I get to deduct a select subset of expenses. And if I try to claim I am living from year to year with a negative net, the IRS is going to want to know how this is possible -- in detail.
At one point, I personally rolled up the annual corporate net profit for over a billion U.S. dollars of gross revenue. It came out to (for various reasons I won't go into, here) circa 4 million. That's a much larger percentage of expense than I get to deduct in my personal life.
I realize this is a simplistic example. But when things start to get this extreme, we need to take a look at who is paying the taxes that benefit whom? Is this anywhere close to in balance and each "entity" paying their own way?
Paying their own way not just on principle, but because if they aren't, they may have a distorted and "inefficient" (I might chose the word "destructive") business model.
Should we in the U.S. really have to e.g. provide food stamps and other benefits out of tax revenue -- which has increasingly shifted to come primarily from individuals rather than businesses -- to Wal-Mart employees?
And many of the investment entities and their management that benefit in outsized measure from such... subsidization, are ostensibly paying a 15% rate -- before they whittle this down even further.
It's harder to compete with the "big boys", when you are facing an entirely different cost structure. Not just economies of scale, but finance and policy of scale.
At one point, I personally rolled up the annual corporate net profit for over a billion U.S. dollars of gross revenue. It came out to (for various reasons I won't go into, here) circa 4 million. That's a much larger percentage of expense than I get to deduct in my personal life.
I realize this is a simplistic example. But when things start to get this extreme, we need to take a look at who is paying the taxes that benefit whom? Is this anywhere close to in balance and each "entity" paying their own way?
Paying their own way not just on principle, but because if they aren't, they may have a distorted and "inefficient" (I might chose the word "destructive") business model.
Should we in the U.S. really have to e.g. provide food stamps and other benefits out of tax revenue -- which has increasingly shifted to come primarily from individuals rather than businesses -- to Wal-Mart employees?
And many of the investment entities and their management that benefit in outsized measure from such... subsidization, are ostensibly paying a 15% rate -- before they whittle this down even further.
It's harder to compete with the "big boys", when you are facing an entirely different cost structure. Not just economies of scale, but finance and policy of scale.