I called you out that corporate income tax is only 11%, which is by no means most of taxes. Then you modified your argument to remove mentioning large corporations and changed your argument to just:
business activity pays for pretty much 100% of everything in the US
Which is a blanket statement, and is still bullshit.
The fact you disagree with it does not change the fact of the matter.
47% of US federal taxes come from income tax. That tax is not dependent on corporations. It is dependent on personal income. Income tax is not a “pass-through” from corporations in any way, shape or form.
So, basically, you’re arguing that if 100% of the american population was unemployed, the US Treasury would still take in in taxes what it does today.
Good luck with that one. :-)
If businesses want to sell their products in our safe, well regulated markets, they have to pay for the upkeep of those markets.
See above. It obviously follows from my statement that they do pay for the “upkeep of those markets”. (I should point out that this is a remarkably vague term; history is replete with examples of functioning markets without governments being involved.)
Taking the position that two entities share the benefits of something while only one pays for it is inherently unfair. You don’t have to be older than about five to understand that.
That’s why I would never take that position. Your point is only valid if you first assume you are correct about income taxes not dependent on wages, which is false.
Let them move overseas entirely. No one is stopping them. No one has ever stopped them. They don’t want to move overseas, because they want the advantages of being inside the US market and protected by US laws. We’re just a bunch of chumps for letting them extort us.
Actually, they will always move to where they can do business the most efficiently. “Efficiently” is a complex term with a lot of variables; some of the the major ones are physical property rights, copyright protections, infrastructure, and taxation. It is indeed true that the taxation deficiencies of the US are, depending on market sector, offset by various legal protections which make the US advantageous — — to an extent.
If you’re familiar with capital markets terminology, you’re familiar with the term “economic moat”. The problem with most of these variables (other than infrastructure) is that there’s no moat; a country can become the equal of the US and Europe simply by changing a few laws and deciding to enforce some international standards.
This is why you’ve seen an outflux, to choose one example, of pharma companies. Pharma companies traffic in Smart People, don’t need much of an infrastructure, and depend on strong patent and property protections. So, they’re a good fit for lower-tax countries that can supply all those. So, most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand all qualify.
The US could easily do the same, but the people have been brainwashed by the corporate media into thinking such a great system is unattainable.
What “great system” is that?