning assets can earn you money, such as dividends or rent. Those are already taxed. However, the reason why people find themselves on top of the "richest people" lists is usually not because they earned income from assets, but because the assets they own appreciated in value.

In general, you don't tax that appreciation because the asset price could drop just as well - if the Fed didn't bail out the market every time. You tax the profits gained from selling those assets. If you never sell your assets because you are already a billionaire and don't need cash, you don't get taxed. This is not really much of a tax revenue loss, because if you taxed, say, unrealized stock gains, you would massively suppress the value of stocks. Such hypothetical tax revenue just doesn't exist, at least not in the amount that you may imagine.

> What's the alternative? Don't tax corporations...

Yes. Corporate tax does nothing but make the country less interesting from a business perspective, for what little revenue it creates.

> ...allow them to form monopolies and starve SMBs?

That is orthogonal, in fact SMBs would profit the most from reductions in corporate tax.

> > ...allow them to form monopolies and starve SMBs?

> That is orthogonal, in fact SMBs would profit the most from reductions in corporate tax.

Is it possible that this is the root of the issue? Filing corporate taxes is 10x as complicated (and expensive) as even the more complicated end of personal returns. I've got 1099 income, sole-prop and LLC, schedule C, home office deductions, business car lease, backdoor Roth, business and personal itemized deductions, etc. I pay maybe $200/yr to my CPA for all the paperwork and filing, sometimes as much as $300.

In the past I was a partner in an S corp. We paid $5k+ every year for all the paperwork.

Reductions in corporate taxes would be beneficial to smaller shops for sure, but simplification might be the best thing for everyone. Corporate income is going to get taxed twice most of the time anyway (once at the corp, and again when it passes to someone as income) so there seems to be little need to incentivize anything other than reinvestment which already happens by it not getting taxed as income. A simple progressive tax structure based on profit with little that can be deducted outside of actual reinvestment would simplify things greatly.

> Reductions in corporate taxes would be beneficial to smaller shops for sure, but simplification might be the best thing for everyone.

Indeed. Watch Amazon lobbying for a tax that you don't have to pay, but you have to pay for proving that you don't have to pay it.

Unless you have specific information, that "Amazon is doing this for evil" narrative is really forced.

If nothing else, I'd expect the tax increase to take the form of "same tax, but we take bigger numbers", so the cost of paperwork for small businesses would remain exactly the same.

>I'm sorry, I can't tell if what you are saying is sarcastic, naive or perhaps you work as an Amazon Ambassador (throwaway account, 3 mo. old?).

I'm not who you responded to but surely you can discuss without resorting to accusations of shilling or insults.