Perhaps someone can help me in framing either my logic or my language here, please?
Proposition A: It seems to me that a corporation has no tangible, physical existence: it only exists as an abstract entity because of common agreement. You can point to assets owned by a corporation, or people employed by a corporation, but you cannot point to anything in the world of things and say "that is a corporation." it is totally intangible.
Proposition B: a tax ultimately is a claim on something tangible. Originally, men with spears came and took your grain or your goats. Later, men with guns and badges come and take your possessions.
Conclusion: it is impossible for a corporation to "pay" a tax: the corporation merely serves as a tax collector, while other people (suppliers, customers, employees, shareholders) actually pay the tax (in the sense of having fewer tangible things in their possession than otherwise). The sales tax is an example: the customer pays part of the tax at the cash register, employees and shareholders pay part of the tax by devoting payroll time to filling out forms and remitting the money when they could be doing other things if the tax did not exist.
It seems eminently logical and reasonable to me; however the way I frame it or phrase it seems lacking in some respect.
Is this reasoning logically valid? how might I tighten it up?
Thanks very much.
Read another response by Charles Taliaferro
Read another response about Business