Businesses do not pay any taxes

Just to clarify where we are at the moment: The case as presented initially is already lost, as Pro has already conceded that corporations DO pay taxes. The rest of these points have been mere tangents, as Pro's against the idea of corporate taxes. Pro's case is that, since costs are directly transferred to consumers, taxing corporations is bad. My response to that has been to show that that is not necessarily the case. It therefore fails as an argument against taxation. There is a difference between taxation at the level of "take all their profits!!!" and "Make them actually pay taxes above 0%". Pro is arguing that all taxes on corporations are bad. I believe I have demonstrated that he has failed to make that case. Pro's response was long enough that my response, if done point by point, would exceed the character allotment. I will, therefore be responding holistically. Pro ignores the fact that his arguments would apply exactly as well to people as to corporations. This is special pleading. He also seems to take exception to my points regarding the necessity of the profits that these companies have. While he is correct that, what a company makes legally is their business to spend, at the same time, it is not the responsibility of everyone else to subsidize their profligacy. If they want to continue having the same amount of profits, but cut no costs, they might have to raise their prices. But this is no different than a household wanting to keep their lifestyle even when it's no longer fiscally prudent. An individual company's profits are not the rest of society's job to maintain. And if they refuse to accept less profits, that is their decision. However, it will have no impact on the market forces which will determine whether they stay in business. The only time higher taxes REQUIRE a raise in prices is when they result in a lack of profits. This should be trivially seen as true. When they don't cut into the profits to the extent that they require a raise in prices, the raise in prices is no longer due to the taxes, but due to the business' decision to refuse to accept less. Such a scenario is less common than Pro attempts to claim, simply because as a general rule companies are already charging the most they think they can...they'd be foolish not to, since their goal is to maximize profits. Thus, raising taxes on these companies will not necessarily raise prices in all instances, and Pro's argument fails. Pro claims that his statement that all people who advocate higher taxes on corporations are necessarily advocating for higher prices is NOT a generalization, while my comment about corporate profits IS. I readily concede, in point of fact, that mine was a generalization. OF COURSE some corporations don't make profits. That should be obvious. It does nothing to my argument, considering the taxes we're talking about are proportionate to those profits. Pro tries to bring in "Joe Sixpack", but has failed to establish a connection of necessity between a raise in taxes and a raise in prices. The general arguments dealt with, I want to deal with some specifics. "Why not just ask any business owner what would happen if their costs of doing business increased and they wanted to try to keep their profits and their employees salaries the same?" This is Pro's real point, which seems to be that corporations have more of a right to profits than individuals do. He asserts this without warrant. If an outgoing cost goes up, then, to keep all the other numbers the same, income would have to increase. But why do they assert a need to keep their profits at the same level? Why does that take precedence over the individuals of the country, who are NOT allowed to keep their "profits"? Pro has given no answer to that. Pro asserts that the person setting prices should pay themselves whatever they want, and the rest of the citizens should subsidize that pay by allowing the company to not pay taxes. This should be absurd on its face. "Now, if he wants to take a cut in the overall business's profits, sure he can do that but most businesses do not want to think that way." It's unfortunate that most businesses do not want to actually contribute to the society from which they derive their very existence. But that's not society's fault. Pro position entails advocating for no taxes whatsoever, and entails that businesses be treated better than individuals, who ARE taxed, and must take that into account when they take jobs. "You are showing wealth envy now." No, and that's ad hominem. I'd ask that Pro refrain. "Who are you to decide what anyone's pay "should" be?" I demonstrated that the pay here is different than the pay elsewhere, where there is still industry. Therefore the companies in the US would not go out of business if they didn't pay their CEOs these wage packages, which is contrary to Pro's claims that every cost increase MUST result in a price increase. "If they want to make what they were making before, they will." That's also not necessarily the case. They could also focus on making a fine product, and expand their customer base in order to "make what they were making before". But Pro has failed to give a justification for why they should be "make what they were making before" in the first place. "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. "When did I say any such thing?" Company B is not paying taxes. This is good, to Pro, because it keeps Company B's prices low. However, the customers of Company A don't care what Company B charges, they don't use the product. Yet, since Company B isn't paying taxes, the taxpayers who DO pay taxes are forced to pay taxes that could otherwise be paid by Company B (or, if we accept Pro's case, their customers). Therefore, in order to keep prices low for Company B's customers, Company A's customers pay higher taxes. "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. "As for their profits..." None of this has any bearing on the resolution, nor is the number directly sourced; even Pro agrees he doesn't actually know. Pro then goes on to make some ad hominem attacks on various media outlets which have no bearing on the truth of his argument. Pro's source completely ignores that these oil companies are sometimes ones who are selling the crude oil that makes up 76 percent of the total cost. That fluctuates "according to supply and demand", making no note as to the cost there. It's incredibly misleading to simply ignore that. "I guess you would like for the oil companies to apologize ...I hope you never start a business ... and have to absorb criticism for doing your job so well." Pro's case is that oil companies should continue to pay less taxes, despite profiting trillions of dollars. His argument for that is that they will necessarily raise prices. This has been refuted. His other is that they deserve to have all their money...an argument that he doesn't apply to the individual, in a case of obvious special pleading. Pro goes on to once again argue that a business can spend its money as it sees fit, a concept I've never taken issue with. I've merely pointed out how his necessity argument fails. He then finds fault with media outlets (in this case, my sources) despite never actually questioning the numbers or concepts I was sourcing; sourcing is not for making your arguments for you. I merely used their numbers to support my own argument. If Pro has some issue with the numbers, he should present it. Pro then complains about how the government spends money, which has no bearing on his argument.