The public has a right to know how companies that pay no taxes pull it off

Many large companies that got tax breaks ended up firing thousands weeks later and buying more of their own stock.

They are taxed because they are beneficiaries of society's investment in infrastructure and people. They benefit directly from a healthy, educated population, enforcement of construction codes, the operation of the legal system, roads and waterways, etc. Companies aren't entirely benign, either, so part of those taxes goes to environmental impact assessment and handling they don't pay for, such as pollution, health hazards, etc.

If you were to make the case the healthy, educated employees could be compensated through their wages, then that still leaves infrastructure, externalities and the legal system.

While you could privatise infrastructure, I think it would be a bad idea. It could lead to shady schemes where a corporation "taxes" its employees on the toll road leading up to the building. Considering historical examples like company stores, I'm not sure we could rule that scenario out. Also, where does infrastructure stop and what does it include? The last miles of telecoms, power, water and other utilities or more?

As to the legal system, it seems self-evident we don't want that privatised. Do you disagree?

On the topic of externalities: I suppose it's feasible to create new taxes specifically for what are now considered externalities, so corporations pay for them: pollution, carbon footprint, burnouts/boreouts, etc. Would you be in favour of those?

> I read about tax avoidance schemes like corporate inversions or sending all your patents to a company in some tax free haven and licensing your patents from your company for all your profits, and so on, and it makes me really mad. Companies making many billions of dollars paying no taxes.

This used to be a typical loophole but is being closed by the OECD, a lot of tax havens are now taxing royalties differently. 10 years ago after reading up on this, I've decided that it was only fair for me to read up and try the same methods. I didn't see why I should pay high taxes when the richest in my country didn't.

It's not overly difficult to do this completely legally (that's the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion), it's not an issue of the laws being enforced, it's mostly that there are many countries in the world and some have an incentive to compete on tax law. So, you can do a lot while still being completely legal (it's easier though if you are willing to move and live in different countries and if you're not american but still possible otherwise).

In the last 5 years, the OECD has been fighting against this and forced a lot of tax havens to change their laws. From my read of the texts and has someone who has been impacted by this, it doesn't really make avoiding tax impossible just more expensive, meaning it's increasingly difficult and costly for a single person who is middle class like me to do it but still relatively easy for big corporations with an army of accountants to do it. I'm not sure that's really an improvement.

I believe an income tax should be the only tax, since it covers any and all economic transactions, and it's the only progressive tax.

- There's only a single loophole: People who use their business to pay for personal expenses. They are easy to catch, and the simplicity of the tax scheme allows collectors to focus on this one loophole.

- It's simple to collect: Ask all the banks for everyone's statement, and apply a percentage to their calendar year's income. You could even deduct tax when people deposit money.

- It's simple to forecast and calculate: Everyone knows how much tax they owe, and knows how much tax they will owe.

- It's progressive: The more people make the more they pay. Property tax, sales tax, gas tax, etc. all disproportionately affect people with less money.

If the law can make something not stealing when it fits the common definition (that is, taking money from people nonconsensually and calling it “taxation”), then someone minimizing taxes while complying with the tax law as it is written is not stealing, as the law is thus the authority on what is or is not “stealing”.

However, if you think that complying with the tax law is stealing (and thus believe that the law is not the basis for what is or is not “stealing”), then it’s also legitimate to call what the tax enforcers do “stealing”, even though it is permitted by law, because it fits the common definition of “taking without consent via threat of force”.

You can’t have it both ways and be consistent. Either the law defines what is “stealing” or it does not.