this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
1154 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19121 readers
3998 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drbluefall@toast.ooo 57 points 2 months ago (13 children)

Should be no less than 90%, like it used to be.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (12 children)

You have to bear in mind that the "like it used to be" part operated when digital card payments were not a thing. A customer would give you cash, and maybe you would write it down in your taxes, but there was no digital indicator of what actually happened.

Small business owners got to stay afloat by swindling the government, and this was the normal way for centuries.

I'm not saying it's right, just that the high business tax of the past wasn't as effective as you think it was, and will hit extremely differently this time around in the digital era.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago (11 children)

The best thing to have is a variable tax rate that goes up the more profit is made.

That's how it is in my country.

[–] nikaaa@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

what if a company decides to split up into 100 smaller companies to avoid taxation?

[–] AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Good?

Smaller businesses have better wages and hire more people. Smaller businesses are more nimble, flexible, and they're never too big to fail. Smaller businesses, mean more options, more ideas, and variety is good for the marketplace, consumer, and the country as a whole.

Less consolidation is good! Competition is good!

[–] nikaaa@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Competition is good!

I wonder when AI "competition" will crush the free market.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Smaller businesses are more nimble, flexible, and they’re never too big to fail.

Some of this is questionable and other bits are flat wrong. Small businesses have bigger lending costs and less slack in their workforces, so they're often contained to focusing on a niche field.

And after a break up or spin off or outsourcing effort, certain components of the old business can become lynchpins for the rest.

That's basically the story of Cloud Strike. Much smaller than it's clients, but still too critical to be allowed to fail.

And just because a business administration is broken up doesn't mean it's revenues are. Modern conglomerates - Berkshire Hathaway, and Citadel Investments being the most notorious - have big stakes in enormous swaths of private industry. They control enough board seats to function as economic central planners.

Buffet doesn't really care if he owns one big Coca-Cola or a thousand little ones, just so long as he continues to extract that sweet sweet labor value.

[–] sysop@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Identify them then seize all of their assets IMO.

[–] nikaaa@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

yeah but you could do that with one big company just as well. that has nothing to do with them splitting up

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] nikaaa@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure that it would be practically impossible to prove in practice that it's fraud and illegal.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Not at all. Just follow the money.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)