If we pass these windfall taxes and then use that money to help individuals who are struggling, those individuals then benefit; however, if we let all that money to go to the millionaire/billionaire shareholders, then there's a chance that, instead of adding it to the excess wealth they're already hoarding, they might decide to spend it on business or projects that they could already have afforded but didn't. Those businesses or projects could then theoretically create work opportunities which would then employ some more people, and maybe some of those people would be the people who are struggling, and maybe the pay would be a bit better than the market rate they're already getting paid for their labor for some reason and so they'd get paid a bit more, and maybe that would help them to struggle less. Didn't you ever think of that?!
Companies are just groups of people. Why should a group of 100 people get taxed more than a group of 100,000 people? Progressive rates on wages make sense because it's applied to each person individually.
The legal definition is certainly not "groups of people." Describing them in this folksy way is outright misleading.
It would be the other way around. This is in order to encourage the formation of new groups, which almost always start out small.
If that's your goal, having slightly lower taxes is a terrible way of doing so. It's far better to address the barriers to business formation directly (eg. availability of capital, market power of incumbents, regulatory requirements). We want people to found new companies to produce a better product (eg. Tesla), not to chase some tax incentive.
Or tax on revenue once company becomes big enough. Taxing on income made sense to make investing into expansion a good thing, but those companies clearly don't need to be bigger, it seems to just make stuff worse and worse.
That would cover most professional services firms (eg. lawyers/accountants). I don't really see why they should be considered worse than a mcdonalds.
>Taxing on income made sense to make investing into expansion a good thing, but those companies clearly don't need to be bigger, it seems to just make stuff worse and worse.
TSMC brings in 73.67 billion/year in revenue. Equifax only brings in 5.12 billion/year. Which one is making stuff "worse and worse"? Surely there's a better metric than dollar amounts, which totally ignore the financial nature of the underlying industry?
In some businesses there is also a benefit in scale (like in trading), and there you see the US banks leading because they've had it.
If you want the US banks to fully take over IB and corporate banking, definitely do tax the EU banks painfully more.
Or tax every financial counterpart painfully more, so then eventually the customers pay much more for their loans because the financial system has become so expensive.
In short, due to international capital sufficiency regulations, there's now a market for excess regulatory capital. The attempt to prune low performing assets is due to a market as an alternative to low return on capital investments.
It's not because of charges and overhead.
Banks aren't worried about bad assets more than usual, they just have another arena to make money in now.
The world of money existed before banks, it will exist after.
And then the incentives are all wrong if you bail your buddies out anyway. Play with fire and the fed will bail you out is terrible.