There are literally two arguments in this waste of ink:
1. Enforcement is undermined by international competition and tax optimization
...which is like calling for the abolishment of the criminal code in the face of a rise in crime.
There have actually been major advances in corporate taxation in the last decade or so. Switzerland is basically gone, so are Panama, Luxembourg, possibly Ireland and the Caymans as well. If the EU and US managed to cooperate, they could easily make the rules watertight.
2. liberated from corporate taxes, they'd have more freedom to increase wages
...which is complete BS because (a) it's never happened, and (b) only earnings (after costs such as wages) are taxed. If anything, the money could be better spend to lower associated costs of employment, such as health insurance. Or, you know, basically anything else: education, infrastructure, a decent life even for the less fortunate.
His best argument is actually the counterargument he cites: you don't want corporations (...are people...) to sit on endless amounts of cash. It creates a power imbalance equal to that of billonaire dynasties.
The "author" reaches new hights of asininity with his proposal to increase VAT instead, fully knowing that it is the most regressive possible taxation. You'd need VAT increases to 30%, which means a 30% tax on the lower third to half of society that lives paycheck-to-paycheck, but results in a 5% tax rate for the guy earning so much he can invest 3/4th of his income – no VAT on financial transactions etc.
1. Enforcement is undermined by international competition and tax optimization
...which is like calling for the abolishment of the criminal code in the face of a rise in crime.
There have actually been major advances in corporate taxation in the last decade or so. Switzerland is basically gone, so are Panama, Luxembourg, possibly Ireland and the Caymans as well. If the EU and US managed to cooperate, they could easily make the rules watertight.
2. liberated from corporate taxes, they'd have more freedom to increase wages
...which is complete BS because (a) it's never happened, and (b) only earnings (after costs such as wages) are taxed. If anything, the money could be better spend to lower associated costs of employment, such as health insurance. Or, you know, basically anything else: education, infrastructure, a decent life even for the less fortunate.
His best argument is actually the counterargument he cites: you don't want corporations (...are people...) to sit on endless amounts of cash. It creates a power imbalance equal to that of billonaire dynasties.
The "author" reaches new hights of asininity with his proposal to increase VAT instead, fully knowing that it is the most regressive possible taxation. You'd need VAT increases to 30%, which means a 30% tax on the lower third to half of society that lives paycheck-to-paycheck, but results in a 5% tax rate for the guy earning so much he can invest 3/4th of his income – no VAT on financial transactions etc.