Paying their fair share?

[Katrina]

I keep hearing that big corporations should "pay their fair share" but what does that mean? Isn't fair share subjective? What exactly is fair and to whom is it fair? Is there a certain percentage that can be deemed fair and if so, why isn't that stated instead?

 

[Jason76]

I keep hearing that big corporations should "pay their fair share" but what does that mean? Isn't fair share subjective? What exactly is fair and to whom is it fair? Is there a certain percentage that can be deemed fair and if so, why isn't that stated instead?

Morally speaking, I find a lot of wealth as sickening. As for, the semi-rich, they have privileged lives which arouse jealousy and/or annoyance. Anyway, a lot of the semi-rich have worked hard to get what they have and some of the rich, in that case, it becomes a tougher dilemma deciding if it's wrong or not.

As a side note, I think it's a moral obligation to at least provide jobs with the wealth. They don't have to, but maybe a higher power says so.

 

[Katrina]

Morally speaking, I find a lot of wealth as sickening. As for, the semi-rich, they have privileged lives which arouse jealousy and/or annoyance. Anyway, a lot of the semi-rich have worked hard to get what they have and some of the rich, in that case, it becomes a tougher dilemma deciding if it's wrong or not.

As a side note, I think it's a moral obligation to at least provide jobs with the wealth. They don't have to, but maybe a higher power says so.

What's considered wealthy to you? I mean, when I grew up poor, I saw other people who seemed rich but they really weren't. It's just that they could afford better things than my own family could. I saw a neighbor who had a fountain in her back yard and I thought she was the richest woman in town to afford something so extravagant. She was a widow and had nothing I found out later. That fountain was a gift.

 

[MrDawn]

Morally speaking, I find a lot of wealth as sickening.

Morally lol? That's an Argumentum Ad Passiones and that sounds like a personal problem. I've noticed "some" religious bigoted people are entitled and like to make it their business on who spends what if it's not being wasted on their religious agendas.

As for, the semi-rich, they have privileged lives which arouse jealousy and/or annoyance. Anyway, a lot of the semi-rich have worked hard to get what they have and some of the rich, in that case, it becomes a tougher dilemma deciding if it's wrong or not.

Argumentum Ad Passiones. Unless someone hired you, It's no one's job to tell a person what they should do with their money, rich or poor. In fact that's immoral to feel entitled to a hefty hand out from those that worked hard to get where they are in life.

If I were to inherit a million dollars, I'm not morally or altruistically obligated to give you or anyone a dime of that money. I don't care what bs religion you practice, that doesn't mean I'm "immoral" because your religion said so. It just means I have my personal reasons and it's none of anyone's business, aside from the IRS, whether I have that money or not and what I would do with it if I had it.

When you sit there and judge someone's integrity just because they have wealth or by what you read in a religious book. If you're doing those things, I think it's time to look in the mirror and question your own morality and the religion you practice. Maybe it's time for you to go out and re-invent yourself. Find a better version of yourself.

As a side note, I think it's a moral obligation to at least provide jobs with the wealth.

You think? Again, Argumentum Ad Passiones and Fallacy of Accident. No one is morally obligated to do what you want them to do. That sounds like entitlement and prejudice on your part.

If I have a few million bucks, why do I have to give you a job? Why does it become my "moral" and "financial" responsibility to support you? Why do I have to let you sponge off of me by me going out and starting up a business I don't want or need?

All of this is just a poor attempt at Virtue Signaling along side your usual "No True Scotsman Fallacious Arguments" that all rich people are bad because my "religion's holy book" says so (Circular Reasoning Fallacy)

They don't have to, but maybe a higher power says so.

Claim and Argumentum Ad Populum.

You mean a religion said so. What objective evidence can you demonstrate for the existence of any deity?

You'll need to take into account Hitchen's Razor and The Sagan Standard that there is a Burden of Proof when a claim is being inferred. So you will need to back this assertion to convince your audience. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Katrina]

Morally lol? That's an Argumentum Ad Passiones and that sounds like a personal problem. I've noticed "some" religious bigoted people are entitled and like to make it their business on who spends what if it's not being wasted on their religious agendas.



Argumentum Ad Passiones. Unless someone hired you, It's no one's job to tell a person what they should do with their money, rich or poor. In fact that's immoral to feel entitled to a hefty hand out from those that worked hard to get where they are in life.

If I were to inherit a million dollars, I'm not morally or altruistically obligated to give you or anyone a dime of that money. I don't care what bs religion you practice, that doesn't mean I'm "immoral" because your religion said so. It just means I have my personal reasons and it's none of anyone's business, aside from the IRS, whether I have that money or not and what I would do with it if I had it.

When you sit there and judge someone's integrity just because they have wealth or by what you read in a religious book. If you're doing those things, I think it's time to look in the mirror and question your own morality and the religion you practice. Maybe it's time for you to go out and re-invent yourself. Find a better version of yourself.



You think? Again, Argumentum Ad Passiones and Fallacy of Accident. No one is morally obligated to do what you want them to do. That sounds like entitlement and prejudice on your part.

If I have a few million bucks, why do I have to give you a job? Why does it become my "moral" and "financial" responsibility to support you? Why do I have to let you sponge off of me by me going out and starting up a business I don't want or need?

All of this is just a poor attempt at Virtue Signaling along side your usual "No True Scotsman Fallacious Arguments" that all rich people are bad because my "religion's holy book" says so (Circular Reasoning Fallacy)



Claim and Argumentum Ad Populum.

You mean a religion said so. What objective evidence can you demonstrate for the existence of any deity?

You'll need to take into account Hitchen's Razor and The Sagan Standard that there is a Burden of Proof when a claim is being inferred. So you will need to back this assertion to convince your audience. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

It's funny you're claiming that it's the "religious" people who are trying to get the rich to spread their wealth around when it's actually the liberal Democrats in the US that are forcing it.

 

[MrDawn]

It's funny you're claiming that it's the "religious" people who are trying to get the rich to spread their wealth around when it's actually the liberal Democrats in the US that are forcing it.

I never inferred a claim. I said "some" to avoid a No True Scotsman. Where in my post did I say "ALL" religious people?

 

[Katrina]

I never inferred a claim. I said "some" to avoid a No True Scotsman. Where in my post did I say "ALL" religious people?

Maybe it has to do with your constant anti-religion sentiment?

 

[MrDawn]

Maybe it has to do with your constant anti-religion sentiment?

Did you read his post at all?

When you claim that a certain class of or a group of people should do something or they are immoral and continue to villainize them for not living up to your imaginary high moral standards and then finish that post with an INFERRED CLAIM that a higher power says so. It gives the idea that you're claiming and hinting that your religious ideals and beliefs should apply to everyone and I don't agree with that. While those are his beliefs and he has a right to those beliefs. I have as much right to disagree and refute his opinions just like everyone else on here when he makes those opinions in the form of a "claim" or an "assertion" and talks about them as if they were a "fact". If he wants people to agree and validate those "assertions" then it's not asking too much to for him to back those "assertions" up with objective evidence. And if he can't back those claims with objective and compelling evidence that would pass in a court of law, then I happily dismiss that entire argument on the case because it holds no weight.

 

[Katrina]

Did you read his post at all?

When you claim that a certain class of or a group of people should do something or they are immoral and continue to villainize them for not living up to your imaginary high moral standards and then finish that post with an INFERRED CLAIM that a higher power says so. It gives the idea that you're claiming and hinting that your religious ideals and beliefs should apply to everyone and I don't agree with that. While those are his beliefs and he has a right to those beliefs. I have as much right to disagree and refute his opinions just like everyone else on here when he makes those opinions in the form of a "claim" or an "assertion" and talks about them as if they were a "fact". If he wants people to agree and validate those "assertions" then it's not asking too much to for him to back those "assertions" up with objective evidence. And if he can't back those claims with objective and compelling evidence that would pass in a court of law, then I happily dismiss that entire argument on the case because it holds no weight.

I read his post. Twice even because you asked me if I read it. Nowhere did he bring in religion. That was your doing. He mentioned morals but I have Atheist friends who live moral lives and they're not religious.

So now...back to my questions in the OP?

 

[MrDawn]

I read his post. Twice even because you asked me if I read it. Nowhere did he bring in religion. That was your doing. He mentioned morals but I have Atheist friends who live moral lives and they're not religious.

Claim. Read it again.

They don't have to, but maybe a higher power says so.

Did I? or are you just deflecting what he posted?

Read the definition.

HIGHER POWER Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

HIGHER POWER definition: a deity or another powerful but unknowable force, conceptualized variously as the Supreme Being, nature, the universe, invisible energy, etc., to which appeals or prayers may be directed, or in the context of which explanations of life and circumstances may be imagined...

www.dictionary.com

Higher power Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

HIGHER POWER meaning: a spirit or being (such as God) that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people

www.britannica.com

 

[Katrina]

Claim.


Did I? or are you just deflecting what he posted?

HIGHER POWER Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

HIGHER POWER definition: a deity or another powerful but unknowable force, conceptualized variously as the Supreme Being, nature, the universe, invisible energy, etc., to which appeals or prayers may be directed, or in the context of which explanations of life and circumstances may be imagined...

www.dictionary.com

Higher power Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

HIGHER POWER meaning: a spirit or being (such as God) that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people

www.britannica.com

I thought he was mocking the government in saying that since they can also be called a higher power.

Could we please get back to my OP questions now and off religion? Thanks.

 

[MrDawn]

I keep hearing that big corporations should "pay their fair share" but what does that mean?

You heard it right. It means they haven't paid their taxes.

For decades, the biggest and most profitable U.S. corporations have found ways to shelter their profits from federal income taxation. ITEP reports have documented such tax avoidance since the early years of the Reagan administration’s misguided tax-cutting experiment. A widely cited ITEP analysis of an eight-year period (2008 through 2015) confirmed that federal tax avoidance remained rampant before the TCJA.

Now, with most corporations reporting their third year of results under the new corporate tax laws pushed through by President Donald Trump in 2017, it is crystal clear that the TCJA failed to address loopholes that enable tax dodging—and may have made it worse.

The companies avoiding income taxes in 2020 represent very different sectors of the U.S. economy:

Food conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland enjoyed $438 million of U.S. pretax income last year and received a federal tax rebate of $164 million.

The delivery giant FedEx zeroed out its federal income tax on $1.2 billion of U.S. pretax income in 2020 and received a rebate of $230 million.

The shoe manufacturer Nike didn’t pay a dime of federal income tax on almost $2.9 billion of U.S. pretax income last year, instead enjoying a $109 million tax rebate.

The cable TV provider Dish Network paid no federal income taxes on $2.5 billion of U.S. income in 2020.

The software company Salesforce avoided all federal income taxes on $2.6 billion of U.S. income.

The U.S. income, current federal income tax and effective tax rates in 2020 for all 55 of the zero-tax companies are shown in the following table.

55 Corporations Paid $0 in Federal Taxes on 2020 Profits

At least 55 of the largest corporations in America paid no federal corporate income taxes in their most recent fiscal year despite enjoying substantial pretax profits in the United States. This continues a decades-long trend of corporate tax avoidance by the biggest U.S. corporations, and it...

itep.org

 

[zappaDPJ]

You heard it right. It means they haven't paid their taxes.

That pretty much sums it up.

In many societies the low paid pay little tax while the well paid pay a large amount of tax. The super rich on the other hand, be it an individual or corporation, pay tiny amounts of tax by comparison. As an example Starbucks in the UK recorded a loss in 14 of the last 15 years and yet they were able to claim a tax credit to the tune of £4.4 million in 2020 despite the chain's US parent making a $870 million profit during the same period.

Creative accounting and offshore holdings ensure the super rich pay little in tax.

 

[Katrina]

The laws helping companies avoid taxes have been around since the 80s.

So okay, we have posts saying that companies should pay taxes. But that's not my question and it isn't what is being spouted by the Democrats in the US. My question is this: what constitutes FAIR as in they need to pay their FAIR share? Who determines what is fair?

 

[MrDawn]

what constitutes FAIR as in they need to pay their FAIR share? Who determines what is fair?

Small business' alone have to set aside 30% percent after deductions from Federal and State taxes. Some mega corporations only pay 25% of that. If the IRS is making them pay based on their rule book, I guess that's fair enough. Some law makers are wanting to raise it though.

 

[Jason76]

Morally lol? That's an Argumentum Ad Passiones and that sounds like a personal problem. I've noticed "some" religious bigoted people are entitled and like to make it their business on who spends what if it's not being wasted on their religious agendas.

What do you mean? You mean giving out advice that "maybe" throwing away groceries at a casino is wasteful?

 

[zappaDPJ]

Who determines what is fair?

Quite often, the people that profit the most.

Trying to determine what is fair is an almost impossible job. Large corporations will tell you they have to answer to their shareholders and therefore they are duty bound to pay as little in tax as possible. People living in poverty will say that's an obscenity and they must pay more.

The answer probably lies somewhere in between the two extremes but there's no way to facilitate a meeting of minds between the very rich and the very poor.

 

[MrDawn]

What do you mean? You mean giving out advice that "maybe" throwing away groceries at a casino is wasteful?

Waste or not. No amount of money can "fix" the world's problems. You could throw millions at it and it still wouldn't fix anything since these issues are reoccurring.

 

[Jason76]

Waste or not. No amount of money can "fix" the world's problems. You could throw millions at it and it still wouldn't fix anything since these issues are reoccurring.

On a personal level, trashing basic expenses for fun can still can be massively destructive to a family or person.

 

[MrDawn]

On a personal level, trashing basic expenses for fun can still can be massively destructive to a family or person.

I'm not blind to your perspective on how something can be a waste of money. I do agree to a point. Some people do make bad financial decisions. Especially a lot of young adults.

Money is wasted on bad relationships.

Drug addiction is a thing. I've seen people throw away their career, marriage, and children away just to buy meth or heroin and become an addict. I agree with you to a point, people who don't have the money shouldn't go gambling or take out loans. No one should ever purchase illegal narcotics. Ever. That is always waste of money. It could be better spent elsewhere.

Is gambling a waste of money? It sure is when you're not winning. Gambling games are fun like the slot machines. But I feel that those machines are rigged for a certain amount. Personally I've only played with the idea I'd win big but it never seems to happen and I don't have the money to gamble often. So I just don't.

There are some people I have met that are big on saving money and only buying the essentials. These people are viewed as tight wads, cheap skates, or major money savers. They don't spend unless they absolutely have no choice. My father was really stingy with money and I had a really good friend who was very stingy. It was certainly frustrating at times. But I would say I that it is better to have money and not need it, then not have it and need it.