To increase competition, for sales greater than 5% of market share, should companies be taxed at the rate of their market share?

[Kelley1]

Competition results in better prices and service. Without competition, power transfers from consumers to large corporations. The result is high prices and lousy service.

Worldwide Microsoft Windows holds 70% share of the desktop operating system market. If they were charge a 70% tax on sales, they would have to triple their price or break up increasing competition.

Years ago, there were many small pharmacies. You could walk-in with a prescription and have if filled in five minutes. Now with just several large pharmacies, it is long lines and hour-long waits.

[SixFootSexy]

This would be ineffective. What megacorp monopolies would do is just create the illusion of many companies under one umbrella. All the top industries already do this.

They will buy and shutter companies, or put a mole on the smaller company's board so they can never fully compete in a fair marketplace. That's just scratching the surface of corporate espionage.

A single billionaire has more political influence than 50 million Americans. There are 900+ billionaires just in the US. Not including the ones in other countries, that make sure our politics are never slanted in favor of the ordinary person or company. Lobbyists are just legal corruption, baby.

[Kelley1]

Money leaves a trail that is easy to follow, so that can be done, but it may have to be tied to ownership rather the companies. A billionaire doesn't have political power than 50 million Americans, but more political power than one million Americans. They, in effect, own and rule America.

[SixFootSexy]

The "No Kings" protests were significantly funded by billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Foundations, which provided millions in grants to key organizations like Indivisible that helped organize the events. Sure, not every billionaire has that much power, but they certainly can buy whatever influence they desire.

[Xawyx-2]

It would be good for the state, but probably not good for those companies.

[Xawyx-2]

Thanks for the MHO

[Abbycado]

You are basing your argument of taxing a company based on operating system that people choose to use?

[Kelley1]

Of course.

[Abbycado]

Good thinking. That means that basically, companies 4-100 of the top paying income taxes don't have to anymore.

https://stockanalysis.com/list/most-taxes-us/

You're really smert.

[WindAtMyBack]

I would rather see the government stop allowing all the big mergers.

As for MS, that is a bad example. An operating system could be viewed in a similar way as a common carrier. That puts it in a special category.

Plus, there is not really any such thing as corporate tax. The people pay it. They are the only ones who CAN pay it.

[DonaldDarko]

No taxes on all companies should be cut. When you levy a new tax on a company it goes right to the accountants. The company then ads that tax onto the price of it's goods and or services. Corporations don't pay taxes their customers do.

[BonzoInBitburg]

Companies set up in tax haven countries and report profits there. Its super easy to legally report zero profits to the IRS on a tax return and funnel revenue to a different country where you have an office. I've had US businesses since the mid 90s and I've never paid a dime to the IRS. I file offshore.

[AviatorTom]

No, competition works best when the market determines it. Just about every time government has tried to encourage competition by offering tax incentives (this suggestion is the inverse of that), price controls, etc., has resulted in failure.

[Kelley1]

What you don't understand is businesses and corporation get laws passed to eliminate competion.

[AviatorTom]

@Kelley1 I understand some companies try to do that, but it's rarely successful. The best way to beat your competition is to provide a superior product for a lower price.

[Kelley1]

You can't be serious. Name a case where it is not.

[AviatorTom]

@Kelley1 Rite Aid (a drugstore in the US that once had 5000 stores throughout the country) closed all of its stores in October 2025. Why? Not because CVS and Walgreens got laws passed to deter competition, but because CVS and Walgreens offered more products at better prices with better customer service.

[Kelley1]

That is large vs. large. Not large vs. small. The laws specificially tax laws greatly favor large companies.

[Kelley1]

Nevertheless, I don't see any laws preventing small pharamcies from doing business.

[Miristheiss]

I believe in being fair.

What you make is irrelevant.

Everyone to pay the same percentage of their earnings.

[exitseven]

so we would punish a company for doing a good job and gaining more customers?

[Kelley1]

Large companies use political influence to gain more customers. My suggestion would help even the playing field.

[DryGermanGuy]

MS-DOS machines are still statistically relevant? Damnnn… 😳😵‍💫

[seeyounexttuesday]

Taxation to drive consumer behavior is always bad policy.

[Kelley1]

Making laws that favor big companies is worse policy.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Where did I imply that was good policy?

[Chazmatazz269]

In the given example, the taxation would drive supplier behavior, not consumer.

[seeyounexttuesday]

@Chazmatazz269 you think those companies being taxed wouldn't pass those costs onto consumers?

[Kelley1]

They can't because a business with 50% of the market would have have to increase prices 50%. Try raising the price of a gallon of organic milk from $9.00 to $13.50 and expect to sell when others are selling for $9.50 or less.

[seeyounexttuesday]

They would have to. If they didn’t then under your plan no one would switch from MS to another sw company. They don’t have a semi monopoly because reasons. They do because they provide the best software.

[Kelley1]

Although they did in the past, MS doesn't provide the best software anymore. It is what most people are used to, and the operating system for the programs most people have purchased. It is what most people are using, and they are reluctant to learn another operating system. Regardless, an almost doubling of the price would reduce their market share and increase competition.

[seeyounexttuesday]

And why do you think it's a good idea for the government to control what software people choose?

[noohair]

Try looking into economics theory of the Austrian school.

[Snakeyes7]

Nope I am against taxation as a whole.