Split Thread Trickle-down economics

[The Great Zaganza]

you are kidding - you must be.

Why don't you read up on companies polluting Native America lands?

US uranium mining companies - for pure profit - refuse to clean up the mess they made, demanding the State does it at taxpayer expense, causing steady pollution and making cleanup harder every year.
The EPA has been reduced to a skeleton staff, and pressured to let horrendous violations to stand. And regulations get written by former and later members of the companies they are supposed to police.

no, companies, as you said, want to make money, and if they can make more by poisoning people, because they can get away with it with fines, than that is what "Shareholder Value" DEMANDS.

That is why they are called Limited Liability: because they shield their owners completely or partially from personal criminal consequences, they are set up to get away with causing harm that everyone agrees a person should go to prison for, because you can always make more money by hurting those who can't fight back.

 

[dirtywick]

while you're at it check out what fracking companies do when the wells run dry

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Why don't you read up on companies polluting Native America lands?

US uranium mining companies - for pure profit - refuse to clean up the mess they made, demanding the State does it at taxpayer expense, causing steady pollution and making cleanup harder every year.

Mining has always been a dirty business, and miners have always had a slack attitude towards the environment. But mining companies don't set out to poison people. At worst they just don't care.

In most countries mining rights are issued by the government, which stipulates any environmental rules that must be followed. In this case the government was more interested in getting uranium for nuclear bombs etc. than making sure it was safe.

The companies involved who aren't being made to clean up the mess disappeared 50 years ago. A superfund was established in the late 70's to fund cleanup when there is no viable responsible party. In the past it was primarily funded by excise taxes on chemicals and petroleum products, but now it comes from the general tax fund. Where parties are identified which are capable of paying they do, even if bankrupt. In 2025 the EPA assessed $1.16 billion in civil penalties, criminal fines and restitution, and $6 billion to return facilities to compliance ($1 billion more than the previous year under Biden).

The EPA has been reduced to a skeleton staff, and pressured to let horrendous violations to stand. And regulations get written by former and later members of the companies they are supposed to police.

As directed by the president which the people elected to Make America Great Again. You might not agree with the Trump administration's cuts, but this is what the American people wanted.

But is your assertion true?
EPA Staffing Fact Sheet

As of September 2025, EPA had 12,198 staff, which is... 25% (about 4,000 staff) below Pre-Trump levels (16,155)... The FY 2026 bipartisan appropriations law signed by president Trump cuts EPA’s operating budget by 4.0%... the cuts in appropriated funding do not reflect a reduced workload expectation from congress – rather, these reductions are expected to be offset or exceeded by increases in Superfund tax revenue, which are not included in the appropriations process.

A significant reduction for sure, but not a 'skeleton staff'.

But more importantly, how has it affected compliance?
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Annual Results for FY 2025

By taking a compliance first approach, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) helps companies and communities understand their obligations under our environmental laws and regulations... In FY 2025, EPA conducted over 14,000 compliance monitoring activities, surpassing the totals of many previous years

no, companies, as you said, want to make money, and if they can make more by poisoning people, because they can get away with it with fines, than that is what "Shareholder Value" DEMANDS.

"Shareholder Value" is constrained by the requirement to follow the law. Shareholders don't have to push for maximum monetary value. They could for example demand that the company not poison people.

That is why they are called Limited Liability: because they shield their owners completely or partially from personal criminal consequences, they are set up to get away with causing harm that everyone agrees a person should go to prison for, because you can always make more money by hurting those who can't fight back.

Limited liability was introduced to prevent shareholders from being held personally liable for debts incurred by the business. It doesn't shield them from criminal prosecution.

You're trying to say that corporations are inherently bad because they are focused on profit. But that applies to all businesses. A corporation just decouples the business from individuals so it can continue to operate no matter who owns it. This makes it easier to enforce environmental regulations. A company may change hands many times and still be 'on the hook' for fines and cleanup costs.

 

[Trausti]

you are kidding - you must be.

Why don't you read up on companies polluting Native America lands?

US uranium mining companies - for pure profit - refuse to clean up the mess they made, demanding the State does it at taxpayer expense, causing steady pollution and making cleanup harder every year.

How many of the mining companies that extracted uranium on/near Navajo nation from 1944 to 1986 even exist today? That's probably why the feds are the primary funder of the cleanup. End of the Cold War, Start Treaty, and the stupid moral panic against nuclear power kind of decimated the industry.

 

[Frank Newgent]

... the Australian government introduced the category of "Instant Asset Write-off" (I guess you call it section 179) which allowed a business to fully write off the cost of an asset as an expense.

Glad you noticed. That is pretty much the same mechanism as the IRS Section 179 deduction and the IRS Bonus Depreciation tax provision.

Started down this road with you earlier when you were asserting the opposite.

Capital expenditure is not an expense but an investment and therefore, does not affect profit.

Under "Instant Asset Write-Off", Section 179, and IRS Bonus Deduction, small businesses claim an immediate tax deduction for the cost of the qualifying assets, rather than depreciating the cost over several years. Like a formal and instant acceleration of the depreciation schedule.

Don't know how that does not affect profit LOL. What it does is lower net income drastically, immediately, resulting in a large upfront tax break.

I know about how capital business expense can be claimed as an immediate full tax deduction because I took advantage of the provision a number of times as a sole proprietor.

Because "Instant Asset Write-Off", Section 179, and the IRS Bonus Depreciation all allow a business to immediately expense the full cost of an asset, it distorts GAAP-type financial reporting for that year.

That's how you got hung up. You seem somehow unaware small businesses are not required to use GAAP to file their taxes, instead just using simple cash basis or tax basis accounting. Lot easier.

 

[psionl0]

Under "Instant Asset Write-Off", Section 179, and IRS Bonus Deduction, small businesses claim an immediate tax deduction for the cost of the qualifying assets, rather than depreciating the cost over several years. Like a formal and instant acceleration of the depreciation schedule.

Don't know how that does not affect profit LOL.

You quoted the wrong paragraph (and why you felt the need to hide the quote, I don't know):

The fact is that when you purchase an asset you gain the asset and its value has to be written off as an expense somehow (especially if you want to claim the expense as a tax deduction). Traditionally, this was through depreciation - the difference between the current value of the asset and its previous value. But the tax office may allow different methods for writing off the value of the asset.

In case the highlighted goes over your head, it means that an asset is not an expense (and therefore its purchase doesn't affect profits) until its value is written down or written off.

It's the same principle in retail sales. Stock is not a tax deductible expense (it is an asset) until it is sold. The tax office expects the retailer to use the formula opening stock + purchases - closing stock = cost of goods sold in their tax returns.