Businesses do not pay any taxes

I would like to open by noting I appreciate both Pro's timeliness/speed overall. As to arguments: Pro chooses only now to respond to my point that "The case as presented initially is already lost, as Pro has already conceded that corporations DO pay taxes." I noted it in R2 in addition to R3. I refer Pro to his R2: "Do businesses write checks to the IRS every quarter? Of course they do." That is paying taxes. I've already made the case for that, and Pro has yet to rebut it. He also noted that business expenses included taxes, in his R2 list. "No one is subsidizing business taxes" While I was speaking more of a general subsidy, in the sense that if they are not paying their "fair share" (which is the concept Pro was complaining about way back in R2), it is nonetheless the case that oil companies DO receive subsidies, so even if he takes issue with my rhetorical position, it is not a "lie". [1], [2], [3] As the Supreme Court recently noted, there isn't really a difference between a tax break and a payout. Taxes are taxes, and they all factor in to each other. Pro's source claims that the oil industry's tax breaks are "like every other business...deductions for the expenses they incur." Pro's source is an opinion piece. There is no data to back up the assertion at all. Every regulated industry has their own tax breaks. Common usage is that subsidies are money paid out, while "tax break" is the term for the types of deductions we're talking about. However, it is still a subsidy, under the technical definition of the word. In fact, it's explicitly in line with Pro's arguments, as a subsidy "... reduces costs for both producers and consumers by giving direct or indirect support."[3] "I mean no disrespect but I can definitely see where you spend your time on the internet for economic news. Society does not pay a business's tax bills except when they buy their products." What Pro seems to not understand here, is that, to a greater or lesser extent depending on your political views, taxes are necessary. The government requires X in revenue. If it doesn't get it, it will raise taxes. If it doesn't raise taxes on corporations, it will raise it on what remains: the people. So yes, when a corporation gets a tax break, it plausibly falls to the people to make up the money that's not being paid by the business. As Pro notes, the government runs in the RED, not the BLACK. "I never said one word about "more." They have a right to profits if they earn them. That why they are in business." Pro seems to fail to understand the special pleading he's engaged in. His reasoning either applies to the people and to businesses, or it does not. As he is not arguing for that, he's instead arguing that only businesses should be keeping these profits. That is exactly as I described it, Pro's not using the specific word "more" notwithstanding. "They contribute every time they trade their products for their customer's money. They give jobs to society. Many contribute millions to charities. What other obligation do they have?" This was a rhetorical question, but the answer would be: To pay a tax burden of a similar nature as individuals. You can argue against the tax burden overall, but arguing ONLY for businesses is special pleading and, as I've noted, warrantless. """You do acknowledge that you are not benefitting when someone else's taxes are raised don't you?""" ""No. If more taxes go into the system, this means that either: I pay less taxes, or more things which taxes pay for are paid for, making things ostensibly better overall."" "No, you don't pay less taxes. Your paycheck may say differently..." Perhaps Pro doesn't understand what "ostensibly" means. I agree; the government certainly has trouble with how it spends money. But the idea that the system overall is not helped when more money goes into it that is still going to be spent seems absurd. I can only imagine Pro's trying to argue that they will overspend by exactly the same amount whether they have that extra money or not, but if that is his claim, he's shown no warrant for it. """Oil companies raise prices of their products all the time for all the reasons I stated in the first round.""" ""And also because they can. Supply and demand."" "Finally, we agree on something." Pro seems to not understand why this is harmful to his case. Oil companies will charge exactly as much as they think they can get away with with acceptable risk. They may be more willing to take a risk by raising prices than they would otherwise, but that's a risk they take, it just becomes a necessary risk when they're not making a profit. Pro's claim is that they wouldn't raise the price from X to Y without the tax, except that if they think they could get Y, they would just raise the price anyway! That's how market economics works. "We do know what oil company profits are. That is public information. I was only talking about the amount they make on a gallon of gas. They do more than sell gas. " Correct. I was referring to your assessment of the per-gallon profit. "I don't even see how that affects any part of this debate? I guess I missed it." Pro's source threw out 76% of the total cost of a gallon of gas as being the cost of the crude oil. I assumed Pro used the math included there to get to his figure for per-gallon profits. However, considering that 76% is often not paid, as the company gets its own oil, ignoring that amount to arrive at a few cents a gallon figure is invalid A NOTE ON LYING: I'm quite tired of these charges of lying. Pro fails to establish why I've supposedly misrepresented him, and he claims things are quotes which are CLEARLY not quotes, but rather my assessment of his position, then tries to claim that because he didn't use those specific words, I've "lied". This is ridiculous. Every time I've quoted Pro, I've QUOTED Pro clearly. That he doesn't like my assessment of his position, but has yet to explain HOW it's wrong, focusing on words that I never claimed he literally said, is not a rebuttal. "I was simply making that point because you were acting as if companies do not have a right to their money. If they don't, should you give it to our wonderful, honest, fiscal government?" The problem here is that Pro doesn't make this case for the individual. It's entirely for businesses. As previously noted, this is special pleading; the implication of the apparent artificial limitation of the argument is that corporations have MORE right than individuals, otherwise Pro would be defending the individuals as well. He has yet to actually contradict this, and indeed, it would not follow from his original resolution, which these points have nothing to do with. "This debate has ceased being fun..." Pro apparently does not understand how a debate works. I'm saddened that he fails to realize that explaining the implications of an opponent's position is PART of a debate. "You have quoted things I never said at all" Now THIS is a flat lie. I have never done this to Pro, and he needs to step back or give ANYWHERE where I quoted him saying something he didn't. The examples he's given thus far are NOT quotes, and it's disingenuous to claim they are. "and tried to put your spin on it which is basically "people good, corporations bad."" The irony here is that I could accuse Pro of doing exactly what he's been accusing me of. However, I would like to ask where he gets the idea that I see such a dichotomy? My point is that corporations/businesses should be AS responsible, taxwise, as individuals; Pro's argument from the beginning was to find fault with the concept of their paying their "fair share". [1] http://www.forbes.com... [2] http://www.whitehouse.gov... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org...