If a company decides to sit on cash there is usually a reason. It may feel that it needs it due to future economic issues or may want to buy another company or use it for R&D. Savings is beneficial to a society. Not all money should be spent immediately, it makes no sense. That is the problem with our economy is that the gov. has been pushing immediate consumption when we need more savings.
Companies should not get any money from the government. But the government should only tax individuals. It makes no sense to tax corporations. This is a regressive tax that usually paid by the lower income individuals that either consume the corporate goods or the workers of the corporation.
Corporations benefit from public investments. In fact, Public investments oft-times generate, and/or strengthen, possibilities for emergence of corporations. Ergo, by applying a "those who benefit should contribute"-rationale it definitely makes sense to tax corporations (and citizens).
As an example, car manufacturers, gas stations, oil companies, industries, work-places etc. all benefit massively from road infrastructure. Thus, it makes sense that they help build said infrastructure*.
* Granted, one could argue that infrastructure could, and even should, be provided through private means - but that would not render taxes null, it would just shift the revenue stream from B2G to B2B.
----------
So they get a free ride? I have to pay to educate their work force, to pave the roads they use to distribute, the fire stations and police and even the army that protect them, AND THEY GIVE NOTHING BACK TO THE COUNTRY THAT ALLOWS THEM TO PROFIT???
Are you CRAZY?
Oh, wait, you have to be a Randian.
Then yes, yes you are.
exactly.
p.s. Randians are scary creatures.
----------
yes and under capitalism that reason i usually greed.. which is instinctive in humans BUT they should not be allowed to do that to the point that it becomes destructive the economy.. in effect they are obtaining capital then denying the population from being able to benefit because the tax revenue is not be obtained.. but i know the govt now works for these companies so 99% of what they do is to me the companies and govt members richer .. general population can go to her or live as slave that is pure capitalism.
On this, i'd say the issue is just as much, if not more, lack of circulation as lack of taxation. After all, were talking about 80bn that, if paid out to share-holders as dividends, could be re-invested, and re-inserted into the economic system.
Yes, those commenting on the upsides of savings, and the down-sides of overconsumption certainly have a point. But theres a difference between saving for the future and stuffing your mattress with cash.
----------
Why is capitalism (free markets) considered greedy and selfish? Let me rephrase the question: Why are mutually beneficent transactions considered greedy and selfish?
They're considered greedy and selfish by those who 1) weren't party to the transactions, but 2) want one or both of the things that were exchanged in them. On one level, this can simply be a ploy by the latter people to get stuff without having to earn it.
I'd say that large part of it is a) the parasitic tendencies of taking, but not giving, and b) lack of responsibility when it comes to externalities, and incurring costs for the society at large.
Im not sure if greed is the best placeholder for such behavior, but it surely isn't far off the mark - and undoubtedly holds relevance, jealousy aside.