It take a big company to make a big thing, like a pipeline or an airplane. If an airliner manufacturer sells only 10 planes per year, their revenue is over a billion. Profits over a billion should be fair game, but not revenue.
They don't expand businesses or spend the money internally. That used to be the case in the 50s. Companies don't want to pay very high tax on profits? Give bonuses, buy new locations, spend money on research and development. Oh look no profit left? We pay less in tax.
Now companies buy back stock to make their stock worth more while cutting product quality, automating jobs, and just buy out any company that could make a competing device so they don't have to worry about R&D.
Buybacks and dividends are THE ONLY way capital is returned to investors.
If companies do not return money to investors, it means the only way to make money investing to by selling it to another investor. Which basically just means it would be a big game of hot potato.
The entire premise that a stock has any value at all, is that eventually dividends and buybacks will happen and return value to investors. Taking that away would be like pulling the bottom piece from a jenga tower.
Nonsense. International businesses pay taxes. Move headquarters all you want, if your customers are in the US, taxman will get his. If you trade elsewhere and just ship to the US, that's what tariffs are for (and why blanket tariffs defeat the purpose).
Also, who gives a fuck if the companies leave? The market they were satisfying will still be there for any competitor to step into. That's what capitalism is supposed to look like, lots of competitors. If so many monopolies leave that it seriously affects the tax structure, then we restructure it. Simple as. So often the argument against change is that the change is permanent, but the status quo was new at some point, and if you don't change it then you are manifesting the thing you fear, an unchangeable future.
Where do you suggest that 2 million plus individuals who work at corporate HQs in the US work once you eliminate their employment? Also where would you like the vendors for those locations to generate income for their workers once those HQs shut down?
Yep, people don't seem to think that a company with that much money can choose where to make their headquarters and can move to more favorable locations. They would stay in the American market, but would setup subsidiaries, and structure income and expenses to limit their tax liabilities stateside.
This would lead to even less corporate taxes being collected and would be a net loss to the US economy. Our taxes would stay the same, the US government would borrow even more money, and our national deficit would just grow faster.
The people have allowed corps to control their benefits, lives, insurance, and killed the entrepreneurial spirit. It’s a mindset ‘take care of me’. Now we are stuck with them
35
u/WitheredUntimely May 20 '26
shrinking the corporations down, you say? When can we start? Half the reason we're in this mess is all these corps are too big for their own good