Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Again, your thinking is not correct.

Allowing corporations to deduct theft before taxes is a disincentive to the corporations to enact theft reduction measures, and spreads the burden of the theft to the public taxpayers through reduced payment of taxes by the corporation.

If theft expenses were purely after tax, companies would be more incentivized to reduce theft.


25 posted on 08/13/2023 7:46:39 AM PDT by Eccl 10:2 (Prov 3:5 --- "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Eccl 10:2

I get your point. It’S just wrong. You are saying that theft should not be a legitimate tax deduction. The government, the retailer and the shopper all share the burden of theft, thought most directly the retailer. Your plan would relieve the government of its burden in lost taxes, THEREBY PROVIDING EVEN LESS INCENTIVE TO GOVERNMENT to prosecute thieves. This would only create even more food and retail deserts in poor neighborhoods, hurt the poorest shoppers the most. Why do you hate poor people?


27 posted on 08/13/2023 8:00:06 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (If Kitty Genovese had a gun, she’d be in jail today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson