| taxwonk |
04-28-2005 05:52 PM |
Putting aside Judicial nominations and steroids
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Next question is why should person A be forced to give person B something they haven't earned. If you want to make sure people have adequate housing, healthcare, food, bus service, be honest and propose a tax increase. But if the employer and employee are in agreement about a particular wage (as revealed by the hire and the acceptance), why meddle?
|
Once again, you're assuming that the market is both free and efficient. If you honestly believe that, then there is nothing I can say that will be adequate to persuade you.
I think you're being willfully obtuse here, though. Under your theory, nobody would take a job that didn;t pay them enough to meet their basic needs. However, if the minimum wage is all that's offered to them, are they freely participating in the market?
Quote:
On two, that's a timing issue, not one of principle. So Microsoft has $38B in cash. Microsoft, not individuals. Why should they pay tax on that (esp. when it increases the value of hte stock, on which capital gains tax will be paid upon sale).
I find one of the most pernicious problems with teh current tax code is the efforts to "hide" taxes by making their existence unclear or the effect of various provisions hard to determine. If government has to rely on chicanery in order to support itself, it's hardly able to claim the consent of the governed.
|
Nobody's hiding anything here. The corporate tax is an excise tax on the privilege of doing business in corporate form. The taxpayer is paying for the state's sponsorship of its limited liability, continuity of life, free transferability of interests, and the ability to separate management from ownership.
All of these benefits are conferred on the corporation by the laws of the state and thee United States. The courts have recognized this principle since 1912. If you don't like it, invest in LLCs and partnerships only. There's no "chicanery" involved.
|