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

[JQPublic1]

But the biggest corporations showed huge profits and still paid little of no taxes.. And taxes are supposed to be paid on profits not losses.

Did they show a profit or are you just going by their gross income?

If a company makes a profit after deductions, then they do pay tax on that profit.

The effective tax rate is fine if you are on the lower end of it. But if you are on the upper end, then it doesn't make sense to keep your business in the US. And how many of those other countries have mounds and mounds of laws and regulations on businesses as we do here?

I posted the information once …go back and find it!

 

[francoHFW]

Ray's lost in the bushes. Corps don't pay enough. 10% of all taxes now, used to be 30% in the 50's. 20% is fair.

 

[Mortimer]

How do you want to provide public services, keep the military etc. if you dont tax people? And if there is a choice between taxing the poor and middle class or taxing the super rich, Id choose the super rich.

 

[Andylusion]

Democrat social programs caused all of it.

That's just not fact based.

First, the claims about the Bush era tax cuts are false. Just flat out, they are wrong.

A: They assume that the growth that happened during the 2003 to 2007 years, would have happened, even without the tax cuts. Maybe you missed it, but there was a recession before that. The tax cuts helped to end that recession.

B: Obama allowed many of those tax cuts expire. And the rest Obama himself personally supported and extended.

Obama said, "I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington. And I'm not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we're pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession. ... So, sympathetic as I am to those who prefer a fight over compromise, as much as the political wisdom may dictate fighting over solving problems, it would be the wrong thing to do. ... As for now, I believe this bipartisan plan is the right thing to do. It’s the right thing to do for jobs. It’s the right thing to do for the middle class. It is the right thing to do for business. And it’s the right thing to do for our economy. It offers us an opportunity that we need to seize."​

So you can lie, and call it Bush tax cuts, but Obama supported them and extended them.
Stop acting like pathetic children and own your choices.

2. We opposed the bailouts. Opposed Freddie and Fannie. We opposed having other debt. And we opposed the recovery measures that clearly failed.

If the only cause on that list was the wars against terrorism: A: The debt would be a tiny fraction of what it is. B: I would gladly support it.

 

[Andylusion]

How do you want to provide public services, keep the military etc. if you dont tax people? And if there is a choice between taxing the poor and middle class or taxing the super rich, Id choose the super rich.

First off, you can't tax the super rich. It doesn't work. They move their companies and their investments, and their assets out of the country.

France tried this. The wealthy started leaving. It was a disaster as companies closed up, and moved out of France.

Greece tried this. You have seen what happened there.

Venezuela tried this. Venezuela is a nightmare.

So, you can't tax the rich, and leave the poor and middle class alone.

And when you look around the world, that is what you see. When you look at Denmark for example, the people who earn about $6,000 a year there, pay 37% in taxes. The lower class pays massive amounts of tax, to cover all their social services.

Same is true of pensions in most of Europe. Many countries force their public, even the poorest, to pay 30% for what in the US would be Social Security. We pay 15%.

There is no example anywhere in this world, where the rich pay for the social services of the poor, who do not pay tax. No example anywhere.

Because it does not work.

But the other side is, if we only paid for the military and social services, our tax rate could be cut by 75%.

It's all the special benefits and socialism, that costs so much. For many years we could have cut the military to ZERO, and still ran a deficit. Because social security costs too much.

And it's the same in Europe. Pension systems across the western world, are going broke. Socialism, does not work. It never has. It never will.

 

[Spare_change]

So does everyone in the world but hater dupes like you...AND ALWAYS democratic, as my 1960 World Book says. HELLO?!?
"We're all socialists now!"- Finland PM when O-Care passed.

Finland...impressive source! THREE MILLION fewer people in the country than the city of New York.

As you know too, Obamacare is a massive failure. One which we, Conservatives, forecast would happen.

Don't know if you knew, but Finland has fewer miles of road than NYC, too.

What about the whole EU? About 430 million. Try Japan, NZ, OZ and Canada? Even the US, though it's almost a Reaganist Oligachy at this point. Great job, dupes.

The whole EU? You mean the one that is collapsing in on itself under the burden of the cost of 'social democracy' programs?

Apparently, you've never been outside the country. I strongly suggest you go to all those countries --- hell, just pick one - and see the lack of support services for the people, the lack of infrastructure, and the massive number of poor people. Then, we can talk ---

They don't recover as fast as us. No fracking etc. I've lived in UK, France, and Spain and you are an idiot.

Based on your supposed observations, I can only conclude: 1) you're a damned liar, and never been out of your mother's basement, or 2) you spent you whole time in Europe fired up ganja

 

[Mortimer]

How do you want to provide public services, keep the military etc. if you dont tax people? And if there is a choice between taxing the poor and middle class or taxing the super rich, Id choose the super rich.

First off, you can't tax the super rich. It doesn't work. They move their companies and their investments, and their assets out of the country.

France tried this. The wealthy started leaving. It was a disaster as companies closed up, and moved out of France.

Greece tried this. You have seen what happened there.

Venezuela tried this. Venezuela is a nightmare.

So, you can't tax the rich, and leave the poor and middle class alone.

And when you look around the world, that is what you see. When you look at Denmark for example, the people who earn about $6,000 a year there, pay 37% in taxes. The lower class pays massive amounts of tax, to cover all their social services.

Same is true of pensions in most of Europe. Many countries force their public, even the poorest, to pay 30% for what in the US would be Social Security. We pay 15%.

There is no example anywhere in this world, where the rich pay for the social services of the poor, who do not pay tax. No example anywhere.

Because it does not work.

But the other side is, if we only paid for the military and social services, our tax rate could be cut by 75%.

It's all the special benefits and socialism, that costs so much. For many years we could have cut the military to ZERO, and still ran a deficit. Because social security costs too much.

And it's the same in Europe. Pension systems across the western world, are going broke. Socialism, does not work. It never has. It never will.

Fun fact, the rich get tax money to create jobs, or they exempt from many taxes etc. they are quiete the "parasites", I think you should force them to do it, You can do it if they dont pay tax they should get imprisoned.

 

[JQPublic1]

How do you want to provide public services, keep the military etc. if you dont tax people? And if there is a choice between taxing the poor and middle class or taxing the super rich, Id choose the super rich.

First off, you can't tax the super rich. It doesn't work. They move their companies and their investments, and their assets out of the country.

France tried this. The wealthy started leaving. It was a disaster as companies closed up, and moved out of France.

Greece tried this. You have seen what happened there.

Venezuela tried this. Venezuela is a nightmare.

So, you can't tax the rich, and leave the poor and middle class alone.

And when you look around the world, that is what you see. When you look at Denmark for example, the people who earn about $6,000 a year there, pay 37% in taxes. The lower class pays massive amounts of tax, to cover all their social services.

Same is true of pensions in most of Europe. Many countries force their public, even the poorest, to pay 30% for what in the US would be Social Security. We pay 15%.

There is no example anywhere in this world, where the rich pay for the social services of the poor, who do not pay tax. No example anywhere.

Because it does not work.

But the other side is, if we only paid for the military and social services, our tax rate could be cut by 75%.

It's all the special benefits and socialism, that costs so much. For many years we could have cut the military to ZERO, and still ran a deficit. Because social security costs too much.

And it's the same in Europe. Pension systems across the western world, are going broke. Socialism, does not work. It never has. It never will.

I don't think he meant just tax the rich and no one else. Of course that wouldn't work.

 

[Mortimer]

How do you want to provide public services, keep the military etc. if you dont tax people? And if there is a choice between taxing the poor and middle class or taxing the super rich, Id choose the super rich.

First off, you can't tax the super rich. It doesn't work. They move their companies and their investments, and their assets out of the country.

France tried this. The wealthy started leaving. It was a disaster as companies closed up, and moved out of France.

Greece tried this. You have seen what happened there.

Venezuela tried this. Venezuela is a nightmare.

So, you can't tax the rich, and leave the poor and middle class alone.

And when you look around the world, that is what you see. When you look at Denmark for example, the people who earn about $6,000 a year there, pay 37% in taxes. The lower class pays massive amounts of tax, to cover all their social services.

Same is true of pensions in most of Europe. Many countries force their public, even the poorest, to pay 30% for what in the US would be Social Security. We pay 15%.

There is no example anywhere in this world, where the rich pay for the social services of the poor, who do not pay tax. No example anywhere.

Because it does not work.

But the other side is, if we only paid for the military and social services, our tax rate could be cut by 75%.

It's all the special benefits and socialism, that costs so much. For many years we could have cut the military to ZERO, and still ran a deficit. Because social security costs too much.

And it's the same in Europe. Pension systems across the western world, are going broke. Socialism, does not work. It never has. It never will.

I don't think he meant just tax the rich and no one else. Of course that wouldn't work.

No I didnt meant that but tax the rich much more.

 

[peabody]

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.

I don't think we should tax American corporations. Instead, we should nationalize them. Then they won't have to pay any taxes at all.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

I don't think we should tax American corporations. Instead, we should nationalize them. Then they won't have to pay any taxes at all.

Hmmm. I don't know about that because once you take away the profit incentives and eliminate competition for that profit we might start to look like Russia. But I do think healthcare ought to be nationalized.

 

[Spare_change]

1) Corporations sell stock in order to fund their business venture. This venture CREATES jobs.

2) Those stocks are purchased with POST-TAX dollars. Those taxes are used to fund the myriad activities of the government at all levels.

3) The corporation makes a gross profit. Federal corporate taxes ARE PAID on that profit. Then, state and local corporate taxes ARE PAID on the original amount. No allowance is allowed for the federal taxes already lowering the base profit (in most states).

4) The remaining profit is distributed to the stockholders, as a return on their investment. That money is AGAIN taxes, usually as capital gains.

5) The corporation, as an entity, is not able to take a profit. They can reinvest a portion of the gross profit, and that reinvestment CREATES jobs. They have no other use for money.

6) Ergo, the governments get their share - they stifle job creation. They tax the investor, the corporation, and the employees. Frankly, they are running out of entities to tax.

7) The argument that corporations use our infrastructure, and thus should have an increased tax burden, is nonsensical. Investors pay for that infrastructure through the income and capital gains taxes they pay. Why should the government get paid twice from the same dollar?

8) Governments invest in infrastructure in order to attract businesses - and then you propose to create an onerous tax load on the corporation that will drive it out. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

But the reality is that hedge and superannuation funds own massive amounts of these stocks. Not mum and dads....So it's just one big merrygoround where Wall St clips the ticket everytime the gravy train passes them by. About two years ago Apple had over $200 billion in cash reserves. I don't feel sorry for them if they have to pay more..

So ... let's test your knowledge.

Who owns those "hedge and superannuation funds"? When they make money, who makes money? Do those "owners" pay taxes on the income derived from those accounts?

I don't care.

1) Corporations sell stock in order to fund their business venture. This venture CREATES jobs.

2) Those stocks are purchased with POST-TAX dollars. Those taxes are used to fund the myriad activities of the government at all levels.

3) The corporation makes a gross profit. Federal corporate taxes ARE PAID on that profit. Then, state and local corporate taxes ARE PAID on the original amount. No allowance is allowed for the federal taxes already lowering the base profit (in most states).

4) The remaining profit is distributed to the stockholders, as a return on their investment. That money is AGAIN taxes, usually as capital gains.

5) The corporation, as an entity, is not able to take a profit. They can reinvest a portion of the gross profit, and that reinvestment CREATES jobs. They have no other use for money.

6) Ergo, the governments get their share - they stifle job creation. They tax the investor, the corporation, and the employees. Frankly, they are running out of entities to tax.

7) The argument that corporations use our infrastructure, and thus should have an increased tax burden, is nonsensical. Investors pay for that infrastructure through the income and capital gains taxes they pay. Why should the government get paid twice from the same dollar?

8) Governments invest in infrastructure in order to attract businesses - and then you propose to create an onerous tax load on the corporation that will drive it out. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

But the reality is that hedge and superannuation funds own massive amounts of these stocks. Not mum and dads....So it's just one big merrygoround where Wall St clips the ticket everytime the gravy train passes them by. About two years ago Apple had over $200 billion in cash reserves. I don't feel sorry for them if they have to pay more..

But you are wrong.

Let's look at the facts:

View attachment 85473

Now here's the reality. Dumping your partisan made up crap, the facts are that largest segment of the market is IRAs, Retirement plans (401Ks), Defined benefit plans (Pensions, usually for Unions), all of these add up to:

37% of Corporate Stock is owned by "mum and dads".

Of the 15% of stock owned by insurance companies:

6% or a little less than half are part of annuity, which elderly get for stable income.

4% goes to non-profits, which would include things like endowments for Universities or the Red Cross.

Plus the "Other" category includes government holdings, and 529 Savings plans.

That leaves a 20% chunk going to foreigners. What makes up that? Well some of it is foreign companies that buy stock in American companies, just like Ford owned a large chunk of stock in Mazada. So too does the Wanda Group owns stock in AMC Theaters in the US, and Sunseeker International, a yacht company in the UK.

Additionally, pension funds and retirement funds across the world, buy stock in US companies, just like I own stock in Enbridge, Novartis, and Enel.

So once again, a large chunk of Foreign owned stock is "mum and dads"

That leaves us with the taxable accounts. The stocks owned by hedge funds and private investors, and the wealthy 1%, the Waltons and Buffets of the world. All of these people, combined, barely make up 25% of the stock market.

To be as blunt as I can possibly be..... when you dump your dumb partisan left-wing bull crap out the window, here's the reality.

Roughly 50% or more of all the stocks are owned by "mum and dads".

Less that 25% are owned by "hedge and superannuation funds".

And most of the rest, is an indirect benefit to the public, like endowments for universities, insurance company benefits, and the Red Cross and so on.

I just proved conclusively, that you made up that crap. So what is your argument now, huh?

Let me guess ... you live in the state of Delusion and the city of Ignorance.

You don't "care" who owns hedge funds?

1) Corporations sell stock in order to fund their business venture. This venture CREATES jobs.

2) Those stocks are purchased with POST-TAX dollars. Those taxes are used to fund the myriad activities of the government at all levels.

3) The corporation makes a gross profit. Federal corporate taxes ARE PAID on that profit. Then, state and local corporate taxes ARE PAID on the original amount. No allowance is allowed for the federal taxes already lowering the base profit (in most states).

4) The remaining profit is distributed to the stockholders, as a return on their investment. That money is AGAIN taxes, usually as capital gains.

5) The corporation, as an entity, is not able to take a profit. They can reinvest a portion of the gross profit, and that reinvestment CREATES jobs. They have no other use for money.

6) Ergo, the governments get their share - they stifle job creation. They tax the investor, the corporation, and the employees. Frankly, they are running out of entities to tax.

7) The argument that corporations use our infrastructure, and thus should have an increased tax burden, is nonsensical. Investors pay for that infrastructure through the income and capital gains taxes they pay. Why should the government get paid twice from the same dollar?

8) Governments invest in infrastructure in order to attract businesses - and then you propose to create an onerous tax load on the corporation that will drive it out. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

But the reality is that hedge and superannuation funds own massive amounts of these stocks. Not mum and dads....So it's just one big merrygoround where Wall St clips the ticket everytime the gravy train passes them by. About two years ago Apple had over $200 billion in cash reserves. I don't feel sorry for them if they have to pay more..

So ... let's test your knowledge.

Who owns those "hedge and superannuation funds"? When they make money, who makes money? Do those "owners" pay taxes on the income derived from those accounts?

I don't care.

1) Corporations sell stock in order to fund their business venture. This venture CREATES jobs.

2) Those stocks are purchased with POST-TAX dollars. Those taxes are used to fund the myriad activities of the government at all levels.

3) The corporation makes a gross profit. Federal corporate taxes ARE PAID on that profit. Then, state and local corporate taxes ARE PAID on the original amount. No allowance is allowed for the federal taxes already lowering the base profit (in most states).

4) The remaining profit is distributed to the stockholders, as a return on their investment. That money is AGAIN taxes, usually as capital gains.

5) The corporation, as an entity, is not able to take a profit. They can reinvest a portion of the gross profit, and that reinvestment CREATES jobs. They have no other use for money.

6) Ergo, the governments get their share - they stifle job creation. They tax the investor, the corporation, and the employees. Frankly, they are running out of entities to tax.

7) The argument that corporations use our infrastructure, and thus should have an increased tax burden, is nonsensical. Investors pay for that infrastructure through the income and capital gains taxes they pay. Why should the government get paid twice from the same dollar?

8) Governments invest in infrastructure in order to attract businesses - and then you propose to create an onerous tax load on the corporation that will drive it out. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

But the reality is that hedge and superannuation funds own massive amounts of these stocks. Not mum and dads....So it's just one big merrygoround where Wall St clips the ticket everytime the gravy train passes them by. About two years ago Apple had over $200 billion in cash reserves. I don't feel sorry for them if they have to pay more..

But you are wrong.

Let's look at the facts:

View attachment 85473

Now here's the reality. Dumping your partisan made up crap, the facts are that largest segment of the market is IRAs, Retirement plans (401Ks), Defined benefit plans (Pensions, usually for Unions), all of these add up to:

37% of Corporate Stock is owned by "mum and dads".

Of the 15% of stock owned by insurance companies:

6% or a little less than half are part of annuity, which elderly get for stable income.

4% goes to non-profits, which would include things like endowments for Universities or the Red Cross.

Plus the "Other" category includes government holdings, and 529 Savings plans.

That leaves a 20% chunk going to foreigners. What makes up that? Well some of it is foreign companies that buy stock in American companies, just like Ford owned a large chunk of stock in Mazada. So too does the Wanda Group owns stock in AMC Theaters in the US, and Sunseeker International, a yacht company in the UK.

Additionally, pension funds and retirement funds across the world, buy stock in US companies, just like I own stock in Enbridge, Novartis, and Enel.

So once again, a large chunk of Foreign owned stock is "mum and dads"

That leaves us with the taxable accounts. The stocks owned by hedge funds and private investors, and the wealthy 1%, the Waltons and Buffets of the world. All of these people, combined, barely make up 25% of the stock market.

To be as blunt as I can possibly be..... when you dump your dumb partisan left-wing bull crap out the window, here's the reality.

Roughly 50% or more of all the stocks are owned by "mum and dads".

Less that 25% are owned by "hedge and superannuation funds".

And most of the rest, is an indirect benefit to the public, like endowments for universities, insurance company benefits, and the Red Cross and so on.

I just proved conclusively, that you made up that crap. So what is your argument now, huh?

Let me guess ... you live in the state of Constant Delusion and the city of Complete Ignorance.

You don't "care" who owns hedge funds? Knowledge scares you, doesn't it?

By your own admission, "largest segment of the market is IRAs, Retirement plans (401Ks), Defined benefit plans (Pensions, usually for Unions)".

So, tell me, when you take income (in the form of 'corporate tax') from each of those groups, who gets hurt? Who DOESNT get that money? Who DOESN'T see an increase in their dividends, pension plans, etc.? WHO owns stock in the insurance companies? WHO doesn't realize increased income because you stole it as 'corporate tax'?

What money did those 'moms and dads' use to buy that stock? POST-tax dollars. WHO paid taxes on the income those investments made? Those very same 'moms and dads'. So, the simple truth is you are going to steal the income of those 'moms and dads' one way or the other.

Face it .... corporate tax is just another liberal attempt to get something they, simply, don't deserve, so that they can give SOME of it to other people who, simply, don't deserve it.

Tell the truth ... it's not a tax, it's a penalty ... a penalty on success.

 

[peabody]

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.

I don't think we should tax American corporations. Instead, we should nationalize them. Then they won't have to pay any taxes at all.

Hmmm. I don't know about that because once you take away the profit incentives and eliminate competition for that profit we might start to look like Russia. But I do think healthcare ought to be nationalized.

I'm not saying every corporation in America should be nationalized. Just financial institutions, telecom/cable/internet, oil companies, healthcare, insurance companies, chemical and food corporations.

 

[Spare_change]

Republicans want to destroy this country and suck the dick of the people that are offshoring all of our jobs.

Oh brother. You people. You listen to some idiot, that knows almost nothing, and mindlessly repeat it.

Ok, so let's actually look at reality. Why does Wisconsin suck? Because of tax cuts? You moron. You mindless ape.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin's 2016 Business Tax Climate Index Ranks 43rd
Wisconsin ranks 43rd on the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index. The Index compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes (32nd), individual income taxes (43rd), sales taxes (13th), unemployment insurance taxes (36th), and taxes on property (33rd), including residential and commercial property.

43rd.

Meaning, out of 50 states, there are only 7 states that are worse for business.

This includes corporate taxes, 7.9%, Sales tax 5%, and property tax that averages $1800 per person.

Wisconsin's individual income tax system consists of 4 brackets with a top rate of 7.65%. The top rate ranks 9th highest among states levying an individual income tax. Wisconsin's state and local tax collections per person were $1,258 in 2013, which ranked 13th highest nationally.

Wisconsin's individual income tax system consists of 4 brackets with a top rate of 7.65%. The top rate ranks 9th highest among states levying an individual income tax. Wisconsin's state and local tax collections per person were $1,258 in 2013, which ranked 13th highest nationally.
​

Over all tax collection was 13th highest in the Union.

And as for this ignorant mental case you posted.... here's the facts....

View attachment 85474

Wisconsin's economic situation was worse than Minnesota, and the US average, long before the tax cut, and longer than Scott Walker was ever elected.

Wisconsin has been, and still is, a business hostile State. Left-wing policies have made, and continue to make, Wisconsin noncompetitive to the rest of the country.

If that wasn't enough, the left-wingers have been against the logging and paper industry for decades, and Wisconsin's primary industry, is the paper industry, which between the digital age, and the growing paper imports from China, the paper industry in the US is staggering.

Paper Cuts: Wisconsin's paper industry battles the threat of digital, China as a paper power.

And lastly.... Trickle down is how the world works. The only reason there is even ONE JOB in Wisconsin is because of Trickle down.

Everything is trickle down. Everything. Not one single job would exist, without trickle down. It has always worked, and continues to work. And for you, or any other left-winger to even attempt to deny it, only signifies that you are completely and utterly unqualified to talk about the economy, and likely not mentally stable to enough to talk about any topic.

To see how foolish this stupidity is from the left, just consider the counter claim. Are you seriously suggesting that job growth would drastically increase if we just taxed the companies and people leaving Wisconsin at a higher rate? You really think that makes sense in left-tard land? How dumb can any human being be, and still breath, let alone type something this moronic into a forum?

If we just jack up taxes on companies and the public.... why jobs will just pop into existence from all the companies leaving.... yeah brilliant.

Wisconsin ranks among top states people are leaving

Just jack up those taxes dude. Everyone will turn right around "I love paying more taxes!", and head back to Wisconsin. Only the dumbest of left-wing-nuts would post this crap.

Coincidentally, I happen to be originally from Wisconsin.

I'm going to tell you about a little town called Niagara (my home town). It's located about 95 miles north of Green Bay. There was a Kimberly Clark paper mill in Niagara.It's primary product was paper like is used in magazines. Some claimed Playboy was printed on Niagara paper, but I have no proof of that. It paid the best wages in the area - about 40% better than any other company in the local area. The town was thriving, beautiful houses along the Menominee River, new cars, boats, snowmobiles - you name it.

One day, the union decided that it wanted another pay raise - they asked for a 25% increase in wages, plus greater benefits.. So, they went on strike. Kimberly Clark told the union members that if they persisted, KC would have no alternative but to close the plant because the increase in wages would make the Niagara plant non-competitive. The union told the members that would never happen - the company was just trying to scare them. The members listened.

After 4 months of negotiations, Kimberly Clark announced that they were closing the Niagara mill. The union stepped in and tried to cut a deal with KC to buy the mill. KC said that was okay, and agreed to contract with the now union-owned mill to produce the same product they were before. However, the union told the employees that, in order to keep the mill open, they would have to accept a pay CUT.

The members had no choice - they accepted the cuts in benefits and wages now demanded by the union. However, the union had no expertise in running a paper mill, in marketing the products, and quickly went bankrupt.

Today, if you drive through Niagara, you see boarded up houses, rusty cars in the yard, and old (if any) snow mobiles and boats.The streets are falling apart, and the biggest business in town is a senior citizen assisted care facility that takes in the people until they die.


THAT is what socialism will do to you .... THAT is what unions will do to you.

 

[Spare_change]

No jobs is what Democrats want

The jobs are there. Without unions, there are stagnant wages and no benefits as company profits go through the roof

With unions, those jobs get paid more than the skills are worth.

No they don't. A union ensures that the workforce is getting a fair share of the wealth they create

$50 trillion in wealth has been added to our economy since 2009. Workers saw very little of that. Strong unions would have ensured it

Fair share? Tell me how much is your fair share of someone else's money?

It is the workers creating that wealth. Because their ability to collectively negotiate, they see less and less of that wealth they generate

There's your mistake ... workers don't "create" the wealth. They work for a wage .... they are a tool the employer uses to create wealth, no different than a hammer, or a printing press. Are you suggesting we should pay hammers a 'living wage', not? What do you think the 'living wage' is for a printing press these days.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

I don't think we should tax American corporations. Instead, we should nationalize them. Then they won't have to pay any taxes at all.

Hmmm. I don't know about that because once you take away the profit incentives and eliminate competition for that profit we might start to look like Russia. But I do think healthcare ought to be nationalized.

I'm not saying every corporation in America should be nationalized. Just financial institutions, telecom/cable/internet, oil companies, healthcare, insurance companies, chemical and food corporations.

So, you just want a LITTLE socialism ... is that right? You know ... kinda selective socialism?

 

[Spare_change]

Still can't say how much of what belongs to someone else is your fair share

What a stupid fucking question. And you keep asking it over and over. Y o u stuck on stupid aren't ya?

Sounds to me like a question you're unable to answer. Does that mean you're stuck on stupid, too?

 

[Spare_change]

Still can't say how much of what belongs to someone else is your fair share

What a stupid fucking question. And you keep asking it over and over. Y o u stuck on stupid aren't ya?

It came as a result of rightwinger talking about fair share. Maybe you can answer it or are you too stupid. You've proven to be a coward.

Well, let's discuss the concept of fair then

When you sit down at a negotiating table and your opponent is holding all the cards....is it fair?
Is take it or leave it fair?

We have created a system where the employer makes the rules with the government supporting his right to do so. Do you consider resulting negotiations to be fair?

If you have nothing to offer, you shouldn't even be sitting at the table.

 

[peabody]

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.

I don't think we should tax American corporations. Instead, we should nationalize them. Then they won't have to pay any taxes at all.

Hmmm. I don't know about that because once you take away the profit incentives and eliminate competition for that profit we might start to look like Russia. But I do think healthcare ought to be nationalized.

I'm not saying every corporation in America should be nationalized. Just financial institutions, telecom/cable/internet, oil companies, healthcare, insurance companies, chemical and food corporations.

So, you just want a LITTLE socialism ... is that right? You know ... kinda selective socialism?

Well, yeah. A LITTLE socialism is what we already have in America (USPS, Medicare, fire departments) I just want a little bit more.

 

[Mortimer]

The jobs are there. Without unions, there are stagnant wages and no benefits as company profits go through the roof

With unions, those jobs get paid more than the skills are worth.

No they don't. A union ensures that the workforce is getting a fair share of the wealth they create

$50 trillion in wealth has been added to our economy since 2009. Workers saw very little of that. Strong unions would have ensured it

Fair share? Tell me how much is your fair share of someone else's money?

It is the workers creating that wealth. Because their ability to collectively negotiate, they see less and less of that wealth they generate

There's your mistake ... workers don't "create" the wealth. They work for a wage .... they are a tool the employer uses to create wealth, no different than a hammer, or a printing press. Are you suggesting we should pay hammers a 'living wage', not? What do you think the 'living wage' is for a printing press these days.

If you are not a rich guy I dont understand your views. Socialists fought to change the working week to humanistic hours and to improve work environment for workers. Before even children had to work in factories hard menial labour. The minimum wage is another improvement, you cant pay 1$ a hour for hard work thats inhumane. There needs to be regulations or capitalists would eat the small people.