Re: [tlug] Yes! Another argument about the GPL! You knew you wanted it....

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

JC Helary writes:

 > Corporations pay _way_ much less taxes than _most_ individuals (that  
 > is the whole point of being a corporation)

No, the main point of being a corporation is limited liability for
owners in case the business goes under.  Now that alternative ways of
limiting liability are becoming common and well-understood they are
increasingly popular compared to full-blown corporations, which
suggests to me that Curt is right about the overall tax bite.
Furthermore, note that most corporate income is implicitly taxed
twice, first at the explicit rate, then what's left is taxed again at
the personal rate (if received as dividends) or at the capital gains
rate (if received as a capital gain).

You should also be aware that in jurisdictions where the prime source
of revenue is the income tax, invariably a large share (eg about 50%
of personal income tax in the U.S.) is paid by people in the highest
brackets (top 5% of incomes, U.S.), a disproportionate share of whom
get much of their income from corporate profit (performance bonuses
and stock-related payments), rather than as compensation for labor
services.  I don't know what the actual incidence of VAT is, but it
amuses me to mention that of course NONE of that is paid by
individuals, in the sense that it is entirely collected from
businesses.

 > plus they have outrageously more power to decide how their tax
 > money is going to be spent. Hence, it is _extremely_ likely that
 > their tax money is not funding anything that they have no direct
 > interest funding.

It's amusing to witness all this sound and fury signifying nothing.

A few large corporations indeed have disproportionate influence on the
way tax revenues are spent.  But that's not limited to their own tax
payments; rather some such firms derive many times their tax payments
in revenue from sales to government.  As do many firms with very
little influence over use of tax revenue, except the excellence of
their products.

And how does that compare to the millions of civil servants who derive
all their income from taxes, and who certainly have enormous influence
on the way taxes are spent through their unions?  I have a friend who
will shortly be jobless, though in his 10 years as a Beltway bandit
(ie, consulting contractor in Washington DC) he has saved the Air
Force a cool $2.5 billion dollars by recommending revisions to "cost
plus" contracts.  By contrast, the tenured bureaucrats who hanko'ed
the original contracts containing all kinds of hidden bonuses and
insurance for companies like Boeing and Sun will continue to be paid
until they retire.  And how about the hundred thousand or so UAW
members who are now civil servants due to the excess influence of
their union on the way tax revenues are spent (not to mention their
evil influence on management of their former company, now a state-owed
enterprise)?

In general, of course, 90% of workers and 90% of corporations have
little to no influence over the way taxes are allocated in the budget.