🇳🇱
> The "how to structure" you are referring to is not available to everyone.
The structuring absolutely is ava8ilible to everyone. The problem is taking such a structure has inherently more risks.. more risks mean potential for more rewards, the same risks companies take in the first place... but yes, everyone can choose to operate under a 1099 as long as they are willing to take the risk that they might not find clients and dont have a garunteed income stream (just like any company risks).
> Put simply: even if this kind of deal is available in all other contries, it is not sustainable.
> Even if you suppose everybody did it successfully, the infrastructure would collapse (faster than it is now), since there is no tax money to pay upkeep from.
Again no, this is because you dont understand how it works. You are under hte impression that big companies pay 0 taxes forever, they dont.. They have years where they pay very low taxes and then years they pay extremely high taxes, in the end it blaances out and over long periods we see fair tax rates.
Take Amazon as an example, in 2018 everyone was livid and screaming about how they pay 0 taxes (in fact slightly negative, they got taxes back)... But then they ignore the years they pay extremly high taxes, for example just a few years earlier in 2014 Amazon paid an effetive tax rate of a whopping 91.7%! If you average their tax rate from 2014 to 2018 to create a more fair picture their tax rate would be about 22%, which is a pretty reasonable amount when you consider corperations undergo double-taxation (that 22% is ON TOP of the huge tax rate the owners see when they take money out for themselves).
So yes, the world is quite sustainable at those rates.
> But that everyone did it is not realistic, even if you ignore infrastructure: some people are not able to finess this, and i would severely doubt that every job would be open to such workers.
Of course not every job allows it, most people dont WANT it because those benefits come with risks. In a w-2 job you have a garunteed income, garunteed work, fixed hours, etc.. as a consequence you dont get to expense things and cant get the sort of cuts a 1099 can get on taxes. Likewise someone on 1099 saves on taxes but risks having access to fewer clients and no garuntees on income (just as amazon has no garuntee on income)... Companies take risks and get certain advantages in taxes, you have the option to take the same risk, some cant, thats fair.
> To companies investing in growth: i doubt that too. It would not be sustainable from an ecological perspective, so even what they do spend on growth is harmful, but a lot goes into other channels, i'm pretty sure.
Thats a seperate issue, obviously growth can be good (generates wealth makes everyone and economies healthier) or bad (they can destroy ecosystems, etc)... We need to ensure the proper laws are in place that companies cant grow in ways that are harmful... but that is outside of the scope of taxes for the most part.
> How do you explain the upshoot of billionaires if they spend all their profit on growth? Magic?
I never said they spend **all** their money all the time on growth.. The years they pay 0 taxes are either spent on growth or they had legitimate losses. But as i explained many other years they pay huge tax rates well above baseline. In the end it averages out. The years they spent little or nothing on taxes is not every year, some years they profit and pull money out, on those years rich people become richer, and they also spend a lot on taxes (remember the double taxation above).
