Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We know we can't because the people who give the concept the most lip service don't do it when they are handed the country on a silver platter. The hypocrites spend as much or more on their pet programs and projects.How do "we" know spending can't be cut? That's the opinion of the liberal, not an actual fact. Of course we can cut spending, by a LOT. We can start with eliminating many federal bureaucracies, like the dept. of education and let the states handle it. A government that thinks its' primary role is to provide great paying jobs and benefits is doomed to failure. Raising taxes to fund it slows everything down, the private sector has to pay for it all.We know that it's impossible to cut spending significantly or for any significant period, so cutting taxes has but one effect - accelerate the growth of our already humongous debt.
You want even more debt? Reduce corporate taxes for the 40% of corporations who pay corporate taxes (the other 60% are structured as pass-through corporations and don't pay corporate tax).
Concerned about the debt? Then raise taxes, starting with those at the top who have benefited the most from thirty-plus years of unaffordably low tax rates. It's time to share some of those politically motivated gifts with the rest of the country for a change. We need the revenue more than they do.
We always have.
Letting people and corporations keep more of their money isn't a gift because it doesn't belong to you or mother government.
We know we can't because we don't. Don't like the choice of words? How about we won't cut spending. We know we won't because given every opportunity to do so, we don't do it. There is no reason to do it. You can't cut spending without taking something away from tax-paying voters who have demanded it, and stiffing tax-paying voters costs votes.
In a perfect world where our representatives agreed to forfeit their careers and cut programs and services and the agencies that serve us, it would last as long as the next election cycle when we'd replace them all with people who would restore what we originally demanded and still want.
Get it? We don't cut spending, ever. We don't because of the way our representative system of government is set up. Need a new VA hospital in your town to boost your local economy? No problem. You don't have the pay for it, everyone in the country will pay for it. Your congressman puts it in a bill and gets others to support it because he promises to support their bills to build monuments in their city parks and dredge the lakes for their local resort industry.
We don't cut spending and never will. Get that through your head.
We can raise tax revenue, though. We have a lot of lost ground to make up since the '80s and we can't postpone it forever. Eventually all this borrowing is going to become too burdensome to service, and then we'll really be in the soup.
The better solution is to quit hiring politicians drunk with our money and replace them with fiscal conservatives.We know we can't because the people who give the concept the most lip service don't do it when they are handed the country on a silver platter. The hypocrites spend as much or more on their pet programs and projects.How do "we" know spending can't be cut? That's the opinion of the liberal, not an actual fact. Of course we can cut spending, by a LOT. We can start with eliminating many federal bureaucracies, like the dept. of education and let the states handle it. A government that thinks its' primary role is to provide great paying jobs and benefits is doomed to failure. Raising taxes to fund it slows everything down, the private sector has to pay for it all.We know that it's impossible to cut spending significantly or for any significant period, so cutting taxes has but one effect - accelerate the growth of our already humongous debt.
You want even more debt? Reduce corporate taxes for the 40% of corporations who pay corporate taxes (the other 60% are structured as pass-through corporations and don't pay corporate tax).
Concerned about the debt? Then raise taxes, starting with those at the top who have benefited the most from thirty-plus years of unaffordably low tax rates. It's time to share some of those politically motivated gifts with the rest of the country for a change. We need the revenue more than they do.
We always have.
Letting people and corporations keep more of their money isn't a gift because it doesn't belong to you or mother government.
We know we can't because we don't. Don't like the choice of words? How about we won't cut spending. We know we won't because given every opportunity to do so, we don't do it. There is no reason to do it. You can't cut spending without taking something away from tax-paying voters who have demanded it, and stiffing tax-paying voters costs votes.
In a perfect world where our representatives agreed to forfeit their careers and cut programs and services and the agencies that serve us, it would last as long as the next election cycle when we'd replace them all with people who would restore what we originally demanded and still want.
Get it? We don't cut spending, ever. We don't because of the way our representative system of government is set up. Need a new VA hospital in your town to boost your local economy? No problem. You don't have the pay for it, everyone in the country will pay for it. Your congressman puts it in a bill and gets others to support it because he promises to support their bills to build monuments in their city parks and dredge the lakes for their local resort industry.
We don't cut spending and never will. Get that through your head.
We can raise tax revenue, though. We have a lot of lost ground to make up since the '80s and we can't postpone it forever. Eventually all this borrowing is going to become too burdensome to service, and then we'll really be in the soup.
A solution was passed by The Congress decades ago but the USSC found it violated COTUS. Here is an idea to control spending and not need to try and pass a Constitutional Amendment:
Understanding the Line-Item Veto With a Twist - No Labels
The stated theory is not even a theory, it is reflected in the cost of production on every balance sheet in the world. Cutting the cost of production is awesome for the owners but it is theft from the working class economy in jobs and wages. American productivity is still among the best in the world but it has done very little for those who actually produce.What doe trickle down mean to you? And where is your evidence that lowering corporate taxes doesn't help? And no, automation isn't the reason jobs go overseas.Not at all, the argument that increased jobs and the income taxes offset corporate tax cuts can no longer be used because we are losing more jobs to automation than any possible trickle down effect could create.
Why would a corporation pass on tax savings to its employees or customers? Before doing such a thing I might expect them to buy out competition, especially start ups, expand operations overseas, give raises to the CEO, CFO, etc. and maybe toss a penny or two to common stock holders.
Because of competitions. When other firms have more resources they will try to hire the best and thus wages must come up.
It's simple if only you aren't subscribed to the Marxist version of economics, also known as fairy tales.
"The labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics, which is evident in Marx's masterpiece, Capital (1867). The theory's basic claim is simple: the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity."
Now, consider if there is some truth to his theory, why would a corporation higher more and better workers and pay them more when technology & robotics can replace people?
Where do you think robots come from? Are they not produced by employees that need to be hired? The more money corporations have, the more work they need done... and thus the higher the wage offered.
So the solution is simple, once you consider that there is no truth to Marx's theory.
A company is going to replace a $50k employee with a $20k robot. No stopping that.In today's world where automation has replaced an incredible amount of labor your trickle down ideas are antiquated. What happens when a company uses their tax breaks to replace people with robots? It's a permanent tax loss for the government. The future looks bleak in this regard as automation stands to decimate the service sector as well.If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?
My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.
Well, I'm a registered Republican and I favor a sales tax instead of an income tax. I don't see taxing corporations as a good thing myself. Corporation create jobs. Were corporations not taxed and regulated so harshly, they might create more jobs from which personal income taxes could be gained. Corporation are also the source for many of the investments paying the retirement expenses of many of our elderly. A more friendly tax structure would tend to keep corporations from moving abroad and encourage their own reinvestment into capital equipment and expansion.
The stated theory is not even a theory, it is reflected in the cost of production on every balance sheet in the world. Cutting the cost of production is awesome for the owners but it is theft from the working class economy in jobs and wages. American productivity is still among the best in the world but it has done very little for those who actually produce.What doe trickle down mean to you? And where is your evidence that lowering corporate taxes doesn't help? And no, automation isn't the reason jobs go overseas.
Why would a corporation pass on tax savings to its employees or customers? Before doing such a thing I might expect them to buy out competition, especially start ups, expand operations overseas, give raises to the CEO, CFO, etc. and maybe toss a penny or two to common stock holders.
Because of competitions. When other firms have more resources they will try to hire the best and thus wages must come up.
It's simple if only you aren't subscribed to the Marxist version of economics, also known as fairy tales.
"The labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics, which is evident in Marx's masterpiece, Capital (1867). The theory's basic claim is simple: the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity."
Now, consider if there is some truth to his theory, why would a corporation higher more and better workers and pay them more when technology & robotics can replace people?
Where do you think robots come from? Are they not produced by employees that need to be hired? The more money corporations have, the more work they need done... and thus the higher the wage offered.
So the solution is simple, once you consider that there is no truth to Marx's theory.
Can you answer my specific questions? How much taxes do companies pay on a dollar now and what should it be?All corporate profits get taxed because they all eventually wind up in the hands of people either via salaries, dividends, or even stock sales.If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?
My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.
Corporations do not hoard profits if they did they would have no investors willing to buy their stocks.
Decreasing the tax burden on profits will mean not only will those costs not be passed on to the consumer but more money will eventually end up in the hands of individuals where it will then be taxed
Or does not taxing a corporation stop the automation?In today's world where automation has replaced an incredible amount of labor your trickle down ideas are antiquated. What happens when a company uses their tax breaks to replace people with robots? It's a permanent tax loss for the government. The future looks bleak in this regard as automation stands to decimate the service sector as well.If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?
My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.
Well, I'm a registered Republican and I favor a sales tax instead of an income tax. I don't see taxing corporations as a good thing myself. Corporation create jobs. Were corporations not taxed and regulated so harshly, they might create more jobs from which personal income taxes could be gained. Corporation are also the source for many of the investments paying the retirement expenses of many of our elderly. A more friendly tax structure would tend to keep corporations from moving abroad and encourage their own reinvestment into capital equipment and expansion.
Does taxing the corporation somehow stop the progress of automation?
How many years have you been in business? The answer is obviously ZERO. Nobody starts a business to provide jobs. You are not entitled to a job. If you can be replaced with a machine, tough shit. That's what happens when you have few skills.The stated theory is not even a theory, it is reflected in the cost of production on every balance sheet in the world. Cutting the cost of production is awesome for the owners but it is theft from the working class economy in jobs and wages. American productivity is still among the best in the world but it has done very little for those who actually produce.What doe trickle down mean to you? And where is your evidence that lowering corporate taxes doesn't help? And no, automation isn't the reason jobs go overseas.
Why would a corporation pass on tax savings to its employees or customers? Before doing such a thing I might expect them to buy out competition, especially start ups, expand operations overseas, give raises to the CEO, CFO, etc. and maybe toss a penny or two to common stock holders.
Because of competitions. When other firms have more resources they will try to hire the best and thus wages must come up.
It's simple if only you aren't subscribed to the Marxist version of economics, also known as fairy tales.
"The labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics, which is evident in Marx's masterpiece, Capital (1867). The theory's basic claim is simple: the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity."
Now, consider if there is some truth to his theory, why would a corporation higher more and better workers and pay them more when technology & robotics can replace people?
Where do you think robots come from? Are they not produced by employees that need to be hired? The more money corporations have, the more work they need done... and thus the higher the wage offered.
So the solution is simple, once you consider that there is no truth to Marx's theory.
Not any of the Republicans you ran against trump right? So if they were all rinos, who's a real Republican in the GOP? Name them. And why didn't they get the nomination? Why did secretly liberal trump? Mr tariffs.The better solution is to quit hiring politicians drunk with our money and replace them with fiscal conservatives.We know we can't because the people who give the concept the most lip service don't do it when they are handed the country on a silver platter. The hypocrites spend as much or more on their pet programs and projects.How do "we" know spending can't be cut? That's the opinion of the liberal, not an actual fact. Of course we can cut spending, by a LOT. We can start with eliminating many federal bureaucracies, like the dept. of education and let the states handle it. A government that thinks its' primary role is to provide great paying jobs and benefits is doomed to failure. Raising taxes to fund it slows everything down, the private sector has to pay for it all.We know that it's impossible to cut spending significantly or for any significant period, so cutting taxes has but one effect - accelerate the growth of our already humongous debt.
You want even more debt? Reduce corporate taxes for the 40% of corporations who pay corporate taxes (the other 60% are structured as pass-through corporations and don't pay corporate tax).
Concerned about the debt? Then raise taxes, starting with those at the top who have benefited the most from thirty-plus years of unaffordably low tax rates. It's time to share some of those politically motivated gifts with the rest of the country for a change. We need the revenue more than they do.
We always have.
Letting people and corporations keep more of their money isn't a gift because it doesn't belong to you or mother government.
We know we can't because we don't. Don't like the choice of words? How about we won't cut spending. We know we won't because given every opportunity to do so, we don't do it. There is no reason to do it. You can't cut spending without taking something away from tax-paying voters who have demanded it, and stiffing tax-paying voters costs votes.
In a perfect world where our representatives agreed to forfeit their careers and cut programs and services and the agencies that serve us, it would last as long as the next election cycle when we'd replace them all with people who would restore what we originally demanded and still want.
Get it? We don't cut spending, ever. We don't because of the way our representative system of government is set up. Need a new VA hospital in your town to boost your local economy? No problem. You don't have the pay for it, everyone in the country will pay for it. Your congressman puts it in a bill and gets others to support it because he promises to support their bills to build monuments in their city parks and dredge the lakes for their local resort industry.
We don't cut spending and never will. Get that through your head.
We can raise tax revenue, though. We have a lot of lost ground to make up since the '80s and we can't postpone it forever. Eventually all this borrowing is going to become too burdensome to service, and then we'll really be in the soup.
A solution was passed by The Congress decades ago but the USSC found it violated COTUS. Here is an idea to control spending and not need to try and pass a Constitutional Amendment:
Understanding the Line-Item Veto With a Twist - No Labels
If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?
My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.
Well, I'm a registered Republican and I favor a sales tax instead of an income tax. I don't see taxing corporations as a good thing myself. Corporation create jobs. Were corporations not taxed and regulated so harshly, they might create more jobs from which personal income taxes could be gained. Corporation are also the source for many of the investments paying the retirement expenses of many of our elderly. A more friendly tax structure would tend to keep corporations from moving abroad and encourage their own reinvestment into capital equipment and expansion.
If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?
My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.
You want to talk fair? Who has the highest corporate tax rate in the world? How fair is it that China and India are not subject to the level of environmental and other regulations that the US is subjected to? If you define corporations like the a IRS does, a single construction worker can set himself up as a corporation. How much taxes and regulations are you people going to stick him with?
Socialism in its prime, stay away from the well you inbred fuck... LolIf not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?
My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.
You want to talk fair? Who has the highest corporate tax rate in the world? How fair is it that China and India are not subject to the level of environmental and other regulations that the US is subjected to? If you define corporations like the a IRS does, a single construction worker can set himself up as a corporation. How much taxes and regulations are you people going to stick him with?
You want our environment to mirror China's ? Supersmog so think you can't even see the city ! People are forced to walk around wearing face masks.
This is not Marxist theory, it is econ 101. There are two ways for a company to make a profit, cutting costs and increasing sales. The first makes money flow up and the other down to the working class. It is far easier to show the stockholders a quarterly profit by wringing more productivity from the workers than to increase sales and for the last twenty years this has been the go-to method to remain profitable. The downside to this is stagnant wages and fewer jobs.The stated theory is not even a theory, it is reflected in the cost of production on every balance sheet in the world. Cutting the cost of production is awesome for the owners but it is theft from the working class economy in jobs and wages. American productivity is still among the best in the world but it has done very little for those who actually produce.Why would a corporation pass on tax savings to its employees or customers? Before doing such a thing I might expect them to buy out competition, especially start ups, expand operations overseas, give raises to the CEO, CFO, etc. and maybe toss a penny or two to common stock holders.
Because of competitions. When other firms have more resources they will try to hire the best and thus wages must come up.
It's simple if only you aren't subscribed to the Marxist version of economics, also known as fairy tales.
"The labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics, which is evident in Marx's masterpiece, Capital (1867). The theory's basic claim is simple: the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity."
Now, consider if there is some truth to his theory, why would a corporation higher more and better workers and pay them more when technology & robotics can replace people?
Where do you think robots come from? Are they not produced by employees that need to be hired? The more money corporations have, the more work they need done... and thus the higher the wage offered.
So the solution is simple, once you consider that there is no truth to Marx's theory.
No, it's a theory, and a real shitty one at that. Sorry, you won't get Marxist theory of value popping out of balance sheets.
Cutting costs is what makes economies thrive and the middle class rich. Claiming otherwise is again more Marxist nonsense.
Also you might want to reconsider your definition of theft.
I've said that for years about American corporations having to pay for employees healthcare. How can we compete with other countries who take that off their corporations plates with nationalized healthcare.If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?
My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.
You want to talk fair? Who has the highest corporate tax rate in the world? How fair is it that China and India are not subject to the level of environmental and other regulations that the US is subjected to? If you define corporations like the a IRS does, a single construction worker can set himself up as a corporation. How much taxes and regulations are you people going to stick him with?
Conservative and Republican don't have the same meaning. Trump wants to lower corporate tax rates and shitcan obamacare for starters.Not any of the Republicans you ran against trump right? So if they were all rinos, who's a real Republican in the GOP? Name them. And why didn't they get the nomination? Why did secretly liberal trump? Mr tariffs.The better solution is to quit hiring politicians drunk with our money and replace them with fiscal conservatives.We know we can't because the people who give the concept the most lip service don't do it when they are handed the country on a silver platter. The hypocrites spend as much or more on their pet programs and projects.How do "we" know spending can't be cut? That's the opinion of the liberal, not an actual fact. Of course we can cut spending, by a LOT. We can start with eliminating many federal bureaucracies, like the dept. of education and let the states handle it. A government that thinks its' primary role is to provide great paying jobs and benefits is doomed to failure. Raising taxes to fund it slows everything down, the private sector has to pay for it all.We know that it's impossible to cut spending significantly or for any significant period, so cutting taxes has but one effect - accelerate the growth of our already humongous debt.
You want even more debt? Reduce corporate taxes for the 40% of corporations who pay corporate taxes (the other 60% are structured as pass-through corporations and don't pay corporate tax).
Concerned about the debt? Then raise taxes, starting with those at the top who have benefited the most from thirty-plus years of unaffordably low tax rates. It's time to share some of those politically motivated gifts with the rest of the country for a change. We need the revenue more than they do.
We always have.
Letting people and corporations keep more of their money isn't a gift because it doesn't belong to you or mother government.
We know we can't because we don't. Don't like the choice of words? How about we won't cut spending. We know we won't because given every opportunity to do so, we don't do it. There is no reason to do it. You can't cut spending without taking something away from tax-paying voters who have demanded it, and stiffing tax-paying voters costs votes.
In a perfect world where our representatives agreed to forfeit their careers and cut programs and services and the agencies that serve us, it would last as long as the next election cycle when we'd replace them all with people who would restore what we originally demanded and still want.
Get it? We don't cut spending, ever. We don't because of the way our representative system of government is set up. Need a new VA hospital in your town to boost your local economy? No problem. You don't have the pay for it, everyone in the country will pay for it. Your congressman puts it in a bill and gets others to support it because he promises to support their bills to build monuments in their city parks and dredge the lakes for their local resort industry.
We don't cut spending and never will. Get that through your head.
We can raise tax revenue, though. We have a lot of lost ground to make up since the '80s and we can't postpone it forever. Eventually all this borrowing is going to become too burdensome to service, and then we'll really be in the soup.
A solution was passed by The Congress decades ago but the USSC found it violated COTUS. Here is an idea to control spending and not need to try and pass a Constitutional Amendment:
Understanding the Line-Item Veto With a Twist - No Labels
This is not Marxist theory, it is econ 101. There are two ways for a company to make a profit, cutting costs and increasing sales. The first makes money flow up and the other down to the working class. It is far easier to show the stockholders a quarterly profit by wringing more productivity from the workers than to increase sales and for the last twenty years this has been the go-to method to remain profitable. The downside to this is stagnant wages and fewer jobs.The stated theory is not even a theory, it is reflected in the cost of production on every balance sheet in the world. Cutting the cost of production is awesome for the owners but it is theft from the working class economy in jobs and wages. American productivity is still among the best in the world but it has done very little for those who actually produce.Because of competitions. When other firms have more resources they will try to hire the best and thus wages must come up.
It's simple if only you aren't subscribed to the Marxist version of economics, also known as fairy tales.
"The labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics, which is evident in Marx's masterpiece, Capital (1867). The theory's basic claim is simple: the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity."
Now, consider if there is some truth to his theory, why would a corporation higher more and better workers and pay them more when technology & robotics can replace people?
Where do you think robots come from? Are they not produced by employees that need to be hired? The more money corporations have, the more work they need done... and thus the higher the wage offered.
So the solution is simple, once you consider that there is no truth to Marx's theory.
No, it's a theory, and a real shitty one at that. Sorry, you won't get Marxist theory of value popping out of balance sheets.
Cutting costs is what makes economies thrive and the middle class rich. Claiming otherwise is again more Marxist nonsense.
Also you might want to reconsider your definition of theft.
Can't answer? I'll take that as a vote for no companies shouldn't pay taxes. Just say it.If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?
My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.
Profits are taxed two times in succession. Once when the profits are generated, and a second time when dividends are paid to the owners. It's useless to focus on just one part of the equation. Only a stupid regressive liberal illiterate in economics would do that.
If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?
My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.
Well, I'm a registered Republican and I favor a sales tax instead of an income tax. I don't see taxing corporations as a good thing myself. Corporation create jobs. Were corporations not taxed and regulated so harshly, they might create more jobs from which personal income taxes could be gained. Corporation are also the source for many of the investments paying the retirement expenses of many of our elderly. A more friendly tax structure would tend to keep corporations from moving abroad and encourage their own reinvestment into capital equipment and expansion.
Corporations also use every bit of public infrastructure to earn their profits.
And this is not theatrical?If not, what tax on every dollar in profits is fair? And what do they pay now?
My belief is Republicans don't think corporations should pay any taxes. That's what their arguments suggest.
RepubliKans don't think, they emote.
