An odd way to attack the problem would be to demean the personal liberties of someone else based on nothing other than your own personal feelings. I don't see how either of these lines of argument achieve any useful or realistic end state.
It's a topic almost perfectly designed for a useless shouting match.
Meanwhile. In the 1950's, citizens in the US were expected to pay around 50% of the cost of running the government. Corporations paid 25% of the share and the rest were import and other use taxes.
Today, citizens are expected to pay 85%. Corporations pay a mere 7%, and they enjoy reductions in the other tax categories more readily than citizens and consumers do.
The elite business class billionaire CEO is just a symptom of this problem, and a fraction of the overall class anyways. Tiger Woods just joined the three comma club recently.. what was his original sin?
No not in some sense but legally. And what the OP was saying that the tax burden is split unequally between individuals and corporations. While corporations enjoy the legal benefits of personhood, the same doesn't apply to them when it comes to taxation.
The extent of the point I'm trying to make is sense people are the only things making decisions any tax you can levy on a cooperation can be equivalently thought of as a bunch of taxes on individual people. The situations are the same
It's a topic almost perfectly designed for a useless shouting match.
Meanwhile. In the 1950's, citizens in the US were expected to pay around 50% of the cost of running the government. Corporations paid 25% of the share and the rest were import and other use taxes.
Today, citizens are expected to pay 85%. Corporations pay a mere 7%, and they enjoy reductions in the other tax categories more readily than citizens and consumers do.
The elite business class billionaire CEO is just a symptom of this problem, and a fraction of the overall class anyways. Tiger Woods just joined the three comma club recently.. what was his original sin?