• KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    i’d be ok if we move income tax onto the corpo side of things.

    Would mean that it’s the companies responsibility to pay that tax, and no longer forces the IRS to go after joe shmoe, who fudged his finger on a 0 while it was still wet.

    Or we could also just remove individual taxes, and tax corpos, that’s where all money is anyway.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      7 months ago

      A company doesn’t have a full understanding of your income. Sure, they probably pay most of it, but if you have a side job or investments or something else, they’d have no visibility into that.

      • Malek061@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        7 months ago

        Corporations are people my friend, and they should be taxed as such. They should also get the death penalty for criminal acts.

      • Clent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        The issue is that we tax labor. Creating a company is a choice. People who survive off trading their labor have no choice. They have to perform labor. Taxing survival is inherently flawed.

        You only need a profitable side hustle because you’re being underpaid and stuck in the capitalists’ system. This side hustle is already taxed like a company, it would be on you to structure it so you are a laborer of the company while also covering the company tax.

        Investments aren’t labor so they can be tax as they are now.

        The main problem is that you can’t imagine a system that doesn’t have a personal income tax. I don’t have the time or patience to go through their history of this so I’ll leave that as homework.

        • Anise (they/she)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          This is why I support high sales taxes with exemptions for necesities instead of income tax on wages. Carve out exemptions so that it isn’t a regressive tax but 500% tax on yachts, high taxes on alcohol and entertainment with higher percentages for more expensive forms of all luxuries. Tax capital gains at a higher percentage too and make firms automatically withold said tax upon asset sale.

          • Clent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            The problem with sales taxes is they are always regressive. Carve outs don’t help because the rich will just add loopholes.

            The rich always propose this as a flat tax because they understand how they benefit from it.

            One possibility might be to a progressive sales tax tied to inflation. For example 0% for the first $100, 5% up to $1000…by the time you get to yacht prices the tax would be 50% – it’s all important that corporations pay this same tax so they don’t loop hole their way through having an LLC that owns the yacht and they simply “rent it” from themselves.

            The big issue is how corporations are able to deduct the cost of business. If I could do this as a laborer, I would be able to deduct rent, food, vehicles, etc as the cost of supporting the physical entity that performs the labor.

            But obviously that’s not how any of this is structured because the human body is not a depreciating asset… Even though it clearly depreciates with time and use.

            • hglman
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              You can have non linear sales tax.

      • bitwolf@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I think they’re saying to tax the profits of companies instead of individual income tax.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        the company, the one that literally pays me my money, doesn’t understand my income? I mean sure, maybe i work at multiple companies, and receive multiple paychecks. But like, let’s be honest here.

        who cares, 90% of what is moving through the economy is corpo money anyway.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          90% of what is moving through the economy is corpo money anyway.

          Yes, this is the system we’re in by design. The idea is that the private sector can get cheap loans and other handouts (government contracts, private-public partnerships, etc) for organizing the economy and will pass some of that money onto us commoners in the form of wages. It was designed like this because the politicians and their donors believe that it is more productive to organize the economy this way.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            yeah, i’m not debating the functionality of the current economic system though. It’s definitely up for grabs i suppose.

            Mostly just pointing out that even in our current economy we don’t really have a good excuse for most of this shit.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Or maybe the world is just a little bit more complicated than “who cares”? Bunch of fucking children in here. Simple solutions generally don’t solve complex problems.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            simple solutions don’t solve complex problems, and complex solutions solve complex problems. But complex solutions are generally pretty shitty solutions.

            You should strive to have a simple problem, and then find a simple solution. Otherwise you get BMW cars.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              The problem is what it is. Redefining the problem so it’s simple is not a solution to the fucking problem.

              “You should strive to have a simple problem”. Fuckin hell kind of MBA babble is that. Yeah maybe in business where you can make money by inventing “problems” and then inventing solutions to them, but not when it comes to real-life social issues.

              The problem exists. It is complex. We need to fix it.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                a simple solution is a solution to the problem, it’s redefining the problem in such a manner, to make the solution possible. It’s called compromise. A thing that exists in either one of these situations. In complex solutions you compromise by making a shitty solution mostly cover a shitty problem, in a simple solution you make it comprehensively cover the problem, and in a simple manner, but it doesn’t cover the whole problem, because the problem is simple.

                The problem here is that tax is overwhelmingly complex, we just need to forcibly simplify it in a manner that makes it more functional, and more apt, while not losing too much control. It’s absolutely possible. It’s just scope control.

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  The problem here is that tax is overwhelmingly complex, we just need to forcibly simplify it in a manner that makes it more functional

                  That’s called a complex solution

                  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    well no, see that’s where you’re mistaken. Tax is currently overwhelming complex BECAUSE of the tax law.

                    Simple tax law makes taxes simpler, complex tax law makes tax more complex. Much like a simple solution solves a simple problem, and a complex solution solves a complex problem.

                    You can generally force a simple solution on a complex problem by simply altering what the problem is. You might argue that tax is inherently complex due to the fact that it’s applied both to individuals and corporations/companies, however i would argue that it should only apply to one of those, making it vastly simpler, because it only has to focus on the one group. Repeat ad nauseam and boom simple tax law.

                    You think tax was just as complicated back in the days of pre industrialization? It sure as hell wasn’t.