Can socialists in this country explain how taxing American corporations/companies more is good?

[Kondor3]

Rubbish.

I'm all for vetting Welfare Recipients far more aggressively, but, for those who qualify, welfare is a pittance; not enough to get by on, and taxation would make that worse.

Want to be more of a hard-ass about who gets it?

Fine.

Let's talk.

Want to impose taxes on the miserable pittance that they get, once they DO qualify?

You're gonna meet stiff resistance.

Good people don't kick their neighbors in the teeth while they're experiencing extreme financial duress.

Food Stamps Exchanged For Drugs, Weapons, Contraband - Judicial Watch

Cash value of welfare spending to households in poverty greater than median household income

Astonishing Numbers: America's Poor Still Live Better Than Most Of The Rest Of Humanity

Census: Americans in ‘Poverty’ Typically Have Cell Phones, Computers, TVs, VCRS, AC, Washers, Dryers and Microwaves

Plenty of people milking the system for all it's worth.

Time to undertake periodic reviews of Eligibility and Vetting criteria?

Fine.

Let's do it.

But let's not forget that a lot of folks on welfare (unemployment, SNAP, etc.) acquired many of those things BEFORE they went on welfare, while they were still working.

Go right ahead and smack the shit out of those who milk the system.

But don't take precious dollars away from those who really need the help; it's not gonna make that much of a difference to the Treasury, anyway, but it will make a world of difference and harm to those who really need the help and who would be penalized, terribly, by taxing their meager pittance.

 

[SmokeALib]

Go ahead and explain why that is a good thing for the country.

Keep in mind folks that the American socialists are by far the dumbest people on the planet.

Let us hear why American companies should be taxed more and why that is a good thing.

You really think the Mexicans are going to pay for that yuuuge wall?

How many billions in aid to they get from this country?

That is your one and only clue, you ignorant puppet.

Theowl32 did my explanation of why corporations must pay income tax work for you, little fella?

Where did I say they shouldn't pay any taxes you fucking unreal loser?

Unreal loser???
WTF is that?
A real winner?

 

[Theowl32]

Go ahead and explain why that is a good thing for the country.

Keep in mind folks that the American socialists are by far the dumbest people on the planet.

Let us hear why American companies should be taxed more and why that is a good thing.

You really think the Mexicans are going to pay for that yuuuge wall?

How many billions in aid to they get from this country?

That is your one and only clue, you ignorant puppet.

Theowl32 did my explanation of why corporations must pay income tax work for you, little fella?

Where did I say they shouldn't pay any taxes you fucking unreal loser?

 

[bripat9643]

Go ahead and explain why that is a good thing for the country.

Keep in mind folks that the American socialists are by far the dumbest people on the planet.

Let us hear why American companies should be taxed more and why that is a good thing.

They don't pay taxes now and yet they benefit from our infrastructure and military.

And taxation is how the middle class was created in America. Before that it was the Lords and Serfs like medieval England. When I was young anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in tax. What we've had for the last 35 years created this. Notice that after taxes the lower half of workers have lost income.

IMporting millions of illegal aliens is what caused middle class and lower class wages to stagnate, not the income tax, you lying douche bag.

 

[Conservative65]

...The only people not contributing their share are the 47% who pay zero federal income tax. Those are the people you should target.

Even if that were true, Mittens was unable to sell that back in 2012, and Attila the Hun sure-as-hell won't be able to sell that in 2016.

It is true. Almost half do not pay federal income taxes which means many of them, if not all, don't pay state income taxes. Since my state starts its return using the results of federal numbers, if you don't pay federal you don't pay state here.

Liberals constantly talk about people not paying their fair share. What they're saying is that those already contributing are doing too little while those that aren't paying a dime are still doing too much. Many of those not paying a dime benefit from social programs, whether it be federal or state/local, to which they don't contribute to the pot that funds them. Instead of simply saying "thank you" they bitch and moan that those without whom the freeloaders wouldn't have it handed to them not paying enough. I need some bleeding heart to explain in a logical not emotional manner how someone not contributing but benefiting is doing enough yet someone contributing but not benefiting isn't paying enough.

Rich assholes who have had everything handed to them on a silver platter should be tied to a stake and whipped like dogs. The bastards don't even want to pay their taxes. All the modern Republican party has done is cut taxes for the rich and start wars. I used to be a Republican and now I wouldn't even vote for one.

The question is are you man enough to do that? I bet you aren't.

You still are a worthless, old piece of shit.

 

[Conservative65]

Truck driving is honest work, asshole. And if I didn't drive a truck and pay taxes to finance entitlements, you would be screwed sitting around in your mother's basement collecting disability and pretending that posting shit on the internet is a contribution to society.

What is it with asshole truck drivers talking shit they know nothing about. Bouncing around in that cab all day has scrambled your fucking brain..


But like I have said before; anytime you want to bet all your meager possessions that I don't live in a basement nor collect snap, let me know. I have an attorney who will provide the proof and collect my money. He will get a cut of your money also.

If you don't have the balls to bet the house, shut the fuck up.

If you don't have the balls to do it like a man instead of hiding behind some pussy lawyer, let me know, coward. I'll do it man to man. You hide like a little bitch.

Fuck you asshole. I am crazy. Not stupid like you.

What's the matter dude. You afraid to lose? Renege when you lose. Using an attorney makes me sure I'll get your money. You being the untrustworthy asshole you are. What fucking difference does it make how you take my money?

Or do you not have the balls to put your money where your mouth (fingers) has taken you?

Remember the bet; you say I am poor, get SNAP and have no money. Let's bet.

You were offered a chance to be a man. Your answer: "No, I'm a pussy that hides behind other people".

I have the balls to do it myself. You have proven you don't.

To me, unlike you, it's not about the money. It's about already having proven you're a coward.

 

[Conservative65]

...The only people not contributing their share are the 47% who pay zero federal income tax. Those are the people you should target.

Even if that were true, Mittens was unable to sell that back in 2012, and Attila the Hun sure-as-hell won't be able to sell that in 2016.

It is true. Almost half do not pay federal income taxes which means many of them, if not all, don't pay state income taxes. Since my state starts its return using the results of federal numbers, if you don't pay federal you don't pay state here.

Liberals constantly talk about people not paying their fair share. What they're saying is that those already contributing are doing too little while those that aren't paying a dime are still doing too much. Many of those not paying a dime benefit from social programs, whether it be federal or state/local, to which they don't contribute to the pot that funds them. Instead of simply saying "thank you" they bitch and moan that those without whom the freeloaders wouldn't have it handed to them not paying enough. I need some bleeding heart to explain in a logical not emotional manner how someone not contributing but benefiting is doing enough yet someone contributing but not benefiting isn't paying enough.

Rich assholes who have had everything handed to them on a silver platter should be tied to a stake and whipped like dogs. The bastards don't even want to pay their taxes. All the modern Republican party has done is cut taxes for the rich and start wars. I used to be a Republican and now I wouldn't even vote for one.

Name them.

Even IF he could, Campbell isn't man enough to do what he says should be done.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As with most things, the solutions will prove to be complex, diverse, comprehensive, multi-faceted, and subject to trial and error.

First, we put on our Teddy Roosevelt hat, and start busting-up some of the bigger companies, to make them more manageable and responsive again.

Once they're down to a manageable size, with none of them 'too big to fail', then we can start dealing with the kitchen-detail practicalities.

First, they must be shorn of their political power.

That will require the force of Law.

And if the Law does not allow us to do that...

Then we change the Law, so that it does.

Sounds like great fun.

So what you're saying here is forget the success we've built, try something totally different?

So we bust down businesses and they can no longer expand. But if they do wish to grow, what's their option besides turning into a multinational company and expand their operations overseas?

And if that is the case, then nobody on your side can complain about those evil corporations sending our jobs overseas, because obviously we don't want them here. There is only so large we will allow them to be.

So let's see, where should we start? How about Microsoft and Apple? We could bust them down so that there are dozens of computer manufacturers instead of just two. Then if you can't get an I-phone, you'll have to settle for an E-phone, a H-phone, or even a M-phone by some side manufacturer. And don't expect the best technology either. Technological advancement costs big bucks, and smaller companies won't be able to afford that.

Strip them of their political power. Unless you want to violate their constitutional right of equal protection, then we have to strip political power from everybody. That will include unions, environmentalists, trial lawyers, insurance companies.......

Yes, that does sound like fun, doesn't it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Plenty of people milking the system for all it's worth.

Time to undertake periodic reviews of Eligibility and Vetting criteria?

Fine.

Let's do it.

But let's not forget that a lot of folks on welfare (unemployment, SNAP, etc.) acquired many of those things BEFORE they went on welfare, while they were still working.

Go right ahead and smack the shit out of those who milk the system.

But don't take precious dollars away from those who really need the help; it's not gonna make that much of a difference to the Treasury, anyway, but it will make a world of difference and harm to those who really need the help and who would be penalized, terribly, by taxing their meager pittance.

This is exactly what the conservative movement is about: only letting those who truly need the help get the help.

So what is the problem? Democrats.

Democrats want more people depending on the government and conservatives want less. So if there is any chance to trim down these programs, do what you can to keep Democrats as far from power as possible and support your most conservative candidates.

 

[dblack]

This is exactly what the conservative movement is about: only letting those who truly need the help get the help.

This is exactly what has always turned me off about the conservative movement.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is exactly what has always turned me off about the conservative movement.

What's that, only allowing people who really need public assistance access to it? Why would you be against conservatives for that reason?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

They won't leave...

The US can make departure or off-shoring cost-prohibitive...

Staying (and paying the tax increase) would be much cheaper than leaving...

As well as Nationalizing any security-critical firm that might attempt such a stunt...

Plenty of ways to get 'radical' with these Corporatists without killing the goose that laid the golden egg...

Yep, because that's exactly why our founders allowed for a tax system: to tax people into submission.

Not People... Corporations... and the Corporatists have been raping America long enough, so... phukk 'em.

In that case, where do you think jobs come from? Why do you think the candidate representing all of the corporations that buy politicians is advocating raising the corporate tax? What do you think happens when corporations leave the US? Do you really think we need to raise taxes to pay for the 400+ government agencies we don't need instead of cutting them and actually balancing the government's budget?

Jobs come from the private sector, of course.

And yes, we can certainly reduce or eliminate a number of government agencies.

We can even pull-in our horns a bit, and reduce our military footprint, and let some of the rest of the world fend for itself for a while.

But mega-corporations have used America as a profit-generating playground for far too long and have not been putting enough back in.

If corporations are "people" (a vile notion, indeed), then, those "people" have not been acting like members of the community, to the extent required.

As to corporations fleeing overseas, or off-shoring jobs, it is time to get 'radical' with these thieves, and either force them back on-shore, or ban their products from these shores, through legal means...

Those that don't like it can have their companies nationalized...

Their shareholders stripped of ownership, paid-off with 10 cents on the dollar, and the companies put into the public trust until new domestically-focused ownership and management can be appointed, to operate that company more like a 'person' that is vested in the community (country) in which it 'lives'...

Meanwhile, we can start doing some Trust-Busting, just like Teddy Roosevelt (R), to whittle 'em down to size, so that they're (a) not so arrogant, (b) not so inclined to go (or remain) off-shore, and (c) make it easier to nationalize them, if that becomes necessary as a final line of defense...

The Corporatists have been exploiting Slave Labor in Mexico, China, India, et al, at the expense of the American Worker, and pocketing the profits, and not re-investing those profits in the 'community' like a vested member would, for far too long...

Time to party... time to get 'radical' with these 'people' (big corporations who either control too much or operate off-shore)... using The Law to do so.

And, that's probably what' coming, so... bon appetit... enjoy.

You don't seem to understand that the function of a corporation is to make money. About the time you start preventing a corporation from making money, try to control them, and doing these things you're suggesting, which are unconstitutional by the way, people will stop trying to succeed in America because that success is being punished by an oppressive government. There's also the fact that Nationalizing businesses will kill their effects on the economy, and start to destroy said economy. There's a reason every Socialist Nation eventually falls. All I'm getting out of this is that you are a Socialist whackjob and have no idea how the economy works.

 

[dblack]

This is exactly what has always turned me off about the conservative movement.

What's that, only allowing people who really need public assistance access to it? Why would you be against conservatives for that reason?

The preoccupation with what other people 'deserve'. FWIW, that's also what turns me off about liberals.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

...You mean the things that caused and extended the Great Depression in the first place?

Nope. Wild speculation and lack of banking regulations and controls are what did that; revisionist history aside.

Ironically, what you're spewing is revisionist history. The government tried to artificially inflate our currency, which started the domino effect that started the issues that lead to the depression, but the depression was made into a Great Depression by socializing businesses. FDR's control of pricing locked them high, he tripled taxes, unionized everyone, and then ruled businesses with an iron fist. Naturally, this caused the Depression to get worse. The risk of hiring was made greater by those policies, and businesses were no longer able to compete. It was actually found that if FDR sat on his hands, the Depression would have lasted 2-4 years.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This is exactly what the conservative movement is about: only letting those who truly need the help get the help.

This is exactly what has always turned me off about the conservative movement.

Why would that turn you off? Even many Democrats I talk to are disgusted by people bilking the welfare system and only want it for those who need it.

 

[Bush92]

Go ahead and explain why that is a good thing for the country.

Keep in mind folks that the American socialists are by far the dumbest people on the planet.

Let us hear why American companies should be taxed more and why that is a good thing.

They cannot, because it is counter productive.

 

[dblack]

This is exactly what the conservative movement is about: only letting those who truly need the help get the help.

This is exactly what has always turned me off about the conservative movement.

Why would that turn you off? Even many Democrats I talk to are disgusted by people bilking the welfare system and only want it for those who need it.

Yep. Statists of all stripes are interested in controlling people with government.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

There is the tax rate...

Then there is the amount actually paid out in taxes...

When you have too many shelters, and too many tax breaks, the rate itself still doesn't matter, if you're not contributing your share...

There's that term again--share.

When you have a society or government that rewards failure and penalizes success, how do you expect that society to advance?

"What is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

When so many can get more from handouts when they don't work than they could earn if they did based on the low skill set they offer, they have no incentive to work. They're easy targets for Liberals wanting to convince them it's not their fault.

Oh, LibTards can be pretty damned bad, alright, and there are more Welfare Queens and their feral Inner City offspring than you can shake a stick at.

That does not, however, negate the fact that (1) corporations control the media, and half-control our politics, and (2) they're off-shoring, at the expense of Americans, who cannot compete with Slave Labor in China and India and Mexico, etc.

When the scales tip that far, it's time for a forcible Market Correction.

Which is, quite possibly, what we're about to see unfold; once a Centrist-Socialist gets into power, who's had a wake-up call about off-shoring, courtesy of Bernie and his followers.

You do realize that they can only control our government like they do because Libtards want the government to be a massive, all powerful entity, right? Had the government been kept within its boundaries, and stayed weaker than state governments, there would be no incentive to take control of it.

 

[Wilbur Right]

To me, unlike you, it's not about the money.

You are pretty stupid, so let me explain this slowly for you.

You made an allegation about me. I offered you the chance to make considerable money off your allegation. That's it. I can prove what you say is wrong. That's it. And I will bet considerable amounts.

I have no desire to meet you. That would be stupid. Bad things would happen. Why fucking bother? My way, I take your money and don't have to bother with you.

You got the balls to bet or not? If not, STFU.

 

[Kondor3]

...So what you're saying here is forget the success we've built, try something totally different?...

Nope. What I'm saying is that the Big Corporations have gotten TOO big and cannot be allowed to gain or maintain control over a Free Society. Teddy Roosevelt knew that.

...So we bust down businesses and they can no longer expand. But if they do wish to grow, what's their option besides turning into a multinational company and expand their operations overseas? ...

Small to mid-size companies can continue to expand, until they, too, get too big, and we have to 'Rinse and Repeat' in another hundred years.

...And if that is the case, then nobody on your side can complain about those evil corporations sending our jobs overseas, because obviously we don't want them here. There is only so large we will allow them to be...

Companies that send our jobs overseas would not be able to continue to operate in this country.

...So let's see, where should we start? How about Microsoft and Apple?...

No... let's begin with the Media Moghuls, and see how it goes from there.

...Strip them of their political power. Unless you want to violate their constitutional right of equal protection, then we have to strip political power from everybody...

Hardly.

We merely enact appropriate Law, to prohibit them from owning more than X% of a given industry, such as the News Media.

And, we craft such Law, in such a manner, that it will pass the Constitutional sniff-test.

And, failing that, we amend the Constitution to allow us to do so.

But first, we start with busting-up BIg Corporate Media, and see where that goes.