Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[bripat9643]

Why should Walgreens pay more taxes than the law requires it to pay? Can you explain that?

========
There is a fundamental ethical difference between using the legal deductions / credits in the tax law ( presuming the company didn't buy those tax credits by paying off Congressmen with " campaign contributions " ) and changing the legal structure of your company so you can avoid paying American taxes completely.

Wrong. There is no difference. If you can explain why one is immoral and the other perfectly legitimate, please be my guest. Please give examples of the actions you deem to be illegitimate and why.

The clauses that allow them to escape paying American taxes were, by and large, BOUGHT WITH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

Which clauses were those? Leftwing turds always make such claims, but they never point to specific laws. That's because they can't.

You think it is just fine for them to not pay taxes but you do realize don't you, that for every dollar in taxes Walgreen doesn't pay someone --- YOU --- has to pay it.

The question you have to answer is why should anyone pay it? Why should I pay taxes to support useless ticks on the ass of society.

On one hand you righties bitch about paying too much in taxes and on the other you declare it's just fine for corporations / wealthy to ESCAPE PAYING TAXES COMPLETELY via legal technicaliteis and loopholes.

JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU RIGHTIES?

Never mind, I think we all already know. Just look at the candidates the Republicans think should be President.

The solution isn't to extract extortion from corporations. The solution is for the government to remove the ticks from each of its 50 million teats.

 

[bripat9643]

Liberals hate corporations, liberal pension plans own corporations, liberals hate themselves.

And Directors and CEOs surround themselves with Unionized Police.

Most of them have private security, so that claim is obvious horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

So what? It is still their money. So if none of them even hold a position with the company, why are you bitching about them? Oh yes they are rich and you are not.

They are rich and collecting tons of corporate welfare. My taxes go to their employees.

Nope. Your taxes are going to people who are so stupid and incompetent that they can't make enough money to pay their bills. Not a dime of it goes to Wal-Mart.

Yes but walmart gets rich off their work, not me. Since they are getting rich they should be providing for them, not me.

Nope. Because Wal-Mart makes a profit off of them doesn't mean Wal-Mart is obligated to them in any way other than to respect what they agreed to.

You keep repeating the same stupid bullshit over and over, and you never prove it.

And as long as employers don't provide for employees the government will. See you really don't want small government.

A theory with no visible means of support.

Try proving your conclusions are true rather than assuming they are.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly. But if you close those loopholes, penalize companies that send American jobs overseas and reward those that keep the jobs here, the tax structure becomes more equitable.

I would let companies pay zero if they create lots of jobs, pay well, and have good benefits and retirement. Everyone else obviously should pay.

Who cares what you would do?

Well you should because it would actually be good for the country. Your plan has been an epic failure.

ROFL! Hardly. How is communism good for the country?

How is my plan at all communism? Nobody if forcing anyone to do anything.

So you don't want the government to force Wal-Mart to pay a "living wage," whatever you deem that to be?

 

[bripat9643]

So what? It is still their money. So if none of them even hold a position with the company, why are you bitching about them? Oh yes they are rich and you are not.

They are rich and collecting tons of corporate welfare. My taxes go to their employees.

Simple solution: if you don't want them receiving tax money, then end the programs that entitle them to receive it.

And like I said, just ending them is political suicide and won't happen. Stop living in fantasy land.

The claim that it isn't politically feasible is just a claim that you and your ilk oppose it.

Whether you approve isn't what we're debating.

History has shown it isn't feasible. We have a republican congress right now, you see anything being done? I think you are just like the politicians. You want to talk about small government, but don't really want it.

History hasn't shown anything of the sort. Of course, the way they get ended may be the result of a government collapse when the checks start bouncing.

I hope you got your money back from the worthless college education you received.

 

[Arianrhod]

In other words, you vote Democrat.

Just what I thought.

In other words, you need to put people in little boxes with labels on them so you'll feel safe. It's a weakness you really shouldn't brag about.

Nothing is more common than a Dim or a lib denying he's a Dim or a lib.

Another thoughtful content-filled post - excellent!

 

[Brain357]

They are rich and collecting tons of corporate welfare. My taxes go to their employees.

Nope. Your taxes are going to people who are so stupid and incompetent that they can't make enough money to pay their bills. Not a dime of it goes to Wal-Mart.

Yes but walmart gets rich off their work, not me. Since they are getting rich they should be providing for them, not me.

Nope. Because Wal-Mart makes a profit off of them doesn't mean Wal-Mart is obligated to them in any way other than to respect what they agreed to.

You keep repeating the same stupid bullshit over and over, and you never prove it.

And as long as employers don't provide for employees the government will. See you really don't want small government.

A theory with no visible means of support.

Try proving your conclusions are true rather than assuming they are.

Support? We vote in this country. I have years of support that if employers don't provide, the government will. You been living under a rock?

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, you vote Democrat.

Just what I thought.

In other words, you need to put people in little boxes with labels on them so you'll feel safe. It's a weakness you really shouldn't brag about.

Nothing is more common than a Dim or a lib denying he's a Dim or a lib.

Another thoughtful content-filled post - excellent!

Truth is often terse.

 

[Brain357]

I would let companies pay zero if they create lots of jobs, pay well, and have good benefits and retirement. Everyone else obviously should pay.

Who cares what you would do?

Well you should because it would actually be good for the country. Your plan has been an epic failure.

ROFL! Hardly. How is communism good for the country?

How is my plan at all communism? Nobody if forcing anyone to do anything.

So you don't want the government to force Wal-Mart to pay a "living wage," whatever you deem that to be?

No, did you bother reading what I would do? I said I would redo corp taxes so that there are incentives for companies to hire here, pay well, and provide good benefits. A corp that does those things could pay 0 taxes. Obviously the wage increases would come out of the tax savings. Rather than collect taxes and then give welfare to the poor, the government would be cut out. The employer would give direct to the employee. How is the communism?

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. Your taxes are going to people who are so stupid and incompetent that they can't make enough money to pay their bills. Not a dime of it goes to Wal-Mart.

Yes but walmart gets rich off their work, not me. Since they are getting rich they should be providing for them, not me.

Nope. Because Wal-Mart makes a profit off of them doesn't mean Wal-Mart is obligated to them in any way other than to respect what they agreed to.

You keep repeating the same stupid bullshit over and over, and you never prove it.

And as long as employers don't provide for employees the government will. See you really don't want small government.

A theory with no visible means of support.

Try proving your conclusions are true rather than assuming they are.

Support? We vote in this country. I have years of support that if employers don't provide, the government will. You been living under a rock?

Hmmm, no, all you have is constant leftwing agitation for more social spending. Your theory that there's some kind of inverse cause/effect relationship between the wages they pay and the amount of social spending is obvious bullshit. If anything, as wages have increased, social spending has increased. That's the pattern we see in every country in the world.

 

[Brain357]

They are rich and collecting tons of corporate welfare. My taxes go to their employees.

Simple solution: if you don't want them receiving tax money, then end the programs that entitle them to receive it.

And like I said, just ending them is political suicide and won't happen. Stop living in fantasy land.

The claim that it isn't politically feasible is just a claim that you and your ilk oppose it.

Whether you approve isn't what we're debating.

History has shown it isn't feasible. We have a republican congress right now, you see anything being done? I think you are just like the politicians. You want to talk about small government, but don't really want it.

History hasn't shown anything of the sort. Of course, the way they get ended may be the result of a government collapse when the checks start bouncing.

I hope you got your money back from the worthless college education you received.

So your plan is dependent on a government collapse? That is some crazy stupid.

 

[Arianrhod]

I'm sure that most of the right wing posters here are in the 1% category. Either that, or they think they could become the 1% if government and liberals would get out of their way.

None of them are. Wealthy people don't post on message boards. It's so common, dontcha know.

Those with their noses up the 1%'s ass have bought into the "pull yourself up with your bootstraps" myth. (Find one who even knows what a bootstrap is and what it does...good luck.) If they just bow and scrape and work hard and don't piss off the gods of wealth, they do can find a place on Olympus.

They really do believe that, for the same reason the Confederate Army was comprised mostly of dirt farmers and shop boys who'd never owned a slave in their lives.

You can take the peasant out of Europe, but you can't take the peasant mentality out of the peasant - unless you educate him and help him aspire to greatness.

Which is why Republican state legislators are always trying to cut funding for schools. Clearly they've forgotten the lesson of the French Revolution.

 

[bripat9643]

Who cares what you would do?

Well you should because it would actually be good for the country. Your plan has been an epic failure.

ROFL! Hardly. How is communism good for the country?

How is my plan at all communism? Nobody if forcing anyone to do anything.

So you don't want the government to force Wal-Mart to pay a "living wage," whatever you deem that to be?

No, did you bother reading what I would do? I said I would redo corp taxes so that there are incentives for companies to hire here, pay well, and provide good benefits. A corp that does those things could pay 0 taxes. Obviously the wage increases would come out of the tax savings. Rather than collect taxes and then give welfare to the poor, the government would be cut out. The employer would give direct to the employee. How is the communism?

Your plan doesn't add up. It would never work.

 

[Brain357]

Yes but walmart gets rich off their work, not me. Since they are getting rich they should be providing for them, not me.

Nope. Because Wal-Mart makes a profit off of them doesn't mean Wal-Mart is obligated to them in any way other than to respect what they agreed to.

You keep repeating the same stupid bullshit over and over, and you never prove it.

And as long as employers don't provide for employees the government will. See you really don't want small government.

A theory with no visible means of support.

Try proving your conclusions are true rather than assuming they are.

Support? We vote in this country. I have years of support that if employers don't provide, the government will. You been living under a rock?

Hmmm, no, all you have is constant leftwing agitation for more social spending. Your theory that there's some kind of inverse cause/effect relationship between the wages they pay and the amount of social spending is obvious bullshit. If anything, as wages have increased, social spending has increased. That's the pattern we see in every country in the world.

Really? Our middle class has been disappearing for many years, just as government spending has skyrocketed. The only way to teach people they don't need government is to give them the means to support themselves. All you are doing is supporting poor pay, and government dependence.

 

[Brain357]

Well you should because it would actually be good for the country. Your plan has been an epic failure.

ROFL! Hardly. How is communism good for the country?

How is my plan at all communism? Nobody if forcing anyone to do anything.

So you don't want the government to force Wal-Mart to pay a "living wage," whatever you deem that to be?

No, did you bother reading what I would do? I said I would redo corp taxes so that there are incentives for companies to hire here, pay well, and provide good benefits. A corp that does those things could pay 0 taxes. Obviously the wage increases would come out of the tax savings. Rather than collect taxes and then give welfare to the poor, the government would be cut out. The employer would give direct to the employee. How is the communism?

Your plan doesn't add up. It would never work.

Oh and what part doesn't add up for you professor?

 

[Arianrhod]

In other words, you vote Democrat.

Just what I thought.

In other words, you need to put people in little boxes with labels on them so you'll feel safe. It's a weakness you really shouldn't brag about.

Nothing is more common than a Dim or a lib denying he's a Dim or a lib.

Another thoughtful content-filled post - excellent!

Truth is often terse.

I'd be interested in your research methods. My guess is they'd consist of one Powerpoint slide with the caption "BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!!!" above a blank slide.

More to the point, I'm intrigued by whose posts are removed for "lack of content" and whose aren't. That's my research project.

Carry on...your posts are very useful.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. Because Wal-Mart makes a profit off of them doesn't mean Wal-Mart is obligated to them in any way other than to respect what they agreed to.

You keep repeating the same stupid bullshit over and over, and you never prove it.

And as long as employers don't provide for employees the government will. See you really don't want small government.

A theory with no visible means of support.

Try proving your conclusions are true rather than assuming they are.

Support? We vote in this country. I have years of support that if employers don't provide, the government will. You been living under a rock?

Hmmm, no, all you have is constant leftwing agitation for more social spending. Your theory that there's some kind of inverse cause/effect relationship between the wages they pay and the amount of social spending is obvious bullshit. If anything, as wages have increased, social spending has increased. That's the pattern we see in every country in the world.

Really? Our middle class has been disappearing for many years, just as government spending has skyrocketed. The only way to teach people they don't need government is to give them the means to support themselves. All you are doing is supporting poor pay, and government dependence.

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! Hardly. How is communism good for the country?

How is my plan at all communism? Nobody if forcing anyone to do anything.

So you don't want the government to force Wal-Mart to pay a "living wage," whatever you deem that to be?

No, did you bother reading what I would do? I said I would redo corp taxes so that there are incentives for companies to hire here, pay well, and provide good benefits. A corp that does those things could pay 0 taxes. Obviously the wage increases would come out of the tax savings. Rather than collect taxes and then give welfare to the poor, the government would be cut out. The employer would give direct to the employee. How is the communism?

Your plan doesn't add up. It would never work.

Oh and what part doesn't add up for you professor?

The part where the corporation saves enough in taxes to compensate for the increased cost of wages doesn't add up.

 

[Contumacious]

Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

So instead of teaching the bottom 40% how to earn that type of wealth he plans to send IRS Gestapo agents to CONFISCATE their property. Typical Communist Tyrant.


.

 

[Brain357]

And as long as employers don't provide for employees the government will. See you really don't want small government.

A theory with no visible means of support.

Try proving your conclusions are true rather than assuming they are.

Support? We vote in this country. I have years of support that if employers don't provide, the government will. You been living under a rock?

Hmmm, no, all you have is constant leftwing agitation for more social spending. Your theory that there's some kind of inverse cause/effect relationship between the wages they pay and the amount of social spending is obvious bullshit. If anything, as wages have increased, social spending has increased. That's the pattern we see in every country in the world.

Really? Our middle class has been disappearing for many years, just as government spending has skyrocketed. The only way to teach people they don't need government is to give them the means to support themselves. All you are doing is supporting poor pay, and government dependence.

The way to teach people they don't need government is to put them on the government tit?

How are you going to force a corporation to pay more than it can and still make a profit?

No, the plan is obviously to get them off welfare, pay attention.

Again professor, you give them tax breaks in return for providing for their employees. What makes you think they can't afford it? They can afford to continually give CEOs huge pay increases, and now they would have tax savings to pay for the increases.