Corportate Tax Breaks Explained for Marixt Idiots

[g5000]

When you defend tax expenditures, you are one of the "gimme gimme gimme and make that guy over there pay for it" welfare queen assholes.

Fact.

 

[Brain357]

Actually I have been talking about tax cuts.

The opposite of "tax expenditures = higher tax rates, is "eliminating tax expenditures = lower tax rates for EVERYONE".

I've said that many hundreds of times on this forum.

Of course, you aren't proposing to lower rates to compensate for eliminating the tax cuts.

Yes I am, you stupidly and willfully blind retard. Without fail, every single time I have talked about eliminating tax expenditures, I have said it would allow us to reduce tax rates for EVERYONE. I have always capitalized EVERYONE to drive home the point that tax expenditures STEAL from EVERYONE.

I do not understand why you fucking assholes feel the need to make up lies. I really don't. You completely destroy your credibility. So eat shit and die motherfucker.

When I said I have talked about lowering tax rates for EVERYONE hundreds of times on this forum, I meant it literally. And I have said it directly to YOU several times. So stop lying asshole.

Here are some examples, with the relevant words blown up so even a fucking lying asshole like you can't miss them:

If we eliminated all tax expenditures, we would have at least $800 billion surplus in revenues.

That means tax rates could be reduced for EVERYONE.

Tax expenditures are being paid for with higher tax rates and deficits.

When you hear politicians talk about "broadening the tax base", this is what they are talking about.

By eliminating tax expenditures (you can call them "tax breaks" or "subsidies" or whatever you feel like), you can then lower everyone's tax rates. And everyone pays the same amount as everyone else who earns the same income.

The reason we cannot lower rates now is because you have to subsidize all those deductions people are getting now.

.

As for tax rates, we could significantly lower tax rates for EVERYONE if we banned tax expenditures.

But just try to get someone to give up their mortgage interest deduction or child tax credit which is paid for by someone else. They scream like the welfare queen they are.

1. Lower the tax rates, broaden the tax base. We do this simply by eliminating tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are gifts to special interests that are paid for by higher tax rates on everyone and heavy borrowing. We are mortgaging our future so special interests can steal more money from us.

2. Increase the retirement age to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors who established SS, we should be working longer. Common fricking sense.

These two things alone would give us such a ridiculous surplus, we could balance the budget, lower tax rates for EVERYONE, and pay down the debt. All at the same time.

And it would give us instant campaign finance reform. If we banned Congress from putting tax expenditures in the tax code, the special interests would lose the incentive to bribe Congressmen to do so. Again, common fricking sense.

I can do this all fucking day, you lying fuck.

I recall posts where you said eliminating tax expenditures would be a good way to eliminate the deficit. How can it do that if it's revenue nuetral?

Face it: you're lying.

Eliminating tax expenditures is not revenue neutral, you innumerate idiot.

What I clearly said many, many times is that the eliminating the amount of tax expenditures (over a trillion dollars) would increase revenues. We could then decide what to do with that increase. We could use most of it to lower tax rates, and use some to pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid down, we could lower tax rates even more.

I can't remember how many times I said that very thing on this forum. But you willfully blind assholes make up lies about what I think and believe, in the fact of reality and facts.

That's what pseudocons asshole tards do. You are the most dishonest people who have ever walked the Earth.

Just as I said, you use the "eliminate tax expenditures" as a ploy to increase taxes. Increasing tax revenues has never lowered the deficit one iota. Congress just spends all the new money and then 3 times more.

You think it's best to have lots of expenditures and let big gov pick winners and losers?

 

[g5000]

Say for instance there's a large boat harbor on the seaside. The harbormaster's name is Mr. Sam and he owns the landing and the boat docks.

There are ten ships docked in the harbor. Each of the ship-owners pays Mr. Sam a yearly fee that goes into maintenance of the harbor, and to protect them from pirates.

One of the ship-owners is an enterprising man named Mr. Hat. He tells the harbormaster that he will do some minor renovations to the docks and will give jobs to some of the riff-raff hanging around the docks, if Mr. Sam will forgo the harbor fee for a year.

Now tell me: How much did the other nine ship-owners have to fork over to cover Mr. Hat's yearly fee?

I'm not sure the point you're making here.

You seem to be implying that those people getting corporate tax cuts are somehow doing the maintenance for everyone else. They're not.

Exactly. That's why his analogy fails catastrophically.

In real life Mr Hat gets a tax break because he painted his boat, and every other boat owner has to pay higher fees because of his tax break.

 

[g5000]

Of course, you aren't proposing to lower rates to compensate for eliminating the tax cuts.

Yes I am, you stupidly and willfully blind retard. Without fail, every single time I have talked about eliminating tax expenditures, I have said it would allow us to reduce tax rates for EVERYONE. I have always capitalized EVERYONE to drive home the point that tax expenditures STEAL from EVERYONE.

I do not understand why you fucking assholes feel the need to make up lies. I really don't. You completely destroy your credibility. So eat shit and die motherfucker.

When I said I have talked about lowering tax rates for EVERYONE hundreds of times on this forum, I meant it literally. And I have said it directly to YOU several times. So stop lying asshole.

Here are some examples, with the relevant words blown up so even a fucking lying asshole like you can't miss them:

If we eliminated all tax expenditures, we would have at least $800 billion surplus in revenues.

That means tax rates could be reduced for EVERYONE.

Tax expenditures are being paid for with higher tax rates and deficits.

When you hear politicians talk about "broadening the tax base", this is what they are talking about.

By eliminating tax expenditures (you can call them "tax breaks" or "subsidies" or whatever you feel like), you can then lower everyone's tax rates. And everyone pays the same amount as everyone else who earns the same income.

The reason we cannot lower rates now is because you have to subsidize all those deductions people are getting now.

.

As for tax rates, we could significantly lower tax rates for EVERYONE if we banned tax expenditures.

But just try to get someone to give up their mortgage interest deduction or child tax credit which is paid for by someone else. They scream like the welfare queen they are.

1. Lower the tax rates, broaden the tax base. We do this simply by eliminating tax expenditures. Tax expenditures are gifts to special interests that are paid for by higher tax rates on everyone and heavy borrowing. We are mortgaging our future so special interests can steal more money from us.

2. Increase the retirement age to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population going forward. We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors who established SS, we should be working longer. Common fricking sense.

These two things alone would give us such a ridiculous surplus, we could balance the budget, lower tax rates for EVERYONE, and pay down the debt. All at the same time.

And it would give us instant campaign finance reform. If we banned Congress from putting tax expenditures in the tax code, the special interests would lose the incentive to bribe Congressmen to do so. Again, common fricking sense.

I can do this all fucking day, you lying fuck.

I recall posts where you said eliminating tax expenditures would be a good way to eliminate the deficit. How can it do that if it's revenue nuetral?

Face it: you're lying.

Eliminating tax expenditures is not revenue neutral, you innumerate idiot.

What I clearly said many, many times is that the eliminating the amount of tax expenditures (over a trillion dollars) would increase revenues. We could then decide what to do with that increase. We could use most of it to lower tax rates, and use some to pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid down, we could lower tax rates even more.

I can't remember how many times I said that very thing on this forum. But you willfully blind assholes make up lies about what I think and believe, in the fact of reality and facts.

That's what pseudocons asshole tards do. You are the most dishonest people who have ever walked the Earth.

Just as I said, you use the "eliminate tax expenditures" as a ploy to increase taxes. Increasing tax revenues has never lowered the deficit one iota. Congress just spends all the new money and then 3 times more.

You think it's best to have lots of expenditures and let big gov pick winners and losers?

That's exactly what these pseudocons believe.

 

[Brain357]

Yes I am, you stupidly and willfully blind retard. Without fail, every single time I have talked about eliminating tax expenditures, I have said it would allow us to reduce tax rates for EVERYONE. I have always capitalized EVERYONE to drive home the point that tax expenditures STEAL from EVERYONE.

I do not understand why you fucking assholes feel the need to make up lies. I really don't. You completely destroy your credibility. So eat shit and die motherfucker.

When I said I have talked about lowering tax rates for EVERYONE hundreds of times on this forum, I meant it literally. And I have said it directly to YOU several times. So stop lying asshole.

Here are some examples, with the relevant words blown up so even a fucking lying asshole like you can't miss them:

I can do this all fucking day, you lying fuck.

I recall posts where you said eliminating tax expenditures would be a good way to eliminate the deficit. How can it do that if it's revenue nuetral?

Face it: you're lying.

Eliminating tax expenditures is not revenue neutral, you innumerate idiot.

What I clearly said many, many times is that the eliminating the amount of tax expenditures (over a trillion dollars) would increase revenues. We could then decide what to do with that increase. We could use most of it to lower tax rates, and use some to pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid down, we could lower tax rates even more.

I can't remember how many times I said that very thing on this forum. But you willfully blind assholes make up lies about what I think and believe, in the fact of reality and facts.

That's what pseudocons asshole tards do. You are the most dishonest people who have ever walked the Earth.

Just as I said, you use the "eliminate tax expenditures" as a ploy to increase taxes. Increasing tax revenues has never lowered the deficit one iota. Congress just spends all the new money and then 3 times more.

You think it's best to have lots of expenditures and let big gov pick winners and losers?

That's exactly what these pseudocons believe.

While claiming to be for small gov. It's amazing.

 

[g5000]

It should be stunning, but it isn't, that it never occurred to these pseudocon tards how a one page tax return isn't possible unless you eliminate most, if not all, tax expenditures.

They sat there and cheered as their demagogues talked about one page tax returns, and then come here and defend tax expenditures.

It takes a very special kind of mental retardation to be that schizophrenic.

And they think I'm the leftie! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

 

[bripat9643]

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

Another thing I have said many, many times on this forum is that every time you propose eliminating tax expenditures, the pseudocons scream like welfare queens.

TA-DAAAAAAA!

The welfare parasites are the ones constantly bleating "gimme gimme gimme."

 

[bripat9643]

I recall posts where you said eliminating tax expenditures would be a good way to eliminate the deficit. How can it do that if it's revenue nuetral?

Face it: you're lying.

Eliminating tax expenditures is not revenue neutral, you innumerate idiot.

What I clearly said many, many times is that the eliminating the amount of tax expenditures (over a trillion dollars) would increase revenues. We could then decide what to do with that increase. We could use most of it to lower tax rates, and use some to pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid down, we could lower tax rates even more.

I can't remember how many times I said that very thing on this forum. But you willfully blind assholes make up lies about what I think and believe, in the fact of reality and facts.

That's what pseudocons asshole tards do. You are the most dishonest people who have ever walked the Earth.

Just as I said, you use the "eliminate tax expenditures" as a ploy to increase taxes. Increasing tax revenues has never lowered the deficit one iota. Congress just spends all the new money and then 3 times more.

You think it's best to have lots of expenditures and let big gov pick winners and losers?

That's exactly what these pseudocons believe.

While claiming to be for small gov. It's amazing.

Eliminating "tax expenditures" increases government revenues. g5000 even admitted it.

 

[g5000]

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

Another thing I have said many, many times on this forum is that every time you propose eliminating tax expenditures, the pseudocons scream like welfare queens.

TA-DAAAAAAA!

The welfare parasites are the ones constantly bleating "gimme gimme gimme."

Yes, precisely. People like you demanding your tax expenditure government handout which has to be paid for by higher tax rates on everyone.

You are a welfare queen.

 

[bripat9643]

It should be stunning, but it isn't, that it never occurred to these pseudocon tards how a one page tax return isn't possible unless you eliminate most, if not all, tax expenditures.

They sat there and cheered as their demagogues talked about one page tax returns, and then come here and defend tax expenditures.

It takes a very special kind of mental retardation to be that schizophrenic.

And they think I'm the leftie! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

If you managed to eliminate them, it would only be matter of a few years before Congress put them all back again. That's what happened when Reagan eliminated them. The only permanent way to eliminate them is to get rid of the income tax, period.

 

[g5000]

Eliminating tax expenditures is not revenue neutral, you innumerate idiot.

What I clearly said many, many times is that the eliminating the amount of tax expenditures (over a trillion dollars) would increase revenues. We could then decide what to do with that increase. We could use most of it to lower tax rates, and use some to pay down the debt. Then once the debt was paid down, we could lower tax rates even more.

I can't remember how many times I said that very thing on this forum. But you willfully blind assholes make up lies about what I think and believe, in the fact of reality and facts.

That's what pseudocons asshole tards do. You are the most dishonest people who have ever walked the Earth.

Just as I said, you use the "eliminate tax expenditures" as a ploy to increase taxes. Increasing tax revenues has never lowered the deficit one iota. Congress just spends all the new money and then 3 times more.

You think it's best to have lots of expenditures and let big gov pick winners and losers?

That's exactly what these pseudocons believe.

While claiming to be for small gov. It's amazing.

Eliminating "tax expenditures" increases government revenues. g5000 even admitted it.

Which in turn allows for lowering tax rates on EVERYONE.

Why do you tell nothing but lies and half truths, welfare queen?

 

[bripat9643]

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

Another thing I have said many, many times on this forum is that every time you propose eliminating tax expenditures, the pseudocons scream like welfare queens.

TA-DAAAAAAA!

The welfare parasites are the ones constantly bleating "gimme gimme gimme."

Yes, precisely. People like you demanding your tax expenditure government handout which has to be paid for by higher tax rates on everyone.

You are a welfare queen.

PHHHHHT!!!

You aren't fooling anyone. You are lobbying for more money for the thieves in Congress.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong. That is not what I believe.

You tards are a bottomless pit of logical fallacies. No wonder you were so easily hoaxed into thinking tax expenditures are not theft.

Taxes are theft you moron. And spending more on worthless government programs doesn't help anyone. Not even the ones you claim will get something for free. You still think the government is owed first above any of a personal need or use of that money. So in your simple mind we exist to work for the government and maybe can eek out a poppers existence with what the almighty fat girl at the DMV allows you to have. You're an idiot. A willing one.

Spoken ,like a true America hating Trumpette. Supporting your country is stealing from you?

You mean supporting a bunch of dead beats, don't you?

Taxation is theft. No one has ever managed to prove otherwise.

See? This guy believes there should be NO government. At all.

Imagine his world if you can.

I'm sure if some government employee wasn't there to tell you to eat you'd starve to death.

So you're agreeing with bripat that no government should have the power to tax?

lol, two idiots.

 

[bripat9643]

Just as I said, you use the "eliminate tax expenditures" as a ploy to increase taxes. Increasing tax revenues has never lowered the deficit one iota. Congress just spends all the new money and then 3 times more.

You think it's best to have lots of expenditures and let big gov pick winners and losers?

That's exactly what these pseudocons believe.

While claiming to be for small gov. It's amazing.

Eliminating "tax expenditures" increases government revenues. g5000 even admitted it.

Which in turn allows for lowering tax rates on EVERYONE.

Why do you tell nothing but lies and half truths, welfare queen?

You just admitted you want Congress to keep the additional revenue.

 

[g5000]

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

Another thing I have said many, many times on this forum is that every time you propose eliminating tax expenditures, the pseudocons scream like welfare queens.

TA-DAAAAAAA!

The welfare parasites are the ones constantly bleating "gimme gimme gimme."

Yes, precisely. People like you demanding your tax expenditure government handout which has to be paid for by higher tax rates on everyone.

You are a welfare queen.

PHHHHHT!!!

You aren't fooling anyone. You are lobbying for more money for the thieves in Congress.

And here we see the willfull blindness shades drop over the tard's eyes.

Every. Single. Time.

All in the name of protecting their welfare handout.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then why do you keep voting Republican?

They can't balance the budget. They hand out tax cuts to the wealthy. They don't cut spending.

Yes they do cut regulations. Make our air & water dirtier, increase emissions, deregulate Wall Street. That all worked out so well.

You live a dream world.

Are you and idiot? I highlighted your stupid shit lib talking points nonsense.

The Bush Tsax cuts heavily favored the Wealthy. Your orange buddy's tax cuts do too.

When you cut regulations that were to make air & water cleaner, guess what the vuck happens. I would think that even a person as duped as you could figure that one out.

LOL more liberal talking points. Obama already raised taxes on the 'rich' so you have nothing to bitch about now, right.

And since the taxes on the Rich were raised, the economy is doing well and the deficit is falling.

Two things you RWnuts said couldn't happen.

LOL do you know how puny Obama's tax increase on the rich was? You just destroyed yourself thanks for saving me the trouble

Gee you sure cried about it for no reason.

And lest you forget, Clinton raised taxes on the Rich and got 7 years of economic expansion afterwards,

something else the GOP claimed couldn't happen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Say for instance there's a large boat harbor on the seaside. The harbormaster's name is Mr. Sam and he owns the landing and the boat docks.

There are ten ships docked in the harbor. Each of the ship-owners pays Mr. Sam a yearly fee that goes into maintenance of the harbor, and to protect them from pirates.

One of the ship-owners is an enterprising man named Mr. Hat. He tells the harbormaster that he will do some minor renovations to the docks and will give jobs to some of the riff-raff hanging around the docks, if Mr. Sam will forgo the harbor fee for a year.

Now tell me: How much did the other nine ship-owners have to fork over to cover Mr. Hat's yearly fee?

I'm not sure the point you're making here.

You seem to be implying that those people getting corporate tax cuts are somehow doing the maintenance for everyone else. They're not.

Exactly. That's why his analogy fails catastrophically.

In real life Mr Hat gets a tax break because he painted his boat, and every other boat owner has to pay higher fees because of his tax break.

Even worse, his analogy would be that he gives the harbor master a blow job, and then gets paid $20 million for it.

 

[Conservative65]

Interesting that you don't have a problem with the tax loopholes that allow the family of four making almost $50,000 to pay zero income tax. For the corporations to use what you call loopholes, they have to actually do something. For that family of four to pay nothing, they simply have to exist as a family of four.

Interesting......So, morons like you would side MORE with a corporation and the CEOs need for new Lear Jets, and LESS with a family of 4 making $50K.

I'll let others judge how fucked up you are.

What's fucked up is that family of four thinking it's OK for them to CONTINUE to pay nothing while expecting others to pay more of something they already pay.

I think they all should pay something. You think only certain groups should.

 

[nat4900]

Gee you sure cried about it for no reason.

And lest you forget, Clinton raised taxes on the Rich and got 7 years of economic expansion afterwards,

something else the GOP claimed couldn't happen.

Reagan's trickle down "prosperity, FAILED
GWB continuation of trickle down "prosperity, FAILED miserably

Want to guess how Trump's trickle down "prosperity" will turn out???

 

[Conservative65]

Say for instance there's a large boat harbor on the seaside. The harbormaster's name is Mr. Sam and he owns the landing and the boat docks.

There are ten ships docked in the harbor. Each of the ship-owners pays Mr. Sam a yearly fee that goes into maintenance of the harbor, and to protect them from pirates.

One of the ship-owners is an enterprising man named Mr. Hat. He tells the harbormaster that he will do some minor renovations to the docks and will give jobs to some of the riff-raff hanging around the docks, if Mr. Sam will forgo the harbor fee for a year.

Now tell me: How much did the other nine ship-owners have to fork over to cover Mr. Hat's yearly fee?

I'm not sure the point you're making here.

You seem to be implying that those people getting corporate tax cuts are somehow doing the maintenance for everyone else. They're not.

Exactly. That's why his analogy fails catastrophically.

In real life Mr Hat gets a tax break because he painted his boat, and every other boat owner has to pay higher fees because of his tax break.

Even worse, his analogy would be that he gives the harbor master a blow job, and then gets paid $20 million for it.

You don't have a problem kissing Obama's ass and doing it for nothing.