Should corporations pay any tax?
But I don't believe in the "rents" theory. Fans of rents will disagree, since they find ownership itself an externality. Ownership is not, but we must let those who hold a view chance to give exposition. That it is, a priori not an externality is an indifference to those who hold the view. But adherents to revisionist theories often, I've found, able to disregard the status quo without the slightest blush.
Mebbe you haven't spent enough time here, but the whole "rents" argument is about penalizing people with wealth. If you're poor, you don't pay rents taxes. If you're rich, it is incumbent upon you to pay more. Something about Progressivism; "rents" makes no more sense than taxing an inheritance. Just as in the case of ownership of any asset, those that rise in value have no greater burden upon the task of enabling social justice, as do those holding which experience in a reduction of value. Taxes that are endured as a result of our income has been established as a prerogative of our nation. But, taxes have already been paid against the value of a man's estate. Taxing on the basis of either rents or inheritance is just a simple taking by a tax authority.
My take is, once you've paid your tax on your earnings, the remainder is yours.
Progressivism isn't about fairness. It's about what is your property, and a social justification to take that property. The whole and parcel of Progressiveness is to find ways to take from people who earn and save, in order to give to a certain class of people who have done neither.
In a democracy, especially in a gerrymandered democracy, it is easy to find pockets of discontent, in order to take anti-social ideas and convert them into political talking points. The Democrats have for years used divisive talking points in order to advance their pro-disadvantaged politics into play. Why else do we spend time or money teaching "diversity"? None of us has ever been anti-diversity, but the label that can be attached to one who disagrees with the outcomes proposed by the diversity crowd; and while those proposed outcomes are pointless, and at base, utterly meaningless, the label of anti-diversity puts the defender for such a position in a state of argumentative peril; being called a name either requires disputation or the non chalance of the sophisticate.
Few of us are sophisticated. Sophistication isn't a trait that we wish to adopt.
Far different for the Ivy Leaguer. The Ivy League imbrues one with knowledge and the inside track of what is hip, and that which is not. While talking about Monckton pears, one can let slip how uber important diversity is.
The Left knows there no argument there. It's a silly club, with rituals peppered with words of significance.
So, no. Corporations shouldn't pay taxes. It's kinda like any new, proposed tax.
Have you heard proposals for a "soda tax"? The idea being that we can attach a particular tax to a particular item, soda being a "cause of obesity," and thereby reduce the demand for soda pop, and while fat boys will still drink it, those who are sensitive to incremental price increases for products that create some type of social harm, will discontinue their consumption of these "harmful" products, in order to escape the taxation of these items.
In the real world, such "well intentioned beliefs" are simply that; well intentioned beliefs. Or, are sold as such.
The Left actually has some smart people amongst them...they know, as well as I do, that the language of these takings is as phony as you or I see them as.
Simply type "taxes that attempt to dissuade consumers." The first thing that popped up on my browser was "The Case for the Obesity Tax."
Democrats want more money to spend. They know that incremental taxes are hard to discern among the clutter of fees and costs we pay to purchase, maintain, live, and enjoy our lives. They've relied upon the magic of incremental taxation and fees for decades.
Where we, in Oregon, have held firm has been our opposition to a sales tax. Why?
It is, in my belief, a product of our referendum process.
Oregon law requires that our referenda address only a single topic or law. To change Oregon tax law, from our current form of taxation, to a more modern and fair form of taxation, would require that those reforms take place in several different referendums. That means, we must pass at least three referendums. Without searching, I think that this was attempted some thirty years ago. But, if a single referendum fails to pass, they all fail. Oregon's referendum law needs to be changed in order for us to effect the types of changes that would be necessary for us to truly reform our tax laws.
Why a sales tax?
Because, currently, low- or no-income folks have no problem with increasing tax rates. The get the bennies, and we pay the freight. Everyone should feel the burden of government taxation.
After all, freedom isn't free. That Oregon is broken is evidenced every day. But an undeveloped piece of land and build a commercial site, say for office space, let alone for manufacturing. What are the building regulations in Houston? There are none. You buy a piece of land, you build. You open the business you want. Where would you rather build?