A good explanation is both correct and tactful. I'm not sure your comment is either of those things.
I think the root cause is that you are trying to use the one word "profit" to mean different things. Admittedly the word profit is poorly defined (good financial reporting doesn't use it). For example:
> business pays tax on profit left
No. A company's profit is what is left after expenses and taxes (if you disagree with that then I'm unsure what to say). I am not an accountant so I'm not going to try and define earnings for you (gross, net, etcetera). Your sentence is just incorrect: maybe incorrect for the same underlying reason as why I wrote my original comment?
I could dissect many of your other points for being oversimplified or country specific (different juisdictions do things wildly differently). For example VAT/GST systems and US sales taxes have very little commonality (think where the money goes and what can be claimed).
> Who pays the worker? The business by making a profit.
Obviously incorrect, since a company can pay their workers and make a loss. Losses can go on for a long time (some people have different incentives than company dividends).
I think overall you are trying to say that businesses need profits (that's almost a tautology) and that governments need businesses. That makes sense.
Rationally you might think that people should therefore want profitable businesses. Unfortunately, voters and governments don't actually have to make economic sense over periods of many years.
> Obviously incorrect, since a company can pay their workers and make a loss.
It's not incorrect, it's a simplified model. For debt to occur this capital should be generated somehow. It's true that you can finance a business by getting the profit from some other entity that has generated the profit. So it's not wrong to assume that the money hasn't just appeared out of thin air to fund the salaries. No profitable business no capital to invest.
> Unfortunately, voters and governments don't actually have to make economic sense over periods of many years.
No matter how long the stupidity lasts that doesn't mean that this model is incorrect. No profits = no taxes in the grand scheme of things.
I think the root cause is that you are trying to use the one word "profit" to mean different things. Admittedly the word profit is poorly defined (good financial reporting doesn't use it). For example:
> business pays tax on profit left
No. A company's profit is what is left after expenses and taxes (if you disagree with that then I'm unsure what to say). I am not an accountant so I'm not going to try and define earnings for you (gross, net, etcetera). Your sentence is just incorrect: maybe incorrect for the same underlying reason as why I wrote my original comment?
I could dissect many of your other points for being oversimplified or country specific (different juisdictions do things wildly differently). For example VAT/GST systems and US sales taxes have very little commonality (think where the money goes and what can be claimed).
> Who pays the worker? The business by making a profit.
Obviously incorrect, since a company can pay their workers and make a loss. Losses can go on for a long time (some people have different incentives than company dividends).
I think overall you are trying to say that businesses need profits (that's almost a tautology) and that governments need businesses. That makes sense.
Rationally you might think that people should therefore want profitable businesses. Unfortunately, voters and governments don't actually have to make economic sense over periods of many years.