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

[Kondor3]

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.

I believe you to be greatly mistaken in this assessment.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

No, it's actually a good idea; it's just that Right and Left differ widely, on (1) who needs the help, (2) how much help they should get, and (3) how long they should get it.

The eternal battle between Scrooge and Tiny Tim.

 

[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.

I believe you to be greatly mistaken in this assessment.

Considering the fact that taking over 50 State Governments at once is considerably more difficult than taking over one Federal Government, no, no I'm not. On one hand, they have to take over only one office, on the other hand, they have to take over 50 for multiple terms. As I said, had the government been kept in check in the first place, this would not be an issue.

 

[dblack]

... it's just that Right and Left differ widely, on (1) who needs the help, (2) how much help they should get, and (3) how long they should get it.

Exactly. But they both agree the government ought to be making the decision. That's the problem.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Let me explain it to you slowly. It isn't about the money. Sometimes taking care of business and the satisfaction from that is good enough.

"I have no desire to meet you. That would be stupid. Bad things would happen."

It's OK if you're scared. Thanks for proving you are.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

...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.

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.

No, that's not how things are done in a free country, that's how things are done in a dictatorship. Everybody would love to be able to pick the winners and losers based on their particular fetish. Many don't have a problem with the media, but have a problem with Walmart, or big Pharma, or gun manufacturers, or oil companies.

If there were any possible way to amend the Constitution, it would have been done within the last few years on more important issues. But the fact remains that the Constitution will never be changed again.......at least not in our lifetime. And you cannot violate the first amendment because it fits your plan.

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

Well if they can't expand here with your idea, and they can't expand overseas, then they simply cannot expand.

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.

It's not going to take a hundred years. Some businesses grow almost overnight while others may take a couple of years, but the goal is to grow and expand. That's the goal of every business.

What you are talking about is limiting progress which we have never done in this country.....yet. What would have happened if we did that with Netflix, with Apple, with Microsoft, with dish network? Not many people would have these wonderful products today. You need a big company to service the millions of people that want your new product, and there are new products and services coming out all the time.

It's a good thing nobody implemented your idea when they invented bread, otherwise we would all be in bread lines like the former USSR or Venezuela today.

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.

Corporations have no control over society other than employment and taxes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Okay, so if government doesn't decide what other people deserve, then who does?

Unless you are talking about the elimination of all social programs, then somebody(s) has to make the decision on who gets what.

As for myself, I'm for eliminating all of them, and send the money back to the states so they could decide if they want such programs or not.

 

[dblack]

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

Okay, so if government doesn't decide what other people deserve, then who does?

The people.

As for myself, I'm for eliminating all of them, and send the money back to the states so they could decide if they want such programs or not.

Yep.

 

[Conservative65]

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

Okay, so if government doesn't decide what other people deserve, then who does?

Unless you are talking about the elimination of all social programs, then somebody(s) has to make the decision on who gets what.

As for myself, I'm for eliminating all of them, and send the money back to the states so they could decide if they want such programs or not.

Same here and it's in line with the Constitution. Congress has absolutely no constitutional authority to implement any of the social programs. That means, based on the 10th amendment, that it belongs to the states. Since states have reserved powers, it means the states can, if they so choose, implement them. If they don't, it doesn't automatically default to the federal government.

A good example would be RomneyCare in Massachusetts. While I don't advocate the running ands control of healthcare by the government at any level, what happened there is within line of the 10th amendment as long as the only funding for it came from the State level.

 

[dblack]

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

Okay, so if government doesn't decide what other people deserve, then who does?

Unless you are talking about the elimination of all social programs, then somebody(s) has to make the decision on who gets what.

As for myself, I'm for eliminating all of them, and send the money back to the states so they could decide if they want such programs or not.

Same here and it's in line with the Constitution. Congress has absolutely no constitutional authority to implement any of the social programs. That means, based on the 10th amendment, that it belongs to the states. Since states have reserved powers, it means the states can, if they so choose, implement them. If they don't, it doesn't automatically default to the federal government.

A good example would be RomneyCare in Massachusetts. While I don't advocate the running ands control of healthcare by the government at any level, what happened there is within line of the 10th amendment as long as the only funding for it came from the State level.

I guess the problem I have with conservatives is that they make little more than a token effort to get rid of this kind of government, yet take every opportunity to shame the people who take advantage of it. Just seems chickenshit.

 

[Conservative65]

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

Okay, so if government doesn't decide what other people deserve, then who does?

Unless you are talking about the elimination of all social programs, then somebody(s) has to make the decision on who gets what.

As for myself, I'm for eliminating all of them, and send the money back to the states so they could decide if they want such programs or not.

Same here and it's in line with the Constitution. Congress has absolutely no constitutional authority to implement any of the social programs. That means, based on the 10th amendment, that it belongs to the states. Since states have reserved powers, it means the states can, if they so choose, implement them. If they don't, it doesn't automatically default to the federal government.

A good example would be RomneyCare in Massachusetts. While I don't advocate the running ands control of healthcare by the government at any level, what happened there is within line of the 10th amendment as long as the only funding for it came from the State level.

I guess the problem I have with conservatives is that they make little more than a token effort to get rid of this kind of government, yet take every opportunity to shame the people who take advantage of it. Just seems chickenshit.

That's OK. If their effort is only token, you don't need to have a problem with them. They aren't conservatives.

I don't have a problem, to use your words, shaming them. Twice in my life I've been in a situation where I qualified on paper to receive handouts. Because I practice what I preach, I didn't take a dime because, as I've said, one person doesn't deserve what another person has earned unless the one providing it does so willingly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Same here and it's in line with the Constitution. Congress has absolutely no constitutional authority to implement any of the social programs. That means, based on the 10th amendment, that it belongs to the states. Since states have reserved powers, it means the states can, if they so choose, implement them. If they don't, it doesn't automatically default to the federal government.

A good example would be RomneyCare in Massachusetts. While I don't advocate the running ands control of healthcare by the government at any level, what happened there is within line of the 10th amendment as long as the only funding for it came from the State level.

More importantly is it gives the power back to the states which gives the citizens more control.

I want to scream when I see or hear about all the food stamp scams going on. But what can I do, you can't fight or control the federal government. Now if the program was funded by the state only, then I could take my gripes to my state rep or even the governor.

Under federal control, you have to take these issues to your Congress critter. And if that Congress critter happens to be a liberal, you might as well write a letter to Santa Clause. If they happen to be a member of your party, they just simply blame somebody else like a bureaucrat.

 

[Conservative65]

Same here and it's in line with the Constitution. Congress has absolutely no constitutional authority to implement any of the social programs. That means, based on the 10th amendment, that it belongs to the states. Since states have reserved powers, it means the states can, if they so choose, implement them. If they don't, it doesn't automatically default to the federal government.

A good example would be RomneyCare in Massachusetts. While I don't advocate the running ands control of healthcare by the government at any level, what happened there is within line of the 10th amendment as long as the only funding for it came from the State level.

More importantly is it gives the power back to the states which gives the citizens more control.

I want to scream when I see or hear about all the food stamp scams going on. But what can I do, you can't fight or control the federal government. Now if the program was funded by the state only, then I could take my gripes to my state rep or even the governor.

Under federal control, you have to take these issues to your Congress critter. And if that Congress critter happens to be a liberal, you might as well write a letter to Santa Clause. If they happen to be a member of your party, they just simply blame somebody else like a bureaucrat.

That's the point of the 10th Amendment. Like I said, if a state chooses to do something that fits within the Constitution, while I may not agree with what's being done, I'll agree that if a state is doing it, they have the authority to do so.

 

[dblack]

I don't have a problem, to use your words, shaming them. Twice in my life I've been in a situation where I qualified on paper to receive handouts. Because I practice what I preach, I didn't take a dime because, as I've said, one person doesn't deserve what another person has earned unless the one providing it does so willingly.

That's exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. Self-righteous horseshit, and frankly, stupid. We're all forced to pay taxes for those programs. There's nothing at all wrong with using them to the fullest extent one qualifies. Are you consistent in this view? Do you also refuse to drive on public streets or send your kids to public schools? By your reasoning, shouldn't you be refusing all the benefits accrued from compulsory taxation?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No, it's actually a good idea; it's just that Right and Left differ widely, on (1) who needs the help, (2) how much help they should get, and (3) how long they should get it.

The eternal battle between Scrooge and Tiny Tim.

Your ideas are all stupid.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't have a problem, to use your words, shaming them. Twice in my life I've been in a situation where I qualified on paper to receive handouts. Because I practice what I preach, I didn't take a dime because, as I've said, one person doesn't deserve what another person has earned unless the one providing it does so willingly.

That's exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. Self-righteous horseshit, and frankly, stupid. We're all forced to pay taxes for those programs. There's nothing at all wrong with using them to the fullest extent one qualifies. Are you consistent in this view? Do you also refuse to drive on public streets or send your kids to public schools? By your reasoning, shouldn't you be refusing all the benefits accrued from compulsory taxation?

It's not self righteous in any way. All it says is that I practice what I preach, therefore, there's nothing wrong with expecting other to do what I've already done.

There is something wrong. No one deserves another person's money. Thomas Sowell said it best with "what is your fair share of what someone else has worked for?" Too many people say those that earn what they have are greedy for not wanting to share it. Sharing doesn't involve a mandate from the taker but a willful act by the giver. It's not greedy to want to keep what you've earned but it damn sure it when you demand something that someone else earned as if it's owed to you.

I pay the taxes that help fund the streets and the public schools despite having sent mind to private school. A better question is shouldn't those that don't pay the taxes that fund the handouts they get not get them?

 

[Arianrhod]

It's not self righteous in any way. All it says is that I practice what I preach, therefore, there's nothing wrong with expecting other to do what I've already done.

So you'd expect GE, for example, to pay taxes that were at least comparable to yours.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

It's not a preoccupation. If someone came and took something that belonged to you

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.

No, it's actually a good idea; it's just that Right and Left differ widely, on (1) who needs the help, (2) how much help they should get, and (3) how long they should get it.

The eternal battle between Scrooge and Tiny Tim.

1) When I see someone using food stamps (EBT) to buy food yet they have enough cash, in a subsequent transaction to buy beer and cigarettes, they don't need help. Use the cash to buy their food.

2) Thomas Sowell put it best. "How much if your fair share of what someone else worked for?" The answer is none.

3) Not at all. I have a solution for all those bleeding hearts that support taxing those they think have too much to fund these types of things. Reach into your pocket and hand them your money. Prove to me you care and have compassion. If you can't because you don't personally have the money, STFU. You're no different than the alcoholic telling the other alcoholic to quit drinking.

 

[dblack]

I don't have a problem, to use your words, shaming them. Twice in my life I've been in a situation where I qualified on paper to receive handouts. Because I practice what I preach, I didn't take a dime because, as I've said, one person doesn't deserve what another person has earned unless the one providing it does so willingly.

That's exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about. Self-righteous horseshit, and frankly, stupid. We're all forced to pay taxes for those programs. There's nothing at all wrong with using them to the fullest extent one qualifies. Are you consistent in this view? Do you also refuse to drive on public streets or send your kids to public schools? By your reasoning, shouldn't you be refusing all the benefits accrued from compulsory taxation?

It's not self righteous in any way. All it says is that I practice what I preach, therefore, there's nothing wrong with expecting other to do what I've already done.

There is something wrong. No one deserves another person's money. Thomas Sowell said it best with "what is your fair share of what someone else has worked for?" Too many people say those that earn what they have are greedy for not wanting to share it. Sharing doesn't involve a mandate from the taker but a willful act by the giver. It's not greedy to want to keep what you've earned but it damn sure it when you demand something that someone else earned as if it's owed to you.

I pay the taxes that help fund the streets and the public schools despite having sent mind to private school. A better question is shouldn't those that don't pay the taxes that fund the handouts they get not get them?

Do you keep some kind of balance sheet? A running tally of the market value of the government services you use offset by the taxes that you pay? Because if you don't, I don't know how you can be sure that you're not benefiting from tax money that's taken from someone else. You also can't know what that balance sheet of someone on welfare is. They may have paid more taxes already than you or I ever will. So your judgement is scattershot at best.

 

[Conservative65]

It's not self righteous in any way. All it says is that I practice what I preach, therefore, there's nothing wrong with expecting other to do what I've already done.

So you'd expect GE, for example, to pay taxes that were at least comparable to yours.

Always the GE example. Don't you have something new?

Funny how you left off the millions of individuals that don't pay a dime in income taxes many of whom get handouts funded by the taxes they don't pay. I expect John Smith that makes minimum wage to pay the same percentage in taxes that I pay.