Robbing You, the Employee

After I finished writing about the peril in wealth redistribution, I slept on it and woke up this morning having more thoughts about it.

The way it's packaged by politicians, you would think that a corporate tax break was some sort of government giveaway - a giant subsidy. But it's not... a corporate tax break is simply a reduction in taxes paid to the government. The government is not handing over money to the company - it's taking less. Big difference.

And while we're on the subject, why does a corporation have to pay taxes in the first place? Does it drive on the roads? Use the bathroom? Because in theory, taxes are collected to pay for the common utilities of humans. A company is a non-human organization for people who have found a way to work together to deliver a good or service to other humans. That's it. It's a facade for the purpose of business.

Furthermore, the government collects taxes on revenue. Revenue happens when people pay a company for the good or service delivered. That profit earned by the company is then dispersed among those who worked to deliver the good or service in the form of a paycheck. But it stands to reason that if the government steps in and collects money from the company's revenue not once but twice - first from the company's income and then second from the income earned by workers - then the workers get less money because the government is now an added expense for the business.

So, a corporate tax break is no evil, as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama paint it, but a means by which to better pay the workers who earned the company's revenue in the first place. Hillary's plan to take away corporate tax breaks would rob the company's workers of the money they earned at work and seek to give it to others who had nothing at all to do with the money earned.

And that plan will create jobs??? Of course not.

Exactly the opposite would create jobs. Politicians should abolish the notion of non-human corporations paying taxes at all. Let the company disperse more of the profits to its workers in the form of either higher paychecks or creating more jobs at the company. Either way, it's better for people.

Hillary? Barack? Other "populist" politicians? They're all about robbing you, the employee, of what you help the company earn. That is the evil.

Tags: taxes | politics
by Brett Rogers, 12/6/2007 9:09:44 AM
Permalink

Your blog was what got me onboard the Ron Paul train. Excellent work!

Posted by Annette (dmartinigirl.blogspot.com), 12/6/2007 2:15:30 PM

Nooooooooo the RP train derailed when he became unhinged during the debate. Jump off before it is too late. :)

I agree with you on corporate tax breaks. No democratic candidate has a real clue on how to run a business, although Edwards has the inside track on how to sue business into bankruptcy.

The bottom line is we need a massive overhaul of the tax system and a reduction in government. Neither party is taking the lead there but I give the republicans a slight advantage in trying to cut taxes but a huge strike against them for the growth in government under Bush. It will be interesting to see how the expiring middle class tax breaks are treated as the election draws nearer. So far the dems are holding them up and if they continue to do so it will be their death at the polls come November.

Hey where is Bella hiding these days? I haven't been cyber slapped lately. I miss it. :)

Posted by Pale Rider, 12/6/2007 3:59:37 PM

Hey, ya know... I think, whether you agree with Ron Paul or not, supporting his campaign is a good idea. It forces the rest of the electable Repubs to stare at why the guy is so crazy popular. I absolutely want some of his ideas to rub off on the Repubs.

As for Bella, I think she reads occasionally, but remains silent because she doesn't need the angst of political disagreement. So in her absence, I'll assume the role of a generic cyber-slapper:

Like Bush and Co. have anything at all to crow about. You know, all this talk of "wealth redistribution" is nothing but greed. Those who have the money ought to be the ones to pay the money. Does it make any sense to make the poor poorer? Businesses can afford to pay these taxes. The lower tier workers generally can't. The profits would just go to line the pockets of the "haves" anyway, instead of creating jobs or giving workers a raise with the extra money saved from tax breaks. Like that's gonna happen.

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 12/6/2007 4:34:18 PM

Ahhh hah! And that is a common misconception that you addressed perfectly in the "wealth redistribution" post. The rich don't make the poor poorer. Handouts only make things worse. To quote you "Voters who favor candidates who promote wealth redistribution policies are ignorant to their own harm. Wealth redistribution is a diet of junk food: tastes great in the short-run, but it makes you fat and lazy in the long-term."

If you just give someone something repeatedly you remove their desire to earn it. Goes back to basic child rearing 101. Give a child everything they want you end up with a spoiled brat. Same logic applies to adults. It takes a generation of hard working parents to teach their children a solid work ethic. The government will NEVER fill this role.

With that said there is a segment of society that I am in favor of certain social programs for. Families who run into severe medical problems, loss of a parent, etc. Programs should be geared towards them on a temporary basis to provide a base while they get back on their feet. They should not create a new generation of welfare recipients who do nothing but suck off the nipple of productive society.

Posted by Pale Rider, 12/6/2007 4:51:52 PM

Yes, yes, yes.

If you just give someone something repeatedly you remove their desire to earn it. Goes back to basic child rearing 101. Give a child everything they want you end up with a spoiled brat. Same logic applies to adults. It takes a generation of hard working parents to teach their children a solid work ethic. The government will NEVER fill this role.

You know it's bad policy in the mouth of a politician when it's followed by, "But wait - there's more!"

Giveaways and programs should not be the focus of our government.

Hey PR, email me...

Posted by Brett Rogers (http://www.beatcanvas.com), 12/6/2007 5:47:23 PM

Cyber-slapping is different than spanking, so I'm guessing you don't miss me as much as you say, PR. Still...I appreciate the thought. ;-)

Brett has it exactly right. One thing I'm learning as I get older is to choose my battles, and my opinion of your opinions isn't going to make an iota of difference. I've had enough going on IRL without blowing a gasket at the conservative pundits of the right! Besides, who would be surprised that I think all this would be well and good if big corporations actually treated/paid their employees with the same considerations as their executives with the excess their tax breaks save them? Is the guy on the corporate jet who works 4 hours a week really that much more valuable than the poor schmuck doing the real work? Part of the reason I moved from the profit to the non-profit world is because while we may not make a lot of money, none of us are making a lot of money. The CEO isn't making 200 times what one of his managers is. And we get a lot more out of it than a paycheck.

Believe it or not, I'm a fairly non-confrontational person. Now if you'll excuse me, the women at the halfway house I work in are holding a Christmas celebration with free food and life-affirming poignancy. I'll have a Christmas cookie or three for y'all .... :-P

Posted by Bella, 12/6/2007 6:06:09 PM

Hey Bella! I miss those spankings. It is always refreshing to hear your point of view, even if I disagree. Although it looks like we are in agreement on executive pay.

Enjoy the cookie (or three). Sounds like a fun fun night. :)

Posted by Pale Rider, 12/6/2007 7:42:22 PM