• tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    You have to bear in mind that the “like it used to be” part operated when digital card payments were not a thing. A customer would give you cash, and maybe you would write it down in your taxes, but there was no digital indicator of what actually happened.

    Small business owners got to stay afloat by swindling the government, and this was the normal way for centuries.

    I’m not saying it’s right, just that the high business tax of the past wasn’t as effective as you think it was, and will hit extremely differently this time around in the digital era.

    • x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      28 days ago

      The best thing to have is a variable tax rate that goes up the more profit is made.

      That’s how it is in my country.

      • Communist_Synthesizer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        28 days ago

        That used to be the case until 2017. Highest bracket was 39%, but they had a weird system where it went UP until about 350Kish, (Income between 100K~350K) and then the variable rate started dropping again for income past that, back down to 35%. Would have been fair to assume any fortune 500 company not doing shady shit would have paid an effective rate of 35%.

        Trump’s tax cuts drastically decreased that, down to 21% flat for everyone. 28% would still be a tax cut over what it was up til 2017.

        • x00z@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          28 days ago

          From what I know, most of the big international companies can bypass almost all taxing anyways because they simply move their profits trough tax havens. We should be looking to fix that first.

        • AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          28 days ago

          Good?

          Smaller businesses have better wages and hire more people. Smaller businesses are more nimble, flexible, and they’re never too big to fail. Smaller businesses, mean more options, more ideas, and variety is good for the marketplace, consumer, and the country as a whole.

          Less consolidation is good! Competition is good!

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            28 days ago

            Smaller businesses are more nimble, flexible, and they’re never too big to fail.

            Some of this is questionable and other bits are flat wrong. Small businesses have bigger lending costs and less slack in their workforces, so they’re often contained to focusing on a niche field.

            And after a break up or spin off or outsourcing effort, certain components of the old business can become lynchpins for the rest.

            That’s basically the story of Cloud Strike. Much smaller than it’s clients, but still too critical to be allowed to fail.

            And just because a business administration is broken up doesn’t mean it’s revenues are. Modern conglomerates - Berkshire Hathaway, and Citadel Investments being the most notorious - have big stakes in enormous swaths of private industry. They control enough board seats to function as economic central planners.

            Buffet doesn’t really care if he owns one big Coca-Cola or a thousand little ones, just so long as he continues to extract that sweet sweet labor value.

          • nikaaa@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            27 days ago

            yeah but you could do that with one big company just as well. that has nothing to do with them splitting up