this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
1087 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19156 readers
2277 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Does it really matter what the rate is when they don't pay it anyway?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/13/companies-spend-more-executive-salaries-than-taxes/72941207007/

"The analysis names 35 corporations, including Tesla, Netflix and Ford, that each reportedly spent more on compensation to their five highest-paid executives than they paid in federal income taxes over five years.

Collectively, the 35 corporations spent $9.5 billion on their top executives over that span, the report said, while their combined federal tax bill came to -$1.8 billion: a collective refund."

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Imagine if the law was no more can be spent in corporate executive compensation than the company pays in taxes. Idk if that's a good idea for small corporations, but it's a jumping off point.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We could set it so that companies whose CEO's net worth is less than a half mil are exempt

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Here's a wild idea... tax corporations based on income, not profit.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

As much as I like the idea it aint exactly a clean cut rule, a lot of companies operate on slim marjins due to loans or just that being how it is so taxing income could fuck over way more than just the greedy assholes. I do think taxing based off of stock prices should be a thing, the stocks reflect the physical value right? That means they should be able to pay the taxes.

[–] ultramaven@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Man it’s so fucking straightforward for the IRS to see that Mom’s fettuccine restaurant is a little bit different from fucking Amazon, Meta, Ford etc from just putting all of it’s money into itself and calling it a loss.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh certainly but heres the thing we live in a legalistic society and the sons of bitches would figure out some way of fucking up that type of tax.

[–] ultramaven@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well you brought up like the most manipulatable resource as a means of taxation, so I see why you feel they’d always win. I mean Trump’s entire career has been made simply lying about the value of his assets when it suited him. That’s not a “loophole”, inasmuch as it’s fraud that isn’t caught.

You want it to end? Give the IRS more money. Allow the FEC to attack monopolies and monopsonies. The rich simply lie and print advertisements convincing rubes to destroy the system. Regulate the news, advertising. “Ohh but mah freeze peach”, well then you get unregulated, untaxable, unrestrained capitalistic greed.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Fair enough, but I still would say taxing income of companies and businesses in general seems like a generally bad idea. Id rather not take out the local apple orchards just to take down apple. Still I feel like the easiest method to cripple most companies is to outlaw stock for everything outside of maybe resource extraction and maybe a handful of others.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean, when I pay my taxes, it's based on how much money I earned, not how much money I have left over at the end of the year.

If the argument is "Corporations are people, my friend" they should be paying an income tax, same as anyone else.

[–] DeanFogg@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Holy shit if a corporation is a person...

...does this mean a person is a corporation?

[–] schema@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

It makes sense. More income, more bonus. It would also prevent companies from handing out bonuses while operating at a loss.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Yes, there’s more to be done, obviously.

For someone who clearly knows how fucked the issue is that wording seems almost distracting from the road that will get us to a solution. It’s a good thing, let it happen.

[–] ultramaven@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What’s your conclusion? That we shouldn’t tax anyone at all?

Why isn’t your conclusion that we should find these husks of supposed humans and turn them inside out? Why isn’t your conclusion that chunks of SpaceX, chunks of Amazon, chunks of Google, should be rightfully owned by the American public?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Close the loopholes that let companies with billions in revenue pay 0 in taxes.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Because socialism generally speaking works really really badly? Taxation should ideally be zero, but since there are obvious things 99% of us agree that should be funded in a centralized way, we have to have taxes.

The point of taxes is not to make everyone equal, the point is to fund those important things. For instance: police, military, education, basic healthcare (perhaps), charity for the less fortunate and certain natural monopolies like utilities.

[–] ultramaven@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Lmfao “sOcIaLiSm bAd” “taxation is theft”

Socialist policies would bake those “important things” into centralized structures owned and managed by the people. You’re beyond propagandized if you believe the people should own fucking natural utilities but also believe “socialism is bad”. Like fucking pants on head retarded

And before you say “I’m socialist cause I argued companies should be owned by the government” — I’m saying that these companies have become monopolies at the behest and funding of their state and federal governments. They should be ripped apart and absorbed, like you argue “natural monopolies” should be.

[–] SonicDeathTaco@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

Exactly. If the don't close the loopholes then this means precisely dick.