🇳🇱
> Exactly. Not everyone has the same ability to take risks. Some have more support than others, if someone with no backing from family for example tried this, they are much more likely to end up poor and in debt. Your assertion that “everyone” could do it is a romantization, not a fact.
Yup and that is absolutely fair.. take the risks and have flexibility in when you pay taxes and some breaks on how much... or dont take the risk and pay a fixed rate... absolutely fair and the risks companies take are open to everyone.
Moreover its structered, in fact, that middle-class people have a huge advantage over big companies. People can start a class of corperations limited to only smaller companies (companies with caps on who and how many investors they can have). Basically smaller companies can avoid the double-taxzation i mentioned above while large companies cant.
So yes having the choice of stability vs risk, and each having their own set of advantages is absolutely fair.
> Can you source this in a way that actually goes over more than a specific example? First time i have heard of that and the results we see are not consistent with it. Even if Amazon payed high taxes one time, your assertions that winnings are always invested in growth is not consistent with bezos being a billionaire.
I do not have a source off hand other than the one example I already gave you. I just looked up the amazon tax record to get you that info, you are welcome to look up other big companies tax data and see the pattern for yourself.
I also never said the winnings are **always** invested, I made it clear that is not the case... also im skeptical of the whole "results we see is not consistent with it"... the results we see absolutely are consistent with it, chances are you just arent looking at the actual data and are instead relying mostly on memes, and gossip which paints a very biased and inaccurate picture... Do what I just did, go out and pull up some raw tax data and look for yourself.
> That is not how it works. With the power they have, they can do things to guarantee income not available to everyone. A nice example is their practice of ripping off successful items and placing them higher. You did say that monopoly regulation is lacking and this is dependent on having a quasi-monopoly, but the “no guarantee” is just not consistent over company size.
Large companies fall all the time, the idea that they are so powerful they cant fail is not born out by the history... think of how many mega-corperation house hold names that no longer exist or barely exist today.
That said you arent entirely wrong, we **do** have a problem with monopolies and as I've said before I do feel we need strong anti-trust laws (monopoly busting laws).. but as I have also said before thats not an issue with the taxes, its an issue with monopolies.
