# No US Corp Tax for Mr. Big: Your 2 Cents? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2010, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549 "2010-11-13T12:41:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/101 "2010-11-15T15:38:52Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > First, the limiting or non-limiting of wealth is irrelevant. The problem is the intrenchment of power and privilege that comes with inherited wealth. Second, that is your subjective opinion and is rather miopic. Certainly governments the world over like to tax as much as possible but in democracies you can usually only get away with taxes that have some sort of basis in fairness or the promotion of societal values. Yes they want the money, but that isn’t the sole reason for it existing. Irrelevant? Then your point is moot. Again, the inheritance tax does nothing to limit the power and privilege of inherited wealth. And, of course government wants the money and this is the sole reason for its existence due to points one and two. ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/102 "2010-11-15T16:35:56Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Irrelevant? Then your point is moot. Again, the inheritance tax does nothing to limit the power and privilege of inherited wealth. And, of course government wants the money and this is the sole reason for its existence due to points one and two. Well, I’ll happily admit that whether or not it actually _works_ as a limitter in it’s current form is debatable. But the moral argument for it’s existance does exists. Perhaps you don’t even see it as a danger, and if you’re starting from the position that ‘the government is stealing people’s money’ I’m not sure we’d ever come to agreement on that issue. I think you’d have trouble arguing that there isn’t an entrenched, moneyed, powerful elite in the US though. Your argument that: > [@](#): > > there is not a limited supply of wealth which results in anyone having less because someone has more Simply sounds like a platitude to appease the poor while the rich buy up all the best resources. It’s possible for everyone to get wealthier at the same time but inevitably wealth flows towards the already rich, as money grants the power to make or bend the rules. Recessions can be even worse for wealth imbalance, the current one is a prime example of the rich making out like bandits while the rest of the population gets poorer. Taxation is an important method of balancing this flow, and inheritance tax is IMO one of the most fair since it doesn’t penalize the person who actually made the money, whilst encouraging his/her heirs to be productive members of society. ---
**Author:** ![LonghornDave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@LonghornDave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonghornDave)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/103 "2010-11-15T17:30:00Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > For example, take IBM. Here is IBM’s own press statement from 2008. [IBM Newsroom](http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/26510.wss) Revenue $ 103.6 billion, profit $16.7 billion. It’s tax rate for 2008 was 26.2 percent. That’s just on the profit, not the gross. [Annual Report - Investor Relations | IBM](http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2008/note_p.shtml) They planned to pay $4.3 billion in income taxes and all taxes of $8.4 billion. That is all taxes at less than 8.2 percent. Sweet deal! > > [Federal Tax Rates and Tax Brackets: 2011-2023](http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008_tax_rates.htm) When I pay taxes, I pay on the overall income with a personal deduction. A self employed person making up to $112,650 pays $23,225 on adjusted income. That’s 20.6 percent. Another 15 percent on self employment taxes, and whatever all other gas, sales, state and local taxes are. (Property taxes are deductible for persons and corporations). Figure about 40 percent of all income, or roughly 5 times the rate of a big corporation. Corporations have all the rights of humans except they cannot vote. Yet. Practically speaking, crimes committed on their behalf do not result in incarceration, and they cannot be drafted in times of war, but rather can profit like Halliburton. Let’s say I have a pipeline company. My business is that I own pipelines and transport oil from one place to another. I purchase the oil from the producer and then sell it to a refiner. I pay $85 a barrel for the oil and then sell it to the refiner for $85.50 making $0.50 for every barrel I transport. I transport 10 million barrels a year doing this. My revenue is $855,000,000 a year, my expense is $850,000,000 a year, and my income before taxes is $5,000,000. Do you seriously think I should pay $299,250,000 in taxes (35% of my revenue) instead of $1,750,000 (35% of my profit)? Obviously, if the tax was on my revenue, the pipeline business in that form would never exist. I would have to mark up the price I sell the oil at to $131.27 from $85.50 just to make the same after tax profit. Obviously the refiner would not pay an additional $457,700,000 a year to buy the product, they would simply build their own pipeline and completely eliminate my industry. ---
**Author:** ![rainwalker78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb9ed0/32.png) [@rainwalker78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rainwalker78)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/104 "2010-11-15T17:31:20Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Google is incorporated in the State of California. Nitpick - Unless something has changed, Google is incorporated in Delaware. > **[Alphabet Investor Relations - Investors](https://abc.xyz/investor/)** ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/105 "2010-11-15T18:33:11Z")
> [@DHMO](#): > > I’m not sure why you felt this was true. Let’s run some numbers, shall we? I think you need to re-read what I said. I said: _ **“You wouldn’t take home less than if you hadn’t gotten a pay raise or COLA. If you get more money, you have to pay taxes on it.”** _ Yes, your COLA/Pay raise may, in some circumstances, not truly increase your theoretical purchasing power, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. You act as if getting a raise is a curse because you couldn’t reap the full intended benefits. Aside from the fact you made a few generous (faulty) assumptions to try to prove your point, you have not even addressed what I said. For [example](http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=187825,00.html): [QUOTE=IRS] By law, the dollar amounts for a variety of tax provisions must be revised each year to keep pace with inflation. As a result, more than three dozen tax benefits, affecting virtually every taxpayer, are being adjusted for 2009. [/QUOTE] So while these numbers aren’t technically indexed, they do change based on inflation. The likelihood that inflation would be 2%, but that the tax brackets would not change is very unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/106 "2010-11-15T21:05:36Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > Well, I’ll happily admit that whether or not it actually _works_ as a limitter in it’s current form is debatable. But the moral argument for it’s existance does exists. Perhaps you don’t even see it as a danger, and if you’re starting from the position that ‘the government is stealing people’s money’ I’m not sure we’d ever come to agreement on that issue. I think you’d have trouble arguing that there isn’t an entrenched, moneyed, powerful elite in the US though. > > Your argument that: > > Simply sounds like a platitude to appease the poor while the rich buy up all the best resources. It’s possible for everyone to get wealthier at the same time but inevitably wealth flows towards the already rich, as money grants the power to make or bend the rules. Recessions can be even worse for wealth imbalance, the current one is a prime example of the rich making out like bandits while the rest of the population gets poorer. > > Taxation is an important method of balancing this flow, and inheritance tax is IMO one of the most fair since it doesn’t penalize the person who actually made the money, whilst encouraging his/her heirs to be productive members of society. Now we are starting to get to the root of your beliefs. This is social justice for you and whether or not it has the intended effect is irrelevant. What many here fail to realize is that members of society do not necessarily stay in the same income classification over the course of their lives. Your post is the perfect example of poisonous class warfare that assumes that some do not have enough because others have too much. This is a simplistic belief that promotes socialism and numerous failed government interventions. Oh, and taxation is a method of extracting wealth from the populace in order to run the necessary components of government. Not, as you say, to balance the flow of wealth. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/107 "2010-11-15T22:12:06Z")
Is that some Holy Text that you have not yet offered? It is Written, somewhere, that taxation is for these purposes alone, and that using that method for other purposes is heresy? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/108 "2010-11-15T22:28:18Z")
You may have heard of that text called the Constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/109 "2010-11-16T00:15:47Z")
> [@Jinx](#): > > So, Mr. & Mrs. Hard Working US Citizen, how does this make you feel when you hear that BIG BUSINESS, like Exxon, Google, and Microsoft escape (or virtually escape) paying their fair share in US corporate tax by incorporating in the Cayman Islands or Ireland? Don’t you feel it is high time for these dead loads to pull their weight? Or, are taxes truly the burden of the little people? I think the issue with taxes is the ability for corporations to use deductions in the same way that you and I do. Two years ago, I lost $450 dollars in the stock market out of an initial investment of $500. I was very surprised to learn that I was able to deduct dollar-for-dollar my loss in 2008. It’s my understanding that corporations can do this as well but for other things like donations. This doesn’t sit well with me. I think corporations should be given a flat tax on generated revenue with no opportunities to modify that amount. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/110 "2010-11-16T01:53:00Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Let’s say I have a pipeline company. My business is that I own pipelines and transport oil from one place to another. I purchase the oil from the producer and then sell it to a refiner. I pay $85 a barrel for the oil and then sell it to the refiner for $85.50 making $0.50 for every barrel I transport. I transport 10 million barrels a year doing this. My revenue is $855,000,000 a year, my expense is $850,000,000 a year, and my income before taxes is $5,000,000. Do you seriously think I should pay $299,250,000 in taxes (35% of my revenue) instead of $1,750,000 (35% of my profit)? > > Obviously, if the tax was on my revenue, the pipeline business in that form would never exist. I would have to mark up the price I sell the oil at to $131.27 from $85.50 just to make the same after tax profit. Obviously the refiner would not pay an additional $457,700,000 a year to buy the product, they would simply build their own pipeline and completely eliminate my industry. Hey, wait a minute. There’s a voice of sanity and reason, with some basic analysis to back it up. I didn’t think those things were allowed in SDMB posts on taxation. Thanks for the post, LonghornDave. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/111 "2010-11-16T02:28:12Z")
No of course not. You should totally avoid all taxes. You owe nothing to America and you surely don’t use any services provided. Then many major corporations completely avoid taxes and get millions of dollars in tax payer money back. Why not ,if you can get away with it. Some financial institutions have bought sewer systems of foreign cities . They get to write of the depreciation. Nothing wrong with that. That is not tax evasion. That is good business. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/112 "2010-11-16T05:10:18Z")
> [@DHMO](#): > > Any business, from the Mom & Pop down at the corner to the Multi-Mega-Mart in the 'burbs to the globe-spanning conglomerate, exists to make money. As evil as that sounds… Why is that evil? I wish more people had a basic understanding of what money actually is and how and why it works. What’s the alternative? People should just perform their labor out of the goodness of their hearts? ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/113 "2010-11-16T10:22:56Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Now we are starting to get to the root of your beliefs. This is social justice for you and whether or not it has the intended effect is irrelevant. What many here fail to realize is that members of society do not necessarily stay in the same income classification over the course of their lives. Actually I’m attempting to distinguish between whether the policy has a valid goal beyond raising funds and whether or not the current implementation of that policy is effective in achieving that goal. Given the increasing concentration of US wealth in the top few percent of the population I would concede that currently it doesn’t seem to work, or is at least inadequate. I don’t understand what social mobility has to do with a debate on inheritance tax. > [@](#): > > Your post is the perfect example of poisonous class warfare that assumes that some do not have enough because others have too much. This is a simplistic belief that promotes socialism and numerous failed government interventions. And you seem to assume that people having unfettered wealth has absolutely no impact on other people. Neither statement is correct, in a world with limited resources wealth can be created for all but it _is_ possible for an over-concentration of wealth at the top of society to hurt everyone else. Your accusations of class-warfare simply illustrate that you have little sense of proportion. The use of the tax code as a method for promoting behaviour that is healthy to society is hardly class-warfare. You cannot say that and then argue for a low capital gains tax to promote investment for instance. The use of socialism as a dirty world is also interesting. Are you a Libertarian that believes in a dog-eat-dog society without any social welfare or government support for the poor? No? Then you’re a socialist, though clearly we disagree about the scope of government social intervention. And if you waste all your invective on moderates like myself you won’t have any left for the real Socialists (like we have in Europe). People who are proud to believe in class-warfare and the complete redistribution of wealth. > [@yorick73](#): > > Oh, and taxation is a method of extracting wealth from the populace in order to run the necessary components of government. Not, as you say, to balance the flow of wealth. I’m not Amercian so I’m not a well versed on the Constitution as most people around here, but I can’t find anything that backs this up at all. You are of course entitled to your opinion. I would also be interested to know _why_ you think that inheritance tax is opposed to American principles? Personally I would think that a 100% tax on inherited wealth would be more aligned to promoting individual responsibility and a meritocracy than a 0% rate, and I’m curious why you disagree with this. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/114 "2010-11-16T17:20:22Z")
> [@pinkyvee](#): > > My Dad inherited a little bit of $ when he was in his 40’s. > He taught himself how to invest wisely, and he did quite well with his little bit of inheritance. > He collected stock dividends, especially significant amounts in his latter years. > Dad also worked. He was a wage earner, not a business man. He was a mail carrier. > > So, during my Dad’s time on Earth, he fell into all 3 of your categories. > > Dad died, in his late 80’s, this fall. > He left an estate worth just above a million US $. Then his estate paid no taxes. Even if the estate tax weren’t on hiatus at the moment, his estate would fall well below the exemption line. In 2009, the estate exemption was $3.5 million. That means a person who died in 2009 and left an estate worth less than $3.5 million paid no tax. Too many people don’t know about the exemption, and think that estate taxes affect everyone, rather than just the crazy-wealthy. Also, unless you’re single for life or handle your estate very poorly, your exemption is essentially doubled, since you and your spouse can maximize your exemptions and pass on $7 million tax-free (actually, last I heard the 2011 exemption is expected to be $5 million per individual, so that’d be $10 million per couple). I’ve been arguing on this board about estate taxes for almost a decade. The last time I looked up the numbers for one year, half of the total estate tax revenue collected came from just 3,050 families. Estates between $675K and $1 million ($675K was the exemption amount at that time) each paid, on average, around $28K in tax. That doesn’t seem too onerous a burden for a $1 million estate. The tax is designed to disproportionately affect the very wealthy, because without it wealth accumulates in this small number of extremely wealthy families and just _stays_ there. > [@](#): > > Dad was not an enemy of the working man just because he was smart, worked hard, paid for things instead of borrowing money, and managed to accumulate a fair amount of $. > > He earned his wealth. > > Your division of 3 types of people who make money by “inherit” “stock dividends” or"wages" is not based in the real world. > People, ordinary people, can do all three. > > Dad’s generation did not spend a lot of time whining about what other people were doing. > They went to work, got down to business, and took self responsibility. So, the estate tax didn’t discourage him from becoming wealthy? Good. I don’t know of anyone who chose not to become wealthy rather than pay estate taxes. So, there’s the challenge to the anti-estate-tax folks: show me where the estate tax has become a disincentive to becoming wealthy. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/115 "2010-11-16T19:19:15Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > Actually I’m attempting to distinguish between whether the policy has a valid goal beyond raising funds and whether or not the current implementation of that policy is effective in achieving that goal. Given the increasing concentration of US wealth in the top few percent of the population I would concede that currently it doesn’t seem to work, or is at least inadequate. I don’t understand what social mobility has to do with a debate on inheritance tax. You have stated that the moral argument for the inheritance tax is to limit the power and privilege of inherited wealth. Then you state that it does not have this effect but is still good because it raises funds. Therefore it is just another “tax the rich” scheme. They have too much so we should take some for whatever reason we please. That is class warfare. Social status is not fixed from birth so there is no permanent “rich” class or a permanent “poor” class who need the money. Yet, this is the way many people describe the rich and the poor in order to foment class warfare. That was my point. > [@Baboonanza](#): > > And you seem to assume that people having unfettered wealth has absolutely no impact on other people. Neither statement is correct, in a world with limited resources wealth can be created for all but it _is_ possible for an over-concentration of wealth at the top of society to hurt everyone else. Do you think that extracting some of that wealth for government use will help those who are “injured” by our current concentration of wealth? If so, please explain to me how everyone is injured by the current concentration of wealth and how the inheritance tax will correct this problem. > [@Baboonanza](#): > > Your accusations of class-warfare simply illustrate that you have little sense of proportion. The use of the tax code as a method for promoting behaviour that is healthy to society is hardly class-warfare. You cannot say that and then argue for a low capital gains tax to promote investment for instance. I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. What activity are you trying to promote by having an inheritance tax? Less rich people? > [@Baboonanza](#): > > The use of socialism as a dirty world is also interesting. Are you a Libertarian that believes in a dog-eat-dog society without any social welfare or government support for the poor? No? Then you’re a socialist, though clearly we disagree about the scope of government social intervention. And if you waste all your invective on moderates like myself you won’t have any left for the real Socialists (like we have in Europe). People who are proud to believe in class-warfare and the complete redistribution of wealth. Socialism is a dirty word. Thinking so does not make one a Libertarian who does not believe in any government support. Certainly you understand the difference between Socialism and having social programs inside a largely Capitalist system. > [@Baboonanza](#): > > I’m not Amercian so I’m not a well versed on the Constitution as most people around here, but I can’t find anything that backs this up at all. You are of course entitled to your opinion. > > I would also be interested to know _why_ you think that inheritance tax is opposed to American principles? Personally I would think that a 100% tax on inherited wealth would be more aligned to promoting individual responsibility and a meritocracy than a 0% rate, and I’m curious why you disagree with this. Well then, you understand very little about this country and our principles. I’ll refer to some old, dead white guys for a better explanation: “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816 “A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801 “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794 “[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/116 "2010-11-17T04:13:58Z")
The financial experts and corporations have found there are no barriers to stop them from helping themselves to the tax trough. It looks like it may well be the end of the Republic. But it will not have anything to do with Obamacare. I looked around for my enemies only to find they are already here. They run the place.The politicians work for them. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2010, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/117 "2010-11-17T05:48:16Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > I think the issue with taxes is the ability for corporations to use deductions in the same way that you and I do. Two years ago, I lost $450 dollars in the stock market out of an initial investment of $500. I was very surprised to learn that I was able to deduct dollar-for-dollar my loss in 2008. It’s my understanding that corporations can do this as well but for other things like donations. This doesn’t sit well with me. I think corporations should be given a flat tax on generated revenue with no opportunities to modify that amount. I again have to point to the excellent post made by LonghornDave that illustrates why taxing a business based solely on its revenue is flatly insane. You would bankrupt virtually all businesses. Any company that had a couple of learn years - which is most of them - would be doomed. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549/118 "2010-11-17T18:47:52Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I stand to oppose the **Ajashi** _Mercy to Widows and Orphans Bill_ of 2010. If the Good Lord had not intended for these widows and orphans to be compelled to labor in sweatshops, he would not have made them widows and orphans to begin with! > > (Translation from snark: I am quite sure we can find a way to craft a provision in our tax codes to address any such unfortunate result.) That’s right and you would likely end up with something that looks a lot like the estate tax. You can craft all sorts of tax provisions but having an exclusion amount works pretty well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-us-corp-tax-for-mr-big-your-2-cents/560549.md?page=5)