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

[bripat9643]

When we stopped taxing corporations and the wealthy, we stopped doing things as a nation

No more moon shots, instead of building an interstate highway system, we let our roads and bridges go to hell

We complain about helping our poor and spending money on education and healthcare

We have instituted austerity to ensure more wealth at the top

Corporations and the wealthy already pay more than the half that don't pay income taxes do combined. That's easy. One taxpayer alone pays more than the half that pay nothing combined.

As they should

You tax where the money is and that is where the money is. They pay most of the income taxes because they consume most of the income and wealth.....what a concept

That's the moral code of a thief. A reported once asked John Dillinger why he robbed banks. His response: "that's where the money is."

Rich people consume wealth because they earn it.

 

[bripat9643]

With their demands, our cost of living is now ten times more than those overseas where I work is going. Now we have to work for less money or not work at all. Either that or those evil corporations will buy robots to do our work.

Your cost of living is 10 times more because those other countries are shitholes. Do you want to live in Indonesia or Bangladesh?

Their shitholes because they practice the kind of policies that you support.

 

[Campbell]

Those that complain about it must like it since they do the thing you listed keeping those corporations going.

If they think corporations are doing that, shouldn't their next communication with us be written on a piece of paper with a quill pen delivered by someone on horseback?

I keep telling these liberals over and over again.

If we took all the so-called poor people from our country, put them on an island somewhere, they wouldn't be missed. In fact, it would improve our society because of the reduction in spending, great reduction in crime, neighborhoods being rebuilt, and more disposable income for working people.

If we took all the rich from our country and put them on an island somewhere, our country collapses.

They don't listen or can't learn.

An estimated $1 trillion was spent on various forms of social welfare in 2015 between federal, state, and local spending. $22 trillion spent in the past 50 years. What do we have to show for it. The same percentage of people in this country on welfare as before that $22 trillion was spent. That's why when I hear Liberals say "invest", I ignore.

Wonder how many of those receiving social welfare in the 1960s have direct line family members receiving today three generations later.

Did those figures come from Fox News or did you just spew them out of your ass? When you come off with shit like that the least you might do is provide a link to some reliable verification.

 

[rightwinger]

Spoken like a true corporate flunky.
<whispers......you don't need anyone else, you are better than they are, you will do better bargaining on your own>

The workforce as a whole has given up wages, retirement, benefits and job security....all in agreeing to an every man for himself environment

No, it's just some have realized the dangerous path unions have taken us on. Sure, it was great while it lasted, but they kept pushing and pushing until they (and government) pushed the jobs right out of this country.

With their demands, our cost of living is now ten times more than those overseas where I work is going. Now we have to work for less money or not work at all. Either that or those evil corporations will buy robots to do our work.

So now it's sort of a payback for those good times non-skilled labor enjoyed in those union years. Republicans back then warned us of the time when this was going to happen, and they were correct. But they kept pushing and pushing anyhow.

Unions not only supported union workers, but the standards and pay grades they established helped non Union workers as companies upped the pot to keep unions out
But republicans helped destroy the unions and collective bargaining. They established "right to work states" that meant a right to be paid less. They destroyed collective bargaining and the obligation to join unions in a union shop

 

[rightwinger]

When we stopped taxing corporations and the wealthy, we stopped doing things as a nation

No more moon shots, instead of building an interstate highway system, we let our roads and bridges go to hell

We complain about helping our poor and spending money on education and healthcare

We have instituted austerity to ensure more wealth at the top

Corporations and the wealthy already pay more than the half that don't pay income taxes do combined. That's easy. One taxpayer alone pays more than the half that pay nothing combined.

As they should

You tax where the money is and that is where the money is. They pay most of the income taxes because they consume most of the income and wealth.....what a concept

That's the moral code of a thief. A reported once asked John Dillinger why he robbed banks. His response: "that's where the money is."

Rich people consume wealth because they earn it.

Explain this

 

[Kondor3]

...No, that's not how things are done in a free country, that's how things are done in a dictatorship...

We no longer live in a free country... we live in an oligarchy controlled by the Corporatists... what is about to unfold, is to UN-do dictatorship, not establish it.

...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. ..

The Media is not 'mission critical'... that's why it's so much safer to begin there, in that sector, with Trust Busting, and tweak the process in a lower-risk environment.

...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. ..

The Constitution is a living, breathing document, and subject to change at any time that it suits the Will of the People.

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

Then they don't expand for a while, until the dust settles... that, too, happens, during a period of Market Correction.

...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. ..

Then, once we bust-up the Big Ones, we're just going to have to keep a closer and governing eye on Corporate growth, aren't we?

...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. ..

Giving the Corporatists too much control over Wealth and Media and Politics is simply too high a price to pay; time to bust 'em up, and put your Doomsday Theory to the test.

...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. ..

Yes, yes, yes... very nice, I"m sure.

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

Balderdash.

 

[rightwinger]

As they should

You tax where the money is and that is where the money is. They pay most of the income taxes because they consume most of the income and wealth.....what a concept

And a false concept at that.

You liberals have this false belief that we live in a bubble. Within our bubble, there is only so much cash. Therefore if one has too much, that's the reason others have too little.

The reality is we live in a country of unlimited wealth. It's up to the individual to determine how much of wealthy they want. It may take a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, a lot of doing without, but it's up to the individual.

As for redistribution of wealth, why only wealth? If you think that's such a great idea, why don't we extrapolate that to other entities?

For instance, let's say you have a dozen beautiful bushes in front of your house. Wouldn't it not be proper for government to take half of your bushes, and give them to your neighbor down the street who has none?

Or perhaps you are a television nut and have four big screens in your home. Shouldn't government come along and take two of your big screens to give to the less fortunate who are still watching that old 25 inch tube television?

If you think that is ridiculous, you're right, it is ridiculous. So why is it not ridiculous when we talk about money?

God bless America and there is no limit on wealth

But your assumption that access to that wealth is equal for all is bogus. We have created a society where wealth is concentrated at the top. We protect the wealthy and ensure that little gets in the way of accumulating and protecting wealth
We have sold our souls to the concept of trickle down where we entrust the good will of the wealthy to make sure all are taken care of

Yo motherfucker

Why don't you bastards spend a week in Venezuela, Cuba, Somalia, etc and witness , first hand , the handy work of socialism.


.

The U.S is not Somalia, Venezuela or Cuba

We are the richest country on earth, not some third world shithole.
We can afford to take care of our people, provide healthcare, a basic standard of living, education, infrastructure

But we would rather ensure that our wealthy make more money

 

[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.

Your ideas are all stupid.

Thank you for your feedback... pissant.

 

[bripat9643]

When we stopped taxing corporations and the wealthy, we stopped doing things as a nation

No more moon shots, instead of building an interstate highway system, we let our roads and bridges go to hell

We complain about helping our poor and spending money on education and healthcare

We have instituted austerity to ensure more wealth at the top

Corporations and the wealthy already pay more than the half that don't pay income taxes do combined. That's easy. One taxpayer alone pays more than the half that pay nothing combined.

As they should

You tax where the money is and that is where the money is. They pay most of the income taxes because they consume most of the income and wealth.....what a concept

That's the moral code of a thief. A reported once asked John Dillinger why he robbed banks. His response: "that's where the money is."

Rich people consume wealth because they earn it.

Explain this

First off, Edward N. Wolff is a pinko professor in a government run indoctrination center. His chart is about as credible as Hillary's email story.

What do you imagine your chart proves?

 

[bripat9643]

As they should

You tax where the money is and that is where the money is. They pay most of the income taxes because they consume most of the income and wealth.....what a concept

And a false concept at that.

You liberals have this false belief that we live in a bubble. Within our bubble, there is only so much cash. Therefore if one has too much, that's the reason others have too little.

The reality is we live in a country of unlimited wealth. It's up to the individual to determine how much of wealthy they want. It may take a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, a lot of doing without, but it's up to the individual.

As for redistribution of wealth, why only wealth? If you think that's such a great idea, why don't we extrapolate that to other entities?

For instance, let's say you have a dozen beautiful bushes in front of your house. Wouldn't it not be proper for government to take half of your bushes, and give them to your neighbor down the street who has none?

Or perhaps you are a television nut and have four big screens in your home. Shouldn't government come along and take two of your big screens to give to the less fortunate who are still watching that old 25 inch tube television?

If you think that is ridiculous, you're right, it is ridiculous. So why is it not ridiculous when we talk about money?

God bless America and there is no limit on wealth

But your assumption that access to that wealth is equal for all is bogus. We have created a society where wealth is concentrated at the top. We protect the wealthy and ensure that little gets in the way of accumulating and protecting wealth
We have sold our souls to the concept of trickle down where we entrust the good will of the wealthy to make sure all are taken care of

Yo motherfucker

Why don't you bastards spend a week in Venezuela, Cuba, Somalia, etc and witness , first hand , the handy work of socialism.


.

The U.S is not Somalia, Venezuela or Cuba

It will be after a few more HIllarys become president.

We are the richest country on earth, not some third world shithole.
We can afford to take care of our people, provide healthcare, a basic standard of living, education, infrastructure

But we would rather ensure that our wealthy make more money

The reason we aren't some third world shithole is because up to now we have mostly rejected the policies that moron douche bags like you support. Somalia, Venezuela or Cuba went down the shitter when they bought they bought the whole progressive hog. Venezuela or Cuba used to be two of the wealthiest countries in Latin America. Now they are two of the poorest.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Unions not only supported union workers, but the standards and pay grades they established helped non Union workers as companies upped the pot to keep unions out
But republicans helped destroy the unions and collective bargaining. They established "right to work states" that meant a right to be paid less. They destroyed collective bargaining and the obligation to join unions in a union shop

How did Republicans help to destroy unions? Just because we didn't support the concept?

Your argument here is the same my father used on me years ago. He is a union man and kept telling me the same thing: Son, if it wasn't for us union people, you wouldn't be making the kind of money you make driving a truck today!

After about four or five times he laid that on me, I finally had to shut him up.

"Dad, if you didn't make so much money laying brick, I wouldn't have to work for the money I do today to afford the houses that you built!" That was the end of that argument.

Right to work states gave people the option of joining a union or not. Since many people didn't want to join the union, right to work gave people that ability not to be forced into a union they didn't want to belong to. Unions should have never had the right to force an industry to not hire somebody based on their union beliefs. And that was the other terrible thing about unions. They went from representing their workers to taking over the whole Fn company. They told the company who they could hire, who they could fire, who they were allowed to promote, who they were not allowed to promote. They got so strong that they just about ran the company; in most cases right into the ground.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your cost of living is 10 times more because those other countries are shitholes. Do you want to live in Indonesia or Bangladesh?

No, our cost of living is ten times more because we allowed unions to over inflate our living.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Does that include retirees?

Yes it does and always has since the BLS began keeping statistics. In fact they predict that more and more senior citizens will be working in the future past their retirement.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
Their shitholes because they practice the kind of policies that you support.

Which are?

 

[Dr Grump]

Your cost of living is 10 times more because those other countries are shitholes. Do you want to live in Indonesia or Bangladesh?

No, our cost of living is ten times more because we allowed unions to over inflate our living.

make up your mind. On the one hand you have 50 million unemployed. On the other your country is too rich. Which is it?

 

[Dr Grump]

Does that include retirees?

Yes it does and always has since the BLS began keeping statistics. In fact they predict that more and more senior citizens will be working in the future past their retirement.

I don't have a problem with that. I hate the idea of retirement. I'd die of boredom.. Retirement is a relatively new concept anyway. Up until the past 100 years people worked as and when they needed to.

 

[rightwinger]

As they should

You tax where the money is and that is where the money is. They pay most of the income taxes because they consume most of the income and wealth.....what a concept

And a false concept at that.

You liberals have this false belief that we live in a bubble. Within our bubble, there is only so much cash. Therefore if one has too much, that's the reason others have too little.

The reality is we live in a country of unlimited wealth. It's up to the individual to determine how much of wealthy they want. It may take a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, a lot of doing without, but it's up to the individual.

As for redistribution of wealth, why only wealth? If you think that's such a great idea, why don't we extrapolate that to other entities?

For instance, let's say you have a dozen beautiful bushes in front of your house. Wouldn't it not be proper for government to take half of your bushes, and give them to your neighbor down the street who has none?

Or perhaps you are a television nut and have four big screens in your home. Shouldn't government come along and take two of your big screens to give to the less fortunate who are still watching that old 25 inch tube television?

If you think that is ridiculous, you're right, it is ridiculous. So why is it not ridiculous when we talk about money?

God bless America and there is no limit on wealth

But your assumption that access to that wealth is equal for all is bogus. We have created a society where wealth is concentrated at the top. We protect the wealthy and ensure that little gets in the way of accumulating and protecting wealth
We have sold our souls to the concept of trickle down where we entrust the good will of the wealthy to make sure all are taken care of

Yo motherfucker

Why don't you bastards spend a week in Venezuela, Cuba, Somalia, etc and witness , first hand , the handy work of socialism.


.

The U.S is not Somalia, Venezuela or Cuba

It will be after a few more HIllarys become president.

We are the richest country on earth, not some third world shithole.
We can afford to take care of our people, provide healthcare, a basic standard of living, education, infrastructure

But we would rather ensure that our wealthy make more money

The reason we aren't some third world shithole is because up to now we have mostly rejected the policies that moron douche bags like you support. Somalia, Venezuela or Cuba went down the shitter when they bought they bought the whole progressive hog. Venezuela or Cuba used to be two of the wealthiest countries in Latin America. Now they are two of the poorest.

Comparing us to third world countries as a example of what we shouldn't do is ridiculous

We are the greatest country in the history of mankind. We should be setting the standard for other countries to emulate
Great countries take care of their people.

 

[bripat9643]

And a false concept at that.

You liberals have this false belief that we live in a bubble. Within our bubble, there is only so much cash. Therefore if one has too much, that's the reason others have too little.

The reality is we live in a country of unlimited wealth. It's up to the individual to determine how much of wealthy they want. It may take a lot of hard work, a lot of sacrifices, a lot of doing without, but it's up to the individual.

As for redistribution of wealth, why only wealth? If you think that's such a great idea, why don't we extrapolate that to other entities?

For instance, let's say you have a dozen beautiful bushes in front of your house. Wouldn't it not be proper for government to take half of your bushes, and give them to your neighbor down the street who has none?

Or perhaps you are a television nut and have four big screens in your home. Shouldn't government come along and take two of your big screens to give to the less fortunate who are still watching that old 25 inch tube television?

If you think that is ridiculous, you're right, it is ridiculous. So why is it not ridiculous when we talk about money?

God bless America and there is no limit on wealth

But your assumption that access to that wealth is equal for all is bogus. We have created a society where wealth is concentrated at the top. We protect the wealthy and ensure that little gets in the way of accumulating and protecting wealth
We have sold our souls to the concept of trickle down where we entrust the good will of the wealthy to make sure all are taken care of

Yo motherfucker

Why don't you bastards spend a week in Venezuela, Cuba, Somalia, etc and witness , first hand , the handy work of socialism.


.

The U.S is not Somalia, Venezuela or Cuba

It will be after a few more HIllarys become president.

We are the richest country on earth, not some third world shithole.
We can afford to take care of our people, provide healthcare, a basic standard of living, education, infrastructure

But we would rather ensure that our wealthy make more money

The reason we aren't some third world shithole is because up to now we have mostly rejected the policies that moron douche bags like you support. Somalia, Venezuela or Cuba went down the shitter when they bought they bought the whole progressive hog. Venezuela or Cuba used to be two of the wealthiest countries in Latin America. Now they are two of the poorest.

Comparing us to third world countries as a example of what we shouldn't do is ridiculous

We are the greatest country in the history of mankind. We should be setting the standard for other countries to emulate
Great countries take care of their people.

Yes we should be setting the example, and we have been for about 200 years, so why do you progressive morons want to follow the examples of failure like Venezuela and Cuba?

 

[rightwinger]

Unions not only supported union workers, but the standards and pay grades they established helped non Union workers as companies upped the pot to keep unions out
But republicans helped destroy the unions and collective bargaining. They established "right to work states" that meant a right to be paid less. They destroyed collective bargaining and the obligation to join unions in a union shop

How did Republicans help to destroy unions? Just because we didn't support the concept?

Your argument here is the same my father used on me years ago. He is a union man and kept telling me the same thing: Son, if it wasn't for us union people, you wouldn't be making the kind of money you make driving a truck today!

After about four or five times he laid that on me, I finally had to shut him up.

"Dad, if you didn't make so much money laying brick, I wouldn't have to work for the money I do today to afford the houses that you built!" That was the end of that argument.

Right to work states gave people the option of joining a union or not. Since many people didn't want to join the union, right to work gave people that ability not to be forced into a union they didn't want to belong to. Unions should have never had the right to force an industry to not hire somebody based on their union beliefs. And that was the other terrible thing about unions. They went from representing their workers to taking over the whole Fn company. They told the company who they could hire, who they could fire, who they were allowed to promote, who they were not allowed to promote. They got so strong that they just about ran the company; in most cases right into the ground.

Right to work states say you can enjoy the benefits of a union but don't have to pay........they are the death of unionized labor and are the godchild of the Republican Party

You are a Teamster and don't realize what the unions did for you?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The unions and anti-trust laws are why the middle class grew from a tiny percentage of the population in the 19th century to being the largest in the world by the mid 20th century. Republicans are really evil to be doing what they're doing for the rich.