Except we don't need to "solve the problem of high taxes on small business". We need to solve the problem of low taxes on big business.

More than low taxes the problem should be tax avoidance.

The most simple reason why a big business could pay little taxes would be to be at loss. The intention should be to accurately and reasonably determine a correct measure for loss/income.

That's a perfectly reasonable position, please clearly mark your writing as an editorial.

Any headline is going to be pushing some kind of narrative. Personally, I'd like if they highlighted the government's role, with something like, "Government taxes large companies less than small companies, shows new research."

It's getting tiresome watching a deficit explosion happen and at the time people argue for lower taxes.

Why are taxes too low rather than spending too high? I'm perfectly okay with someone arguing either position as long as it's in the editorial/opinion section and not in economics/politics/etc. It's possible I missed it, but I did not see the original article flagged as editorial. Is "The Conversation" an opinion only source? Or is it supposed to be straight news? I guess that would change my mind.

Lower taxes should not enter the equation until we have reasonable budget. Until then the argument is a conversation of cuts vs higher taxes, or a combination of the twp

Deficits are the most politically viable option. The wealthy oppose raising individual income taxes, and cutting benefits (social security, medicare) would be the third rail of American politics, so here we are.

That’s not nessisarily true from the headline. It could be midsized companies paying the most tax, or midsized and small companies paying the same rate.

It's interesting that your takeaway is that my totally made up hypothetical alternative headline might not be factually correct.

Actually, my first thought was that I got the same response from reading both headlines. It’s only after thinking a bit that I realized they had different meanings.

Though that’s just me, I think of the tax burden as a zero sum game. To get X revenue today from Y people it’s pure tradeoffs. Long term that’s slightly less true.

No. Initially I too thought your made up headline and the actual were essentially the same to me. But parent has a point.

They actually mean different things. Your headline wouldn’t mean Fortune 500/Inc 5000 etc companies pay the most. They aren’t the same.

Small companies paying more implies larger companies aren't paying a fair share. It's the same narrative, either way. The reader is going to apply their own world view regardless.