< Back to IRS

Dmitry Smirnov

Should we implement a Monopoly tax? Companies with X% marketshare paying X% additional tax

Has anyone else been thinking about how to address the growing issue of monopolies in our economy? I've been mulling over an idea I wanted to get some feedback on. What if we created a "Monopoly tax" where businesses that control a certain percentage of marketshare in their industry would pay an additional tax equal to that percentage? For example, if a tech company controls 65% of the social media industry, they would pay an additional 65% tax on top of regular corporate taxes. Companies with smaller marketshare would pay less additional tax proportionally. This would create a natural incentive to avoid complete industry domination and might encourage more competition. I know there would be challenges with defining industry boundaries and calculating marketshare accurately, but I think this could be a creative solution to the monopoly problem we're facing. Would this work at all from a tax perspective? Has anything like this been proposed before?

While I understand your concern about market concentration, implementing this kind of tax structure would be extremely complicated from a tax law perspective. The first major challenge is defining relevant markets - is Facebook competing just in social media or in the broader digital advertising space? These definitions would be constantly contested in courts. The second issue is that market share fluctuates regularly and can be calculated multiple ways (revenue, user base, transactions). Creating a tax that changes dynamically based on these calculations would introduce tremendous uncertainty into corporate tax planning. Most importantly, we already have antitrust laws designed to address monopolistic behavior. The Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and FTC Act provide frameworks for preventing anti-competitive practices. The solution may be better enforcement of existing laws rather than creating an entirely new tax code.

0 coins

Ava Johnson

•

But aren't those antitrust laws clearly failing? We have more market concentration now than ever before. What about the idea of a sliding scale - maybe starting the additional tax at only companies with over 30% market share? And couldn't the IRS partner with the FTC to define markets properly?

0 coins

You're right that antitrust enforcement has weakened over recent decades. The laws themselves are fairly robust, but the interpretation has shifted toward a "consumer welfare" standard that often ignores other harms of concentration. A sliding scale approach might reduce some implementation challenges, but it still doesn't solve the fundamental problem of defining markets properly. Even the FTC struggles with this - market definitions change constantly as technology and consumer behavior evolve. Creating a tax tied to these definitions would likely result in endless litigation and corporate restructuring to game the system.

0 coins

Miguel Diaz

•

After dealing with similar frustrating tax proposals, I've been using https://taxr.ai to analyze different taxation models and their potential impacts. When I ran an analysis on monopoly taxation structures similar to what you're proposing, it highlighted some interesting considerations that aren't immediately obvious. The platform showed me how companies would likely respond - restructuring into multiple entities, shifting revenue recognition across subsidiaries, or redefining their business categories. It also predicted potential international tax implications and showed similar historical proposals. The analysis suggested alternative approaches that might achieve similar goals with fewer loopholes. I've found it super helpful for understanding complex tax proposals like this before taking a position. Might be worth checking out if you're interested in refining your idea further.

0 coins

Zainab Ahmed

•

How exactly does this taxr.ai thing work? Does it just give general analysis or can it provide specific calculations based on actual company financials? I'm trying to understand if this is just generic advice or something more substantial.

0 coins

Connor Byrne

•

I'm skeptical about any tool claiming to predict economic outcomes. Tax policy is incredibly complex and has unexpected consequences. Does it account for how companies would restructure operations or change pricing strategies in response? What data sources does it use?

0 coins

Miguel Diaz

•

It allows you to input specific parameters of a tax proposal and then shows potential outcomes based on historical data and economic models. You can definitely use actual company financials from public sources if you want to test impacts on specific corporations. The tool actually does account for expected corporate responses including restructuring, pricing changes, and other adaptive behaviors. That's one of its most valuable features. It uses a combination of academic research, historical tax data, corporate financial statements, and market behavior during previous tax changes to build its models.

0 coins

Connor Byrne

•

I was honestly skeptical about taxr.ai when I first saw it mentioned here, but I decided to try it out for a research project I'm working on about alternative corporate taxation methods. It actually provided surprisingly nuanced analysis about market concentration taxes. The platform showed me several jurisdictions that have attempted similar approaches historically, and the outcomes weren't what I expected. I especially appreciated how it highlighted the practical enforcement challenges while suggesting modifications that would make implementation more feasible. The recommendation to focus on specific anti-competitive behaviors rather than market share alone made a lot of sense. Not something I expected to find useful, but it definitely helped me refine my thinking on this issue!

0 coins

Yara Abboud

•

If you're serious about getting this kind of tax proposal considered, you're going to need to speak with actual IRS and Treasury officials. I spent MONTHS trying to get someone on the phone at the IRS to discuss a much simpler tax reform idea until I discovered https://claimyr.com which actually got me through to a real person. You can see how it works here: https://youtu.be/_kiP6q8DX5c but basically it keeps calling the IRS for you and then connects you when someone answers. I was amazed when I actually got through to discuss my situation with a real expert who explained the procedural requirements for submitting tax policy proposals through proper channels. They even directed me to the right department that handles innovative tax structure proposals. Saved me weeks of frustration trying to navigate the bureaucracy.

0 coins

PixelPioneer

•

Wait, how does this actually work? I thought the IRS doesn't take calls about hypothetical tax policies - they only handle existing tax matters. Would they really discuss something that isn't currently law?

0 coins

This sounds like BS. The IRS doesn't have a department for "innovative tax structure proposals" from random citizens. Congress writes tax laws, not the IRS. And paying a service to spam call a government agency? How is that even legal?

0 coins

Yara Abboud

•

The IRS has various departments, and while they don't directly create tax policy, they do have advisory roles and can direct you to the appropriate channels. I spoke with someone in the Taxpayer Advocate Service who pointed me toward submitting comments during public comment periods for proposed regulations. It's not spamming - the service uses legitimate methods to navigate the phone system during periods when call volume is lower. It's the same as what you would do manually, just automated. It's completely legal and actually helps reduce overall call volume by ensuring you only connect when someone is available to help.

0 coins

I was totally against the idea of using some service to get through to the IRS. Seemed like a scam. But after sitting on hold for 3+ hours multiple times trying to get information about how tax proposals actually move through the system, I caved and tried Claimyr. Got connected to an IRS agent in about 45 minutes without having to actively wait on the phone. The agent explained that while the IRS doesn't create tax policy, they do have channels for submitting feedback on tax administration issues to Treasury. For actual tax law changes like this monopoly tax idea, they recommended contacting the Joint Committee on Taxation and provided contact information. Still think this monopoly tax idea faces massive implementation hurdles, but at least I now understand the right channels for tax policy advocacy. Definitely saved me a ton of time.

0 coins

Paolo Rizzo

•

I think you're overlooking some practical issues. How would you handle companies that operate in multiple industries? Amazon is in retail, cloud computing, streaming, etc. Would you calculate separate percentages for each market? Also, what about international companies? If a foreign corporation has 80% marketshare globally but only 30% in the US, which percentage applies? And would this create incentives for companies to shift operations overseas?

0 coins

Amina Sy

•

And how would you define "market" in the first place? Is Tesla in the car market, the electric vehicle market, or the luxury vehicle market? Each definition gives you completely different market share percentages!

0 coins

Paolo Rizzo

•

These are excellent questions that highlight the complexity. For multi-industry companies, you'd likely need to apply different percentages to revenue streams from each market segment, which creates its own accounting nightmares. The international question is even more challenging. Current corporate tax law already struggles with multinational operations, and adding a market share component would amplify those issues. Companies could indeed restructure to minimize their apparent market dominance within specific jurisdictions.

0 coins

Wouldn't this tax just get passed on to consumers anyway? If you tax Amazon more, they'll just raise prices to compensate, making things more expensive for regular people while not actually solving the monopoly problem.

0 coins

Not necessarily. A company's ability to pass on taxes depends on price elasticity in their market. If they have competitors (which this tax is trying to encourage), they can't simply raise prices without losing marketshare. The whole point is to create financial incentives for more competition.

0 coins

Ev Luca

•

This is a fascinating policy proposal that touches on some really complex economic and administrative issues. As someone who's worked with tax compliance for small businesses, I can see both the appeal and the challenges here. One practical concern I haven't seen mentioned yet is how this would affect smaller companies trying to grow. If you're a startup that innovates and naturally captures significant market share through superior products or services, this tax could actually punish success and innovation rather than just targeting anti-competitive behavior. Maybe instead of a blanket market share tax, we could focus on specific anti-competitive practices? For example, higher taxes on companies that engage in predatory pricing, exclusive dealing arrangements, or acquisitions that reduce competition. This would target the behaviors we actually want to discourage rather than penalizing market success broadly. The enforcement challenges everyone's mentioned are real too. Market definitions change constantly - just look at how streaming services have redefined the entertainment industry in the past decade. Any tax based on market share would need to be updated continuously, creating a regulatory nightmare. What if we started smaller? Maybe pilot this concept in specific industries where market boundaries are clearer and concentration is most problematic, like telecommunications or utilities?

0 coins

IRS AI

Expert Assistant
Secure

Powered by Claimyr AI

T
I
+
20,095 users helped today