Please define "fair share." That is such a loaded term because it implies that the only benefit of a company to people is in the tax revenue it provides a government.
We could reframe that argument to say that Google should provide a fair share of jobs to the unemployed. Billions of revenue but far fewer employees than some companies half the size. Clearly Google isn't hiring a 'fair share' of workers right?
We can ride this all the way into absurdity. We shouldn't be judging companies by opinion-based metrics like "fair share" but instead on their net economic contribution to the economy -- not their contribution to a government.
If Google paid zero tax, the economy is far better off with them than without them; look at the jobs it provides (and the economic activity those generate,) look at the return on investment to shareholders (which helps those shareholders earn money they can invest in other ventures.)
It isn't all about taxes. Google spends money far more effectively than government. Google should pay taxes at an amount commensurate with the public goods they consume -- not a cent more. Remember, taxes aren't ever paid by companies -- they are paid by individuals. You raise taxes on Google, you raise taxes on every person with any sort of relationship with Google.
> We could reframe that argument to say that Google should provide a fair share of jobs to the unemployed. Billions of revenue but far fewer employees than some companies half the size. Clearly Google isn't hiring a 'fair share' of workers right?
Actually, you can take this argument to the end and arrive at the UBI model advocated by German economist Jörg Gastmann. His model has a sales tax (and no other taxes) that starts out absurdly high (e.g. at 200%), but well-paid employees are tax-deductible, to the point where you don't pay hardly any taxes at all if you employ about 7 employees per million € in revenue. Companies that don't need that much employees can instead pay a basic income to someone in order for them to count as employee. (There are some more rules, e.g. every person can only count as tax-deductible employee for one company, and a tax-deductible employee may not work more than 40 hours a week, but that's the basic gist.)
> If Google paid zero tax, the economy is far better off with them than without them; look at the jobs it provides (and the economic activity those generate,) look at the return on investment to shareholders
You are saying that a successful company should have a special exemption from the law while other companies are still to pay taxes.
> Remember, taxes aren't ever paid by companies -- they are paid by individuals
Fair share would be the same percentage as a competing company would pay, regardless of size. Anything less or more would be unfair government interaction in the market.
If we are looking at the net economic contribution to the economy, a small one-person company shouldn't pay any taxes. All the revenue goes back to the economy in employment of that single person. The economy is far better off with that person than without them.
Taxing net-negative contributors would however be a bit weird. Taxing social security would be counter productive, and having people in the military paying for their own equipment would likely spell the end of having a military. Having politicians pay for the privilege of being a politician would be an interesting concept, but I never heard of such system ever existing.
Yes, companies paying their fair share of taxes is absurd.