Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
Christien Chalfant
Heimdalr
So let's just tax the employees more, right? Cut out the middle man. I think your argument here is mainly philosophical, and by philosophical I mean fantastic to the point where leprechauns s**t rainbows into unicorn kettles.
It is useful to tax businesses because a lot of public commodities
as it stands are being gratuitously exploited by the private sector. If we keep this kind of radical restructuring of society out of the picture, I think you will find what I said about subsidies reasonable.
What commodities are being exploited by the private sector? Is that to say even if there are to such a great degree, are there not commodities that are exploited by the public sector?
Regardless, you cannot tax Business. You can only tax people. Taxing business is a false ploy.
My argument is not philosophical. The public school in Washington D.C are some of the worst in the country. Do they compete with each other? Do they try to get the best students to come to their public schools? Do they advertise their school activities, clubs, or sports?
Subsidies is just a nice way of saying redistribution of wealth which is a nice of way of saying theft.
I'm against thievery.
You're being absurd. When the employee of this business uses his government-subsidized car to drive government-paid road with his government-subsidized gasoline, is he then
personally responsible for the damage to the roads, the damage to the environment, the front collision with a drunk driver? Is there not another entity in play here?
You're assuming that everything is provided by the gov't. Which because of socialist policies, gov't tries really hard to.
But yes. Those damages to the environment, to the roads, and the collision with the driver are due to the individual and individuals combining into the collective.
They all made a conscious decision to drive the car, to drive on a certain route or road, they're unlucky it was the same as a drunk driver. But then the drunk driver made a conscious decision to drink, then made a decision to drive. Other individuals made a conscious decision to allow him to drive, to not take his keys, or to not get him prior rehabilitation if he was an alcoholic.
So the damages to the road that are done by countless cars being driven on them, the pollution to the environment, and collision of cars is in result because of the individual.
If it's not the employee, then it's the gov't official that decided to take money from the taxpayers and "redistribute" it somewhere else. Then getting other officials to go along with the idea. Then making a political propaganda scheme to sell the "benefits" to the people.
Perhaps I should be more clear. As it stands, the auto industry has been bailed out, the roads are paved at the behest of state and federal contracts, gasoline is being subsidized. But that was beside the point really.
The auto industry was bailed out, but should it have been? No, failing business should go ahead and fail. Yes, there are plenty and an abundance of public roads, but who declared the government as the catalyst for paving the roads and creating them? Oh that's right. The gov't appointed itself to all that, the people never asked for public roads. Regardless, I don't hate the highway nor do I refrain from using it, my point is that there were plenty of other people who could've designed and put forth the highway.
Heimdalr
What I was referring to, was an employee getting in a company vehicle to serve a professional function. He will then drive in the name of a business, which is normally expected to reimburse the State for any cost the employee will accumulate in his profession. Damage to property, roads, coal seam fires (In the case of the drunk driver or various other accidents, the business is expected to treat it as a workplace accident and seek to reimburse the employee or his estate, whichever applies). As such, there is ample precedent for treating the business as a single entity and not "individuals doing unrelated things" which is a gigantic cop-out.
Fine, the company car. But is that company car provided by the gov't or is it provided by the employer?
Reimburse the State for any cost the employee will accumulate? But now see here, the employee doesn't have to drive the company car, but perhaps he has to. Then the company would have already made arrangements about the car concerning repairs, mileage, etcetera and those would be known with the driver. Otherwise in a say, small business, the employee would drive his own car and would then be reimbursed for the miles driven, as part of his job. But the Employer reimburses the employee not the gov't.
If the accident happens while doing a company action then of course it's a workplace accident. But then why should the employers and employees be treated as a collective entity? Because of workplace accidents? Sorry but that's really just trying to simplify things. A company is individuals doing related things, not unrelated things. Hence the man reimbursing for mileage driven, the man driving his own car while on the job or a provided company car, the man on the assembly line, the man managing exports to the Caribbean and so forth. They are always related.
But business, as a whole, cannot be taxed. You cannot tax every single person within that company the same way as you would call it business. You could have a fair tax and no "business tax," then that would be the same tax and it would be fair.
But you cannot take a collective nor can you tax a building. Only individuals can be taxed.