Alternate taxation system: you choose

[gopher]

''Any business dealings are a different matter ''


Much of down town Manhattan is owned by Trinity Church. Any businesses situated there are exempt from certain property taxes and other state/local assessments. Meanwhile, NYC residents and small businesses which are not situated in that location are forced to pay taxes in order to make up for the loss of revenues that these wealthy businesses don't have to pay.

That's welfare for the rich and it has gone on for decades without protest from the far right.


''taxed twice''

Negotiate treaties so that this does not happen. Meanwhile, certain businesses are not paying taxes overseas at all as they enjoy tax free profits by paying low wages to foreigners while denying Americans the jobs they deserve. (I imagine this must be true for Canada as well)


''I don't even see why we'd eed to tax corporations at all''

I do. Corporations own and sell assets, claim investment credits and accelerated depreciation, get billions in subsidies, earn tax free billions overseas, get deductions for salaries and wages paid, claim deductions for golden parachutes, claim deductions for bribes to foreign politicians while disguising them as businesses expenses. All that is welfare for the rich and must be taxed.


''I'd probaly go in reverse. Cut corporate taxes altogether''


Reagan and both Bush's cut corporate taxes and society did not benefit in any way. History clearly shows that we had higher employment rates when corporations were taxed more equitably.




Years ago when I was a corporate book keeper, I recall writing company checks to Columbia University's business school as the executives paid for their children's education through corporate funds and deucted those costs as business expenses. Can you deduct your children's education expenses on your tax returns? The company also paid off lobbyists in Washington DC and paid off foreign governments in order to conduct business overseas [these expenses were deducted on the company's tax returns]. Where the ethics in that??



I should add that the company hired their children and paid them for no show jobs. Again, the expenses were deducted on the company tax returns. That's not only unethical - it's down right fraud.

 

[Machjo]

''Any business dealings are a different matter ''


Much of down town Manhattan is owned by Trinity Church. Any businesses situated there are exempt from certain property taxes and other state/local assessments. Meanwhile, NYC residents and small businesses which are not situated in that location are forced to pay taxes in order to make up for the loss of revenues that these wealthy businesses don't have to pay.

That's welfare for the rich and it has gone on for decades without protest from the far right.

If they are selling at profit, then I can definitely agree with that.

''taxed twice''

Negotiate treaties so that this does not happen. Meanwhile, certain businesses are not paying taxes overseas at all as they enjoy tax free profits by paying low wages to foreigners while denying Americans the jobs they deserve. (I imagine this must be true for Canada as well)

That I could agree with. If you reside in country X, you pay on all income you've received and all wealth you've accumulated worldwide to the government of country X, with no other country being allowed to tax you, at least not in direct taxes.

For this to work though, ideally we'd want tax rates to be roughly equal worldwide, and that would need consultation. and agreements.

''I don't even see why we'd eed to tax corporations at all''

I do. Corporations own and sell assets, claim investment credits and accelerated depreciation, get billions in subsidies, earn tax free billions overseas, get deductions for salaries and wages paid, claim deductions for golden parachutes, claim deductions for bribes to foreign politicians while disguising them as businesses expenses. All that is welfare for the rich and must be taxed.

A simple solution would be to give workers voting rights on the board of directors. Now earlier in the thread it was criticized on the grounds that ifworkers want voting rights in the company, they should buy stocks. Fair enough. Then an alternative solution could be to require workers to buy stocks in the company, or some other arrangement to provide checks and balances within the company itself.

Also such checks and balances would mean more money being spent on safety training, or salaries, or other projects to improve the company, empoyees, or local community. And if it raises employees' salaries, then they pay more taxes too. So I still don't see why corporate welfare would be necessary when other controls could be introduced to redisribute wealth more directly while bipassing government bureaucracy.

''I'd probaly go in reverse. Cut corporate taxes altogether''

Reagan and both Bush's cut corporate taxes and society did not benefit in any way. History clearly shows that we had higher employment rates when corporations were taxed more equitably.

But those corporations also didn't have the controls and balances that come with a worker's co-op. If workers should be required to buy stocks in the company and be given voting rights, then those companies would gradualy start to function like co-ops.

Years ago when I was a corporate book keeper, I recall writing company checks to Columbia University's business school as the executives paid for their children's education through corporate funds and deucted those costs as business expenses. Can you deduct your children's education expenses on your tax returns? The company also paid off lobbyists in Washington DC and paid off foreign governments in order to conduct business overseas [these expenses were deducted on the company's tax returns]. Where the ethics in that??

I should add that the company hired their children and paid them for no show jobs. Again, the expenses were deducted on the company tax returns. That's not only unethical - it's down right fraud.

If there were no taxes,then there's be no tax fraud. But then if all the workers had a vote, the management would be under closer scrutiny too I'd imagine.

 

[captain morgan]

Fair enough. But I still don't think companies should be taxed. Just find some other way to ensure that the company be responsive to society. It could use that tax break for safety instruction to workers, or other things to improve the working conditions, salaries, or environmental sustainability. how can a company do that if it's taxed to the hilt.

I'd suggest that there needs to be some form of corp tax, even if the only focus is on the infrastructure that they use and to contribute to the overall system upon which society depends.

Most of the charities I am familiar with are tax deductible. Increasing pressure on the upper/middle income earners via new taxes sees an overall reduction on their contributions in total.

I can agree. That's why i'd suggested a 2 or 3% income tax. Compare that to what we have now. That would be a significant drop.

This brings-up so many issues. In large part, the charities no longer are charities are they? They have morphed into a form of business that society is obligated to fund. In my mind, they would basically be an extension of gvt (to a degree)... Who will qualify as the deductible charities and what if my preferred charity is not included? Am I still forced to donate?

Exactly who will determine what 'non-essential' wealth is?.. Will the formula be based on the approved cost of living per person and anything above is taxed into oblivion?

Granted that might be complicated. But we could give the tax-payer the benefit of the doubt whenever there is doubt. Accommodation is necessary. If you live far from work, transport is necessary. If you're self-employed, your business is necessary. if you have no other source of retirment income, your savings for future retirement are necessary. We could be flexible on the definition here of course.

I'd suggest that the formula would be remarkably complicated, however, observing the dynamics of human nature, you very well might see that people work towards achieving only to the threshold and stop there (or drastically reduce their efforts) because there is no more benefit to be had relative to the additional work... Bear in mind, that taxes are generated on wealth accumulated above a certain threshold. Offer no benefit above that level and your tax-base may dwindle dramatically along with the social programs, etc.

Tobacco, alcohol and gas are the current whipping-boys of the tax system.. Have been for years.

Well, if you smoke, you put an added burden on the health system. I can see only two options:

1. tax unhealthy foods, tobacco, alcohol. Or

2. (my favoured option) privatize health care. That way, veg-heads like me can get a break on our insurance premiums while you boozers, Mc-stuffers, and chimneys could pay your fair share.

I don't smoke (anymore), but the manner in which tobacco, alcohol and gas are taxed are egregious. In my mind, the smokers/drinkers and drivers are pre-paying
their healthcare or paying up-front for their use of the roadways. If you want to really start talking about fair share, start with the progressive tax system. Rate each individual in terms of life-time income taxes paid-to-date and start deducting from that amount relative to their usage of the system(s).

Private healthcare? That is something that I feel needs (and will) happen in the not so distant future. Consider the system in the UK wherein there is a minimum guaranteed level and anything beyond is paid or relies on private insurance.

... Anyone with the cash will simply leave and take their money to live/work/invest/give to charities/employ and pay taxes in a jurisdiction that doesn't penalize those that do have and create the wealth.

I had the idea of an extremely high tax ceiling. Anyone who got that rich would clearly be just a hogger anyway. Do we really want a person sho just hogs till he gets 10,000,000$ rich?

And remember, i mentioned already that this would be non-essential wealth only. If he stopped hogging the money and invested it in his company instead, then he could avoid the tax and create jobs for others. His options would be there. How much money does one really need?

People that get this wealthy rarely do it alone. These people employ others, pay corp income taxes as well as income taxes. For that matter, depending on which jurisdiction in Canada where you live/earn income, the combined prov/fed taxes can be in excess of 50%.... With this in mind, you want as many high-income earners as possible. If you want an idea of how beneficial this is, research the % contribution of taxes by income class. You may find that the results are startling.

Why bother re-investing? That may lead to more profits that will be deemed non-essential and confiscated by the state... Why on Earth would someone risk their money and time to with no possible reward attached to that risk and work?

All he'd have to do is keep investing the money in his company if he doesn't want it taxed. Or just spend it on cruises every year, or give more to charity, etc. Plenty of options available to those who really don't want to pay higher taxes. But just hording their money without creating any kind of job should be toerated only to a certain degree. Beyond a certain amount of accumulated non-essential wealth, it's time to give it, spend it, invest it or something for the benefit of society. We can give them options as to how they'll do that, but just hording indefinitely should not be accepted beyond a certain limit.

You missed my earlier point. There are very real risks associated with operating a business, particularly with perpetual expansion. The point is that why would someone assume those risks and the associated work required whenthere is no direct, individual benefit to be had?.. I'm here to tell ya - it won't happen.

Define 'funds needed' as opposed to the insatiable appetite of society to consume the freebies offered by gvt to garner votes?.. The reality is that everyone wants a say in how the money is spent, provided that it offers an immediate benefit and doesn't come directly out of their pocket...

Ihonestly see nothing wrong with our direct taxes being charity deductible There are plenty of organizations out there in need of our money and doing a great job, instead of just bloating government bureaucracy.

This isn't about the charities. This is about setting an artificial maximum threshold for achievement (that is exactly how it will be perceived). Again, cash for taxes or charities is offered via excess wealth. If you set the max allowable limit at the poverty level (min level of subsistence) and people see no benefit (personally/materially) above that level, that's where most will stop. When they stop, there is no excess cash available for charities or excess taxes.

 

[captain morgan]

Much of down town Manhattan is owned by Trinity Church. Any businesses situated there are exempt from certain property taxes and other state/local assessments. Meanwhile, NYC residents and small businesses which are not situated in that location are forced to pay taxes in order to make up for the loss of revenues that these wealthy businesses don't have to pay.

That's welfare for the rich and it has gone on for decades without protest from the far right.

It's the owner of the property that is responsible for the direct property taxes. If the Church owns it and are exempt, then so be it. The most probable
scenario is that Trinity leases at a net cost comparable to the surrounding area (or whatever the market will bear) that would include the 'owners' property tax burden.

In terms of welfare for the rich, can you explain this, especially in light of the US (progressive) tax system? If you want to really boil it down, compare real dollars payable to the IRS for each income class, let alone the trickle-down benefits through the employment and economic growth therein.

Negotiate treaties so that this does not happen. Meanwhile, certain businesses are not paying taxes overseas at all as they enjoy tax free profits by paying low wages to foreigners while denying Americans the jobs they deserve. (I imagine this must be true for Canada as well)

I believe that you'll find that the IRS taxes Americans individuals and US-based corps on their global income (as does Canada on it's citizens and corps). That said, some companies have formed independent subsidiaries located in tax-friendly jurisdictions that operate and pay taxes outside the States/Canada. These subs are subject to the tax rates in those locations. If the parent company elects to repatriate funds domestically, there are some loopholes that may offer favorable tax rates, but it doesn't eliminate the tax and they are closing them very fast.

As far as 'American jobs' going abroad, that is a wicked catch-22... Americans demand and support a system of market driven competition. generally, it rewards lowest prices and penalizes higher costs. This alone has driven the work overseas or supports other economies like China or India. Further, the companies will market rate or better in these countries. Just because those rates are lower than the US that is a direct reflection of the cost of living in that economy, this doesn't make the US groups demons.

Corporations own and sell assets, claim investment credits and accelerated depreciation, get billions in subsidies, earn tax free billions overseas, get deductions for salaries and wages paid, claim deductions for golden parachutes, claim deductions for bribes to foreign politicians while disguising them as businesses expenses. All that is welfare for the rich and must be taxed.

All of the above fails to recognize that these very same corps pay direct taxes through corp rates and later through payroll taxes and personal income taxes through payment of the employee base. Add-in the indirect taxes like GST or sales-style taxes, permits, licenses, fees, et al. and you'll find that the corp welfare you speak of is designed to promote more companies in their expansion and proliferation (so they'll contribute directly/indirectly in perpetuity)... Make no mistake, the gvt gets back all that money in spades in relatively little time.

Reagan and both Bush's cut corporate taxes and society did not benefit in any way. History clearly shows that we had higher employment rates when corporations were taxed more equitably.

It's tough to draw a direct parallel to those policies and the overall effect... The nature of the global economy and the impact it had on the domestic economies blurs the relationship you suggest.

(someone will be bound to bring-up the current econ realities and peg them to Bush as evidence: Note, the deregulation of the banking industry standards that lead to the sub-prime meltdown is a direct result of Carter's policies from decades past)

Years ago when I was a corporate book keeper, I recall writing company checks to Columbia University's business school as the executives paid for their children's education through corporate funds and deucted those costs as business expenses. Can you deduct your children's education expenses on your tax returns? The company also paid off lobbyists in Washington DC and paid off foreign governments in order to conduct business overseas [these expenses were deducted on the company's tax returns]. Where the ethics in that??



I should add that the company hired their children and paid them for no show jobs. Again, the expenses were deducted on the company tax returns. That's not only unethical - it's down right fraud.

Many companies offer benefits like these. It is not illegal. As for the kids working at the no-show jobs.. What's the problem. The corp still pays payroll tax and the kid gets dinged with income tax. The only people that can be truly upset would be the shareholders and not society in general.

 

[JLM]

Yep, if there absolutely HAS to be taxes then, I think a consumtion tax makes more sense and is a little more democratic. YOu then have a choice - if you don't like the tax don't buy it. Essentials (basic foods, clothing (not $1500 cocktail dresses), medication and general health and grooming supplies, should not be taxed period. Lobster and caviar should be at a very high rate.

 

[Liberalman]

Flat tax, no deduction is the fairest way to go.

Our tax system now penalizes the rich and the lower money you make the less you pay because of the sliding scale which is unfair and people that make less than the minimum amount don’t pay taxes.

We have one of the most complex tax systems in the world where you have to sometimes hire a tax lawyer just to be treated fairly.

A fifteen percent flat tax that everybody pays from individuals to big corporations no deductions which means at the end of the year your tax return would be one page how much you earned and how much tax you have to pay.

Now we have to pay a lot more taxes and all the taxpayer federations just like to cry the blues because they are useless as something on a bull.

The taxpayer’s federation will never tell you about this web site

https://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/srcsFncng/instRgstrtn/Srch?lang=eng&stg=1&type=F&instTyp=G

This site has all the information for you to secure business loans so you can use government money your money that is your tax dollars to jump start the economy they would rather just whine and pretend they are doing something to solve the problem and hope that you will give them some money to further their cause.

I know some people in these taxpayer’s federations around Canada and they are hard working individuals and very honest at what they do, but unfortunately they are mislead into the wrong thinking.

In my opinion they have to do a serious review on the direction they take to accomplish their goals because at the core a taxpayer’s federation local, provincial and federal is an effective way to create positive change but if they go in the wrong direction then they are no more effective than a junkyard dog.

If all levels of government bring in a flat tax system then there would be more money to take care the needs of society.

The government has to deal with their responsibilities and not try to get more money from other governments.

All levels of government have to live within their means that is no debt and deficit.

If we had this type of system then society would flourish in good times as well as bad times.

 

[gopher]

''If there were no taxes,then there's be no tax fraud. '''


So I take it you agree that we in the USA should have no Pentagon, no foreign wars, no foreign aid, no welfare for the rich. That certainly is what I'm looking for.

 

[Trex]

Quote Liberalman.
Flat tax, no deduction is the fairest way to go.
Unquote.

^ Right you are, couldnt agree more.
With a few additions.
Federal and Provincial business and personal taxes should be flat taxes.
Business taxes should be kept extremely competetive.
Massive savings in tax preparations especially for corporations.
Much easier and reduced manpower needs for Rev Can.
Rev Can could focus on enforcement and collection of tax cheats.
People under a certain income level would be tax exempt as it is now.

I also support a combined GST and Provincial sales tax as determined by each Province.
That becomes a straight across consumption tax and taxes the greatest consumer (the rich) the most.
A few items could be exempted to insure the least fortunate could obtain decent food, medicine and basic shelter.
If you do not like the blended sales tax in your Province you would have the option of moving to a different province with lower rates.

I also support a percentage rider that increases the sales tax on luxury or environmentally unfriendly products.
Thus you are taxed at a higher rate on a Lambo as versus a Civic or Prius.
If you can afford to snap up a Tinoretto or a Titan at auction you can afford to pay a little tax on it.
Additional pollution or environmental taxes could be applied to things like gasoline, heating oil and corporations that make a mess.
A carbon tax on gasoline and diesel for example acts as a subsidy to mass transit by encouraging usage.

Sin taxes are also worthwhile. Booze, cigarettes, gambling winnings and possibly pot and prostitution in the future should all be taxed at a higher rate.
Sin taxes are also known as a tax on the stupid.

The current fiscal meltdown probably will result in tax havens becoming much more transparent so I dont really see that as an issue. Its already illegal not to declare foreign income unless you are non-rez.

Churches should be tax favoured only if the collected funds are spent in the country they are collected in. Thus no offshoring religious donations.
Religous organizations would have to be vetted and certified by the Fed's before tax favoured status would be allowed.

Trex

 

[L Gilbert]

Which would you choose if you could?

I'd choose "other".
Flat rate would be my choice. Everyone is taxed at the same rate. No deductions with one exception: people below a baseline income are exempt. And I mean PEOPLE, not COMPANIES.

 

[Machjo]

I'd suggest that there needs to be some form of corp tax, even if the only focus is on the infrastructure that they use and to contribute to the overall system upon which society depends.




This brings-up so many issues. In large part, the charities no longer are charities are they? They have morphed into a form of business that society is obligated to fund. In my mind, they would basically be an extension of gvt (to a degree)... Who will qualify as the deductible charities and what if my preferred charity is not included? Am I still forced to donate?




I'd suggest that the formula would be remarkably complicated, however, observing the dynamics of human nature, you very well might see that people work towards achieving only to the threshold and stop there (or drastically reduce their efforts) because there is no more benefit to be had relative to the additional work... Bear in mind, that taxes are generated on wealth accumulated above a certain threshold. Offer no benefit above that level and your tax-base may dwindle dramatically along with the social programs, etc.





I don't smoke (anymore), but the manner in which tobacco, alcohol and gas are taxed are egregious. In my mind, the smokers/drinkers and drivers are pre-paying
their healthcare or paying up-front for their use of the roadways. If you want to really start talking about fair share, start with the progressive tax system. Rate each individual in terms of life-time income taxes paid-to-date and start deducting from that amount relative to their usage of the system(s).

Private healthcare? That is something that I feel needs (and will) happen in the not so distant future. Consider the system in the UK wherein there is a minimum guaranteed level and anything beyond is paid or relies on private insurance.





People that get this wealthy rarely do it alone. These people employ others, pay corp income taxes as well as income taxes. For that matter, depending on which jurisdiction in Canada where you live/earn income, the combined prov/fed taxes can be in excess of 50%.... With this in mind, you want as many high-income earners as possible. If you want an idea of how beneficial this is, research the % contribution of taxes by income class. You may find that the results are startling.





You missed my earlier point. There are very real risks associated with operating a business, particularly with perpetual expansion. The point is that why would someone assume those risks and the associated work required whenthere is no direct, individual benefit to be had?.. I'm here to tell ya - it won't happen.





This isn't about the charities. This is about setting an artificial maximum threshold for achievement (that is exactly how it will be perceived). Again, cash for taxes or charities is offered via excess wealth. If you set the max allowable limit at the poverty level (min level of subsistence) and people see no benefit (personally/materially) above that level, that's where most will stop. When they stop, there is no excess cash available for charities or excess taxes.

Just a few points here.

1. As for charities becoming like businesses, that's our choice. If I don't like how a certain charity operates, find another charity.

2. What if your preferred charity's not on the list? I'd say we'd need to be flexible and allow a wide range of charties on the list. If it's not for profit, it's a charity.

3. I recognize that the quesiton of 'non-essential wealth' can be very open to interpretation, but we could create a reasonable definition thereof.

4. You seem to oppose a wealth cap. It's not as bad as it might sound. Let's suppose the wealth cap is set at 10 million dollars. Considering that non-essential wealth would be exempted, and that that could include anything needed to live, to invest for the future or a rainy day, business for bread and butter, etc., that would mean that this cap would apply exclusively to non-essential personal wealth. This could include things like your personal yacht, villa, etc.

Now seriously, how much accumulated personal wealth does a person really need?! Would that necessarily be a cap on achievement?

Remember, if I give to charity, I'm helping people. If I spend my money or other wealth, I'm creating jobs. If I invest my money or other wealth, I'm creating jobs. But if all I'm doing is hording my money or other wealth, that might benefit me, but no one else. Worse yet, not only is it not benfitting others, but even dragging the economy down and creating unemployment. Wealth can create employment as long as it is circulated. If it is just accumulated, it slows the economy down. This thus becomes a matter of personal responsibilty to your fellow man.

 

[Machjo]

''If there were no taxes,then there's be no tax fraud. '''


So I take it you agree that we in the USA should have no Pentagon

Any military force needs an administrative structure, so as long as the US has its own military force, the only way to get rid of the pentagon would be to replace it with a new administrative structure. Now what I could agree with would be putting a cap on the number of military personnel in your country. The US is flanked by three oceans (Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic in Alaska), an allie to the North and a friendly nation to its South. As far as I'm concerned, a cap of a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men would be reasonable.

For the long term, the US could even consider moving towards a gradual replacement of naitonal forces with an international one, which would allow us to demilitarize even further.

, no foreign wars, no foreign aid, no welfare for the rich. That certainly is what I'm looking for.

No foreign wars?Not outside the confines of international law as was the case in Iraq, and preferably UN-led.

No foreign aid? I don't see why donations to such organizations as UNICEF could not be tax-deductible.

No welfare for the rich? That should be left up to individual charities to decide;-) Hint hint.

 

[Machjo]

A point about international trade above. One reason I support it is that poorer contries tend to benefit from it more than wealthier countries. It's a natural system for the redistribution of wealth. It's beyond me why socialist parties would oppose it!

 

[L Gilbert]

Have to get rid of products that we think aren't any good or good for us somehow.

 

[Machjo]

And another point about a cap on accumulated essential wealth. If we should have no corporate tax and if income tax should be drastically dropped to let's say a low 2 or 3 percent (except perhaps for a %age of income goint to a public school of your choice, all a flat %age), overall income taxes would still be quite low.

Add to that that we could even consider scrapping property taxes and just have let's say a 10% tax on natural resources.

With such low taxes, more persons would reach their maximum wealth threshold. But again, there's the risk of just hording the wealth and not using it to create jobs somehow. Such a wealth cap would force people to either invest it, spend it or give it. Their choice, but there must be some kind of limit to ensure that, with such low taxes, people don't just hord the money creating recessions all the time, and then suddently spend it all at once creating inflation. By imposing such a limit, we'd be ensuring that money does continue to flow somehow thus reducing booms and busts in the economy.

 

[gopher]

''Make no mistake, the gvt gets back all that money in spades in relatively little time. ''

Reagan closed the IRS Office of International Operations in order to insure that taxes would not be collected and so that the wealthy could shelter their monies overseas.


''The corp still pays payroll tax and the kid gets dinged with income tax.''

The corporation also deducts medical insurance costs and other perks so that ultimately it is the taxpayers who subsidize this lifestyle.

 

[captain morgan]

'

'Make no mistake, the gvt gets back all that money in spades in relatively little time. ''

Reagan closed the IRS Office of International Operations in order to insure that taxes would not be collected and so that the wealthy could shelter their monies overseas.

I never realized that the IRS maintained tax offices overseas... That said, understand that the IRS (or CRA for that matter) wield (obscene) powers within the United States, but those powers are absent inside other nations. That said, why bother having those offices in the first place? On that note, on the occasions where the IRS have audited the offshore accounts of their citizens and determined that a fraud has occurred, the seize those funds (only after getting the cooperation of that nation's authorities).

Your belief that these offices (BTW I believe that you may be mistaken that they existed in the first place) were closed by Reagan solely to protect the rich is your opinion and does not reflect fact.

... And yes, the gvt does recoup those costs rapidly, not only through direct taxation to the income earner, but also indirectly via the taxes paid by the expenditure of the money to generate the income as well as the opportunity when that cash is spent throughout the system.

''The corp still pays payroll tax and the kid gets dinged with income tax.''

The corporation also deducts medical insurance costs and other perks so that ultimately it is the taxpayers who subsidize this lifestyle.

Those kids were already covered by their parent's medical insurance and any payment they made was above-and-beyond what was already covered... In terms of the perks for those kids, what do you think they were?.. Company cars/drivers, intl business trips? I think that you are exaggerating on this point.

Again, the shareholders of that corp would have every reason to be choked... Society at large received a net benefit through those kids working and paying into the system as opposed to the premise that they wouldn't have worked - earned income and paid muni/state/fed taxes.