Obama & The Treasury Go After "inversions"

[Iceweasel]

Lots of citizens harm the country. We have one sitting in the White House right now.

 

[JoeB131]

[
I get it. You got hurt and lost your job. Corporations suck.

They do what they need to do to remain in business, you fool.

If they can't stay in business without treating their employees right, it's probably best for all concerned if they go under.

You see, the people who brought this business down were the ones who made all the bad decisions, like buying a new facility when they had won a three year contract with a company notorious for changing suppliers every three years.

Or the ones who hired the "Superstar" sales rep who never visited the customer. That witch was making six figures.

You see, here's the thing. IN Germany or Japan, they have worker's council that can vote out the CEO or manager if he's too much of a fuckup. We really ought to be able to do that here.

 

[Silhouette]

Lots of citizens harm the country. We have one sitting in the White House right now.

That may or may not be true.

But that doesn't mean that two wrongs make a right:

The simple legal question may just be, "Are corporations citizens or not"? And what defines 'US citizen'? Is it someone that only reaps the goodies from this country while acting in ways that actively undermines it? Or do they have a civic duty and duties of allegiance to this great land that otherwise lends them the greatest freedoms of any nation?

 

[Iceweasel]

Lots of citizens harm the country. We have one sitting in the White House right now.

That may or may not be true.

But that doesn't mean that two wrongs make a right:

The point was citizenship, not rightness or wrongness. As far as legalities go, that ship has sailed.

 

[Silhouette]

The point was citizenship, not rightness or wrongness. As far as legalities go, that ship has sailed.

My point is that that ship has sailed. And since corporations are now citizens, they'd better damn well behave like it or pay the price. Citizens are not allowed to behave in manners that undermine the country's integrity, or to ignore civic duties to their countrymen.

 

[MaxGrit]

What I do realize is that a US citizen has a duty and civic responsibility to contribute to and improve the country in which he lives and does business. And he may not conduct himself in a manner that degrades this country's cohesion and stability. That includes him taking steps to unravel the US economy via actions he knows or should have known would have this effect.

You're either a citizen, or you aren't. Which is it MaxGrit?

I agree with you that the best way is service to others and support community development.

Best way to go about it is encourage morality and self sufficiency.

I would say it goes a little further than encouraging moraltiy and self sufficiency. As citizens we have certain civic duties and expectations of us. Like jury duty for example. We also have a duty and a mandate to not do things that we know would be gravely seditious or undermining to our country. Like creating an economic sinkhole. Like shipping jobs overseas and profits in offshore accounts...damaging the American economy by doing so ...but still claiming citizenship rights.

You've heard of Citizen's United I assume? US citizens have a duty to allegiance to their country. It's not just a suggestion.

Morality is the basis upon which society stand. It is the best way.

 

[Bfgrn]

Is that President Obama's position Mac? Raise corporate tax rates?

Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

President Obama's plan to overhaul the nation's corporate tax system would sharply cut the taxes that U.S. companies pay. But it would also eliminate many of the loopholes that help them pare down what they owe.

A Tax Code Loaded With Exemptions

But the U.S. tax code is also loaded with exemptions, deductions and credits of all kinds. And, says Bob McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice, most big companies know how to take advantage of them. "Right now we have about a 35 percent nominal corporate tax rate," he says. "But our big corporations, on average, pay about half that — about 18 percent."

The Obama administration's plan would cut the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, but it would also get rid of a lot of those loopholes. The plan would also impose a minimum tax on money that companies make overseas, something proponents say would cut down on the use of offshore tax havens. ref

A funny thing happened on the way to lower tax rates. BIG corporations reject reform, because lowering their tax rate would in reality increase what they REALLY pay...

Um, obviously not. Nor did I say it was.

So the sarcasm there was lost on you a bit.

But that didn't stop your attempt at a little straw man.

That's okay, I know how the game is played.

.

Game? Why are so insecure?

Where is the strawman Mac?

Being obtuse is another game played by partisan ideologues like you. Again, I'm used to it.

If you want to discuss the issue, do so without games. And I would prefer you did it in your own words, not with cut-and-paste attempts that don't argue your point very well for you. I know that you don't understand this issue very well. I don't understand how to fix cars well, either; but if I took my car to a mechanic and told him how to fix it, he would probably just laugh, roll his eyes and shake his head, as I do when I read posts on this topic from people like you.

Be serious, or try this with someone else. Silly questions don't interest me.

.

I am being serious you narcissistic asshole. You really are a fucking moron.

What do YOU know Mac? You haven't enlightened us?

Do American corporations actually PAY the highest taxes? How does tax deferral effect what they PAY Mac?

Yet another straw man. You people literally can't help yourselves.

Who said they pay the highest taxes, Bfgrn? Did I say that, Bfgrn? Where, Bfgrn? Tell me where, Bfgrn? Huh, Bfgrn?

Now isn't that a silly, childish way to communicate? And the "fucking moron" is a nice touch, too, in a grade school playground.

Tax rates and effective tax rates tell only part of a much larger, more complicated story in a global economy.

If you want to punish corporations, do so. If you think that this administration is business-friendly, go ahead and think that. In post 81, I laid out a plan. If you want to pretend it is the plan of a hardcore right wing partisan ideologue (in other words, a counterpoint to you), you can think that too.

I am under no obligation to enable your behavior.

.

You are too obtuse (a word YOU applied to me) to know what you are and aren't saying. Did you literally say these words: "American corporations pay the highest taxes"...no. BUT, you DID say 28% is still too high.

SO, the effective tax rate US corporations pay is 13.4%, and you want to RAISE it to 15%.

Uh, no.

And again, I realize this isn't your field, so I'll try to be clear.

The 13.4% figure is "effective tax rate", which is the declared tax rate minus the various deductions and credits, etc. The 15% tax rate is the declared tax rate. So after the deductions and credits it would end up lower than that.

So a 15% declared tax rate might end up as a 7% effective tax rate.

Just like your personal income taxes. Maybe you're in the 25% tax bracket. You'll probably pay a lower effective tax, maybe 17%, because of your write-offs, such as mortgage interest.

Does that help at all?

.

"So the sarcasm there was lost on you a bit" ...And let's be clear here Mac. YOU are the one who started the name calling.

 

[Mac1958]

Um, obviously not. Nor did I say it was.

So the sarcasm there was lost on you a bit.

But that didn't stop your attempt at a little straw man.

That's okay, I know how the game is played.

.

Game? Why are so insecure?

Where is the strawman Mac?

Being obtuse is another game played by partisan ideologues like you. Again, I'm used to it.

If you want to discuss the issue, do so without games. And I would prefer you did it in your own words, not with cut-and-paste attempts that don't argue your point very well for you. I know that you don't understand this issue very well. I don't understand how to fix cars well, either; but if I took my car to a mechanic and told him how to fix it, he would probably just laugh, roll his eyes and shake his head, as I do when I read posts on this topic from people like you.

Be serious, or try this with someone else. Silly questions don't interest me.

.

I am being serious you narcissistic asshole. You really are a fucking moron.

What do YOU know Mac? You haven't enlightened us?

Do American corporations actually PAY the highest taxes? How does tax deferral effect what they PAY Mac?

Yet another straw man. You people literally can't help yourselves.

Who said they pay the highest taxes, Bfgrn? Did I say that, Bfgrn? Where, Bfgrn? Tell me where, Bfgrn? Huh, Bfgrn?

Now isn't that a silly, childish way to communicate? And the "fucking moron" is a nice touch, too, in a grade school playground.

Tax rates and effective tax rates tell only part of a much larger, more complicated story in a global economy.

If you want to punish corporations, do so. If you think that this administration is business-friendly, go ahead and think that. In post 81, I laid out a plan. If you want to pretend it is the plan of a hardcore right wing partisan ideologue (in other words, a counterpoint to you), you can think that too.

I am under no obligation to enable your behavior.

.

You are too obtuse (a word YOU applied to me) to know what you are and aren't saying. Did you literally say these words: "American corporations pay the highest taxes"...no. BUT, you DID say 28% is still too high.

SO, the effective tax rate US corporations pay is 13.4%, and you want to RAISE it to 15%.

Uh, no.

And again, I realize this isn't your field, so I'll try to be clear.

The 13.4% figure is "effective tax rate", which is the declared tax rate minus the various deductions and credits, etc. The 15% tax rate is the declared tax rate. So after the deductions and credits it would end up lower than that.

So a 15% declared tax rate might end up as a 7% effective tax rate.

Just like your personal income taxes. Maybe you're in the 25% tax bracket. You'll probably pay a lower effective tax, maybe 17%, because of your write-offs, such as mortgage interest.

Does that help at all?

.

"So the sarcasm there was lost on you a bit" ...And let's be clear here Mac. YOU are the one who started the name calling.

Does this mean you're a little more clear on taxation?

Great!

You're welcome.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

A more important question is "Are corporations American citizens?".

Because if they are, they have not just the enjoyments of citizenship, but the duties, responsibilties and mandates of allegiance for what's best for our country to abide by; as we all do..

The far right wing GOP and the corporatist black robes of the Supreme Court want to return America to the Gilded Age...that horrible stain on our nation and working people brought about the huge bipartisan groundswell called the Progressive era.

What we have today in America is a large segment of totally brainwashed citizens who parrot faux news propaganda and post right wing think tank dogma.


"The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter."
—William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention

 

[Bfgrn]

Game? Why are so insecure?

Where is the strawman Mac?

Being obtuse is another game played by partisan ideologues like you. Again, I'm used to it.

If you want to discuss the issue, do so without games. And I would prefer you did it in your own words, not with cut-and-paste attempts that don't argue your point very well for you. I know that you don't understand this issue very well. I don't understand how to fix cars well, either; but if I took my car to a mechanic and told him how to fix it, he would probably just laugh, roll his eyes and shake his head, as I do when I read posts on this topic from people like you.

Be serious, or try this with someone else. Silly questions don't interest me.

.

I am being serious you narcissistic asshole. You really are a fucking moron.

What do YOU know Mac? You haven't enlightened us?

Do American corporations actually PAY the highest taxes? How does tax deferral effect what they PAY Mac?

Yet another straw man. You people literally can't help yourselves.

Who said they pay the highest taxes, Bfgrn? Did I say that, Bfgrn? Where, Bfgrn? Tell me where, Bfgrn? Huh, Bfgrn?

Now isn't that a silly, childish way to communicate? And the "fucking moron" is a nice touch, too, in a grade school playground.

Tax rates and effective tax rates tell only part of a much larger, more complicated story in a global economy.

If you want to punish corporations, do so. If you think that this administration is business-friendly, go ahead and think that. In post 81, I laid out a plan. If you want to pretend it is the plan of a hardcore right wing partisan ideologue (in other words, a counterpoint to you), you can think that too.

I am under no obligation to enable your behavior.

.

You are too obtuse (a word YOU applied to me) to know what you are and aren't saying. Did you literally say these words: "American corporations pay the highest taxes"...no. BUT, you DID say 28% is still too high.

SO, the effective tax rate US corporations pay is 13.4%, and you want to RAISE it to 15%.

Uh, no.

And again, I realize this isn't your field, so I'll try to be clear.

The 13.4% figure is "effective tax rate", which is the declared tax rate minus the various deductions and credits, etc. The 15% tax rate is the declared tax rate. So after the deductions and credits it would end up lower than that.

So a 15% declared tax rate might end up as a 7% effective tax rate.

Just like your personal income taxes. Maybe you're in the 25% tax bracket. You'll probably pay a lower effective tax, maybe 17%, because of your write-offs, such as mortgage interest.

Does that help at all?

.

"So the sarcasm there was lost on you a bit" ...And let's be clear here Mac. YOU are the one who started the name calling.

Does this mean you're a little more clear on taxation?

Great!

You're welcome.

.

I was already clear on taxation. You get no credit Mac. And I didn't offer a "thanks"

 

[Mac1958]

Being obtuse is another game played by partisan ideologues like you. Again, I'm used to it.

If you want to discuss the issue, do so without games. And I would prefer you did it in your own words, not with cut-and-paste attempts that don't argue your point very well for you. I know that you don't understand this issue very well. I don't understand how to fix cars well, either; but if I took my car to a mechanic and told him how to fix it, he would probably just laugh, roll his eyes and shake his head, as I do when I read posts on this topic from people like you.

Be serious, or try this with someone else. Silly questions don't interest me.

.

I am being serious you narcissistic asshole. You really are a fucking moron.

What do YOU know Mac? You haven't enlightened us?

Do American corporations actually PAY the highest taxes? How does tax deferral effect what they PAY Mac?

Yet another straw man. You people literally can't help yourselves.

Who said they pay the highest taxes, Bfgrn? Did I say that, Bfgrn? Where, Bfgrn? Tell me where, Bfgrn? Huh, Bfgrn?

Now isn't that a silly, childish way to communicate? And the "fucking moron" is a nice touch, too, in a grade school playground.

Tax rates and effective tax rates tell only part of a much larger, more complicated story in a global economy.

If you want to punish corporations, do so. If you think that this administration is business-friendly, go ahead and think that. In post 81, I laid out a plan. If you want to pretend it is the plan of a hardcore right wing partisan ideologue (in other words, a counterpoint to you), you can think that too.

I am under no obligation to enable your behavior.

.

You are too obtuse (a word YOU applied to me) to know what you are and aren't saying. Did you literally say these words: "American corporations pay the highest taxes"...no. BUT, you DID say 28% is still too high.

SO, the effective tax rate US corporations pay is 13.4%, and you want to RAISE it to 15%.

Uh, no.

And again, I realize this isn't your field, so I'll try to be clear.

The 13.4% figure is "effective tax rate", which is the declared tax rate minus the various deductions and credits, etc. The 15% tax rate is the declared tax rate. So after the deductions and credits it would end up lower than that.

So a 15% declared tax rate might end up as a 7% effective tax rate.

Just like your personal income taxes. Maybe you're in the 25% tax bracket. You'll probably pay a lower effective tax, maybe 17%, because of your write-offs, such as mortgage interest.

Does that help at all?

.

"So the sarcasm there was lost on you a bit" ...And let's be clear here Mac. YOU are the one who started the name calling.

Does this mean you're a little more clear on taxation?

Great!

You're welcome.

.

I was already clear on taxation. You get no credit Mac. And I didn't offer a "thanks"

Well, it sure didn't/doesn't look like you understand much of this.

But, as a partisan ideologue, you're not required to, you're just supposed to push your story and get angry with anyone who doesn't completely agree with you.

No problem.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Uh oh! Looks like Mac is wasting his time again!

 

[Bfgrn]

I am being serious you narcissistic asshole. You really are a fucking moron.

What do YOU know Mac? You haven't enlightened us?

Do American corporations actually PAY the highest taxes? How does tax deferral effect what they PAY Mac?

Yet another straw man. You people literally can't help yourselves.

Who said they pay the highest taxes, Bfgrn? Did I say that, Bfgrn? Where, Bfgrn? Tell me where, Bfgrn? Huh, Bfgrn?

Now isn't that a silly, childish way to communicate? And the "fucking moron" is a nice touch, too, in a grade school playground.

Tax rates and effective tax rates tell only part of a much larger, more complicated story in a global economy.

If you want to punish corporations, do so. If you think that this administration is business-friendly, go ahead and think that. In post 81, I laid out a plan. If you want to pretend it is the plan of a hardcore right wing partisan ideologue (in other words, a counterpoint to you), you can think that too.

I am under no obligation to enable your behavior.

.

You are too obtuse (a word YOU applied to me) to know what you are and aren't saying. Did you literally say these words: "American corporations pay the highest taxes"...no. BUT, you DID say 28% is still too high.

SO, the effective tax rate US corporations pay is 13.4%, and you want to RAISE it to 15%.

Uh, no.

And again, I realize this isn't your field, so I'll try to be clear.

The 13.4% figure is "effective tax rate", which is the declared tax rate minus the various deductions and credits, etc. The 15% tax rate is the declared tax rate. So after the deductions and credits it would end up lower than that.

So a 15% declared tax rate might end up as a 7% effective tax rate.

Just like your personal income taxes. Maybe you're in the 25% tax bracket. You'll probably pay a lower effective tax, maybe 17%, because of your write-offs, such as mortgage interest.

Does that help at all?

.

"So the sarcasm there was lost on you a bit" ...And let's be clear here Mac. YOU are the one who started the name calling.

Does this mean you're a little more clear on taxation?

Great!

You're welcome.

.

I was already clear on taxation. You get no credit Mac. And I didn't offer a "thanks"

Well, it sure didn't/doesn't look like you understand much of this.

But, as a partisan ideologue, you're not required to, you're just supposed to push your story and get angry with anyone who doesn't completely agree with you.

No problem.

.

Again, you are the one who started the name calling Mac.

I am a pragmatist, just like the majority of liberals and Democrats. You continually 'claim' to be non-partisan, yet your attacks are always directed towards the left.

None of these issues are simple. There is no such thing as 'free'. If you are going to give corporations a 'free ride' and there are costs incurred someone has to pay those costs. Offering tax incentives to create jobs is a good idea in IDEOLOGY, but it depends on what the ACTUAL cost to the tax payer will be.

What do you know about externalization?

If we lower their taxes, will we also have to lower environmental protection to match 3rd world countries Mac? Will we have to lower worker protection to match 3rd world countries Mac??

The State of Kentucky and the coal industry is a prime example of how externalization can be so severe that taxpayers are spending more than they receive in return...Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures.

Every time a Walmart moves in, many small businesses disappear. You can say that is how the market works, but when taxpayers have to subsidize Walmart's low wages to the tune of $900,000, that is severe externalization.

You continue to attack President Obama, then hide behind "anyone who supports him is a partisan ideologue'.

Why don't you inform yourself for a change...

The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...mework-for-Business-Tax-Reform-02-22-2012.pdf

 

[Mac1958]

Yet another straw man. You people literally can't help yourselves.

Who said they pay the highest taxes, Bfgrn? Did I say that, Bfgrn? Where, Bfgrn? Tell me where, Bfgrn? Huh, Bfgrn?

Now isn't that a silly, childish way to communicate? And the "fucking moron" is a nice touch, too, in a grade school playground.

Tax rates and effective tax rates tell only part of a much larger, more complicated story in a global economy.

If you want to punish corporations, do so. If you think that this administration is business-friendly, go ahead and think that. In post 81, I laid out a plan. If you want to pretend it is the plan of a hardcore right wing partisan ideologue (in other words, a counterpoint to you), you can think that too.

I am under no obligation to enable your behavior.

.

Uh, no.

And again, I realize this isn't your field, so I'll try to be clear.

The 13.4% figure is "effective tax rate", which is the declared tax rate minus the various deductions and credits, etc. The 15% tax rate is the declared tax rate. So after the deductions and credits it would end up lower than that.

So a 15% declared tax rate might end up as a 7% effective tax rate.

Just like your personal income taxes. Maybe you're in the 25% tax bracket. You'll probably pay a lower effective tax, maybe 17%, because of your write-offs, such as mortgage interest.

Does that help at all?

.

"So the sarcasm there was lost on you a bit" ...And let's be clear here Mac. YOU are the one who started the name calling.

Does this mean you're a little more clear on taxation?

Great!

You're welcome.

.

I was already clear on taxation. You get no credit Mac. And I didn't offer a "thanks"

Well, it sure didn't/doesn't look like you understand much of this.

But, as a partisan ideologue, you're not required to, you're just supposed to push your story and get angry with anyone who doesn't completely agree with you.

No problem.

.

Again, you are the one who started the name calling Mac.

I am a pragmatist, just like the majority of liberals and Democrats. You continually 'claim' to be non-partisan, yet your attacks are always directed towards the left.

None of these issues are simple. There is no such thing as 'free'. If you are going to give corporations a 'free ride' and there are costs incurred someone has to pay those costs. Offering tax incentives to create jobs is a good idea in IDEOLOGY, but it depends on what the ACTUAL cost to the tax payer will be.

What do you know about externalization?

If we lower their taxes, will we also have to lower environmental protection to match 3rd world countries Mac? Will we have to lower worker protection to match 3rd world countries Mac??

The State of Kentucky and the coal industry is a prime example of how externalization can be so severe that taxpayers are spending more than they receive in return...Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures.

Every time a Walmart moves in, many small businesses disappear. You can say that is how the market works, but when taxpayers have to subsidize Walmart's low wages to the tune of $900,000, that is severe externalization.

You continue to attack President Obama, then hide behind "anyone who supports him is a partisan ideologue'.

Why don't you inform yourself for a change...

The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform

Looks to me like you're defending your guy, getting very defensive.

I don't agree with Obama's approach to business. If you want to take that as an "attack", that's your call. That's how it is with partisan ideologues, stuff has to be binary, either/or, us vs. them. Tedious, predictable.

And, being neck deep in the business/finance industry, I know that anyone who pretends that this administration is not hostile to business overall is either ignorant, naive or lying. But that's politics, and everything is politicized now.

Now, for your standard straw man arguments, the stock in trade for partisan ideologues. No, we should not have lower environmental protections, nor did I say or infer that we should. No, I'm not for lower worker production to match third world countries, nor did I say or infer that I was.

And guess what? I would like to see unions strengthened, and I have outlined a specific plan for doing so in another thread. I would like to see two new, HIGHER marginal personal income tax rates added, and I have outlined that plan more than once. See, I get specific, I don't scream simplistic platitudes or toss childish straw man arguments around. Like you.

See, this is my profession. I get my information and opinions from real life, not partisan articles. I'm informed. I live it every day. You get to play partisan political games with it, and I don't have that luxury. Perhaps you should be playing these games with someone else.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

"So the sarcasm there was lost on you a bit" ...And let's be clear here Mac. YOU are the one who started the name calling.

Does this mean you're a little more clear on taxation?

Great!

You're welcome.

.

I was already clear on taxation. You get no credit Mac. And I didn't offer a "thanks"

Well, it sure didn't/doesn't look like you understand much of this.

But, as a partisan ideologue, you're not required to, you're just supposed to push your story and get angry with anyone who doesn't completely agree with you.

No problem.

.

Again, you are the one who started the name calling Mac.

I am a pragmatist, just like the majority of liberals and Democrats. You continually 'claim' to be non-partisan, yet your attacks are always directed towards the left.

None of these issues are simple. There is no such thing as 'free'. If you are going to give corporations a 'free ride' and there are costs incurred someone has to pay those costs. Offering tax incentives to create jobs is a good idea in IDEOLOGY, but it depends on what the ACTUAL cost to the tax payer will be.

What do you know about externalization?

If we lower their taxes, will we also have to lower environmental protection to match 3rd world countries Mac? Will we have to lower worker protection to match 3rd world countries Mac??

The State of Kentucky and the coal industry is a prime example of how externalization can be so severe that taxpayers are spending more than they receive in return...Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures.

Every time a Walmart moves in, many small businesses disappear. You can say that is how the market works, but when taxpayers have to subsidize Walmart's low wages to the tune of $900,000, that is severe externalization.

You continue to attack President Obama, then hide behind "anyone who supports him is a partisan ideologue'.

Why don't you inform yourself for a change...

The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform

Looks to me like you're defending your guy, getting very defensive.

I don't agree with Obama's approach to business. If you want to take that as an "attack", that's your call. That's how it is with partisan ideologues, stuff has to be binary, either/or, us vs. them. Tedious, predictable.

And, being neck deep in the business/finance industry, I know that anyone who pretends that this administration is not hostile to business overall is either ignorant, naive or lying. But that's politics, and everything is politicized now.

Now, for your standard straw man arguments, the stock in trade for partisan ideologues. No, we should not have lower environmental protections, nor did I say or infer that we should. No, I'm not for lower worker production to match third world countries, nor did I say or infer that I was.

And guess what? I would like to see unions strengthened, and I have outlined a specific plan for doing so in another thread. I would like to see two new, HIGHER marginal personal income tax rates added, and I have outlined that plan more than once. See, I get specific, I don't scream simplistic platitudes or toss childish straw man arguments around. Like you.

See, this is my profession. I get my information and opinions from real life, not partisan articles. I'm informed. I live it every day. You get to play partisan political games with it, and I don't have that luxury. Perhaps you should be playing these games with someone else.

.

WOW, your post is the very definition of 'defensive'. You are not interested in discussions, you are only interested in offering condescending pontification.

What you do for a living is irrelevant. What you say is all that matters here pal. I could make the case that being inside the trees prevents one from seeing the forest.

So, you already 'KNOW' Obama is hostile to business, without reading what he has proposed. Now THAT is really the sign of a non-partisan (insert heavy sarcasm)

I tried to offer a reply, and it is not a 'strawman' argument. Corporate externalization is very real. It costs American taxpayers 3.5 trillion dollars in 1995, and it hasn't decreased over the last 19 years, it has escalated.

So I am left to assume you know NOTHING about externalization.

 

[Mac1958]

Does this mean you're a little more clear on taxation?

Great!

You're welcome.

.

I was already clear on taxation. You get no credit Mac. And I didn't offer a "thanks"

Well, it sure didn't/doesn't look like you understand much of this.

But, as a partisan ideologue, you're not required to, you're just supposed to push your story and get angry with anyone who doesn't completely agree with you.

No problem.

.

Again, you are the one who started the name calling Mac.

I am a pragmatist, just like the majority of liberals and Democrats. You continually 'claim' to be non-partisan, yet your attacks are always directed towards the left.

None of these issues are simple. There is no such thing as 'free'. If you are going to give corporations a 'free ride' and there are costs incurred someone has to pay those costs. Offering tax incentives to create jobs is a good idea in IDEOLOGY, but it depends on what the ACTUAL cost to the tax payer will be.

What do you know about externalization?

If we lower their taxes, will we also have to lower environmental protection to match 3rd world countries Mac? Will we have to lower worker protection to match 3rd world countries Mac??

The State of Kentucky and the coal industry is a prime example of how externalization can be so severe that taxpayers are spending more than they receive in return...Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures.

Every time a Walmart moves in, many small businesses disappear. You can say that is how the market works, but when taxpayers have to subsidize Walmart's low wages to the tune of $900,000, that is severe externalization.

You continue to attack President Obama, then hide behind "anyone who supports him is a partisan ideologue'.

Why don't you inform yourself for a change...

The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform

Looks to me like you're defending your guy, getting very defensive.

I don't agree with Obama's approach to business. If you want to take that as an "attack", that's your call. That's how it is with partisan ideologues, stuff has to be binary, either/or, us vs. them. Tedious, predictable.

And, being neck deep in the business/finance industry, I know that anyone who pretends that this administration is not hostile to business overall is either ignorant, naive or lying. But that's politics, and everything is politicized now.

Now, for your standard straw man arguments, the stock in trade for partisan ideologues. No, we should not have lower environmental protections, nor did I say or infer that we should. No, I'm not for lower worker production to match third world countries, nor did I say or infer that I was.

And guess what? I would like to see unions strengthened, and I have outlined a specific plan for doing so in another thread. I would like to see two new, HIGHER marginal personal income tax rates added, and I have outlined that plan more than once. See, I get specific, I don't scream simplistic platitudes or toss childish straw man arguments around. Like you.

See, this is my profession. I get my information and opinions from real life, not partisan articles. I'm informed. I live it every day. You get to play partisan political games with it, and I don't have that luxury. Perhaps you should be playing these games with someone else.

.

WOW, your post is the very definition of 'defensive'. You are not interested in discussions, you are only interested in offering condescending pontification.

What you do for a living is irrelevant. What you say is all that matters here pal. I could make the case that being inside the trees prevents one from seeing the forest.

So, you already 'KNOW' Obama is hostile to business, without reading what he has proposed. Now THAT is really the sign of a non-partisan (insert heavy sarcasm)

I tried to offer a reply, and it is not a 'strawman' argument. Corporate externalization is very real. It costs American taxpayers 3.5 trillion dollars in 1995, and it hasn't decreased over the last 19 years, it has escalated.

So I am left to assume you know NOTHING about externalization.

You didn't read my post, or it went right by you. It doesn't fit into your little black & white world.

This is why I limit long conversations with partisan ideologues. Claim whatever victory you want, in any way you want. I know that kind of thing is very important to people like you. I'm just not interested.

Please play this game with a right winger.

.

 

[Silhouette]

The point was citizenship, not rightness or wrongness. As far as legalities go, that ship has sailed.

My point is that that ship has sailed. And since corporations are now citizens, they'd better damn well behave like it or pay the price. Citizens are not allowed to behave in manners that undermine the country's integrity, or to ignore civic duties to their countrymen.

Well folks? Do corporations have to take on the burdens as well as the benefits of citizenship? Yes or no?

Their lawyers should've looked ahead and figured out that when you become a citizen of any country, certain things are expected of you.

 

[Bfgrn]

I was already clear on taxation. You get no credit Mac. And I didn't offer a "thanks"

Well, it sure didn't/doesn't look like you understand much of this.

But, as a partisan ideologue, you're not required to, you're just supposed to push your story and get angry with anyone who doesn't completely agree with you.

No problem.

.

Again, you are the one who started the name calling Mac.

I am a pragmatist, just like the majority of liberals and Democrats. You continually 'claim' to be non-partisan, yet your attacks are always directed towards the left.

None of these issues are simple. There is no such thing as 'free'. If you are going to give corporations a 'free ride' and there are costs incurred someone has to pay those costs. Offering tax incentives to create jobs is a good idea in IDEOLOGY, but it depends on what the ACTUAL cost to the tax payer will be.

What do you know about externalization?

If we lower their taxes, will we also have to lower environmental protection to match 3rd world countries Mac? Will we have to lower worker protection to match 3rd world countries Mac??

The State of Kentucky and the coal industry is a prime example of how externalization can be so severe that taxpayers are spending more than they receive in return...Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures.

Every time a Walmart moves in, many small businesses disappear. You can say that is how the market works, but when taxpayers have to subsidize Walmart's low wages to the tune of $900,000, that is severe externalization.

You continue to attack President Obama, then hide behind "anyone who supports him is a partisan ideologue'.

Why don't you inform yourself for a change...

The President's Framework for Business Tax Reform

Looks to me like you're defending your guy, getting very defensive.

I don't agree with Obama's approach to business. If you want to take that as an "attack", that's your call. That's how it is with partisan ideologues, stuff has to be binary, either/or, us vs. them. Tedious, predictable.

And, being neck deep in the business/finance industry, I know that anyone who pretends that this administration is not hostile to business overall is either ignorant, naive or lying. But that's politics, and everything is politicized now.

Now, for your standard straw man arguments, the stock in trade for partisan ideologues. No, we should not have lower environmental protections, nor did I say or infer that we should. No, I'm not for lower worker production to match third world countries, nor did I say or infer that I was.

And guess what? I would like to see unions strengthened, and I have outlined a specific plan for doing so in another thread. I would like to see two new, HIGHER marginal personal income tax rates added, and I have outlined that plan more than once. See, I get specific, I don't scream simplistic platitudes or toss childish straw man arguments around. Like you.

See, this is my profession. I get my information and opinions from real life, not partisan articles. I'm informed. I live it every day. You get to play partisan political games with it, and I don't have that luxury. Perhaps you should be playing these games with someone else.

.

WOW, your post is the very definition of 'defensive'. You are not interested in discussions, you are only interested in offering condescending pontification.

What you do for a living is irrelevant. What you say is all that matters here pal. I could make the case that being inside the trees prevents one from seeing the forest.

So, you already 'KNOW' Obama is hostile to business, without reading what he has proposed. Now THAT is really the sign of a non-partisan (insert heavy sarcasm)

I tried to offer a reply, and it is not a 'strawman' argument. Corporate externalization is very real. It costs American taxpayers 3.5 trillion dollars in 1995, and it hasn't decreased over the last 19 years, it has escalated.

So I am left to assume you know NOTHING about externalization.

You didn't read my post, or it went right by you. It doesn't fit into your little black & white world.

This is why I limit long conversations with partisan ideologues. Claim whatever victory you want, in any way you want. I know that kind of thing is very important to people like you. I'm just not interested.

Please play this game with a right winger.

.

The real irony is you are totally invested in partisan stereotyping. It is very black or white in your black or white mind.

There are many myths that exist. You are unable to discern myth from reality.

 

[Mac1958]

Well folks? Do corporations have to take on the burdens as well as the benefits of citizenship? Yes or no?

No. Citizens United was a dumb ruling.

The burden of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. The burden of laws that regulate corporations is to find the right equilibrium between its place in society and its ongoing ability to grow, prosper and employ, particularly in an intensely competitive global business environment.

Obviously, simplistic and punitive regulations levied by people who view corporations and profit as negatives destroy that equilibrium, but these people don't really seem to care about that.

.

 

[Silhouette]

Well folks? Do corporations have to take on the burdens as well as the benefits of citizenship? Yes or no?

No. Citizens United was a dumb ruling.

The burden of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. The burden of laws that regulate corporations is to find the right equilibrium between its place in society and its ongoing ability to grow, prosper and employ, particularly in an intensely competitive global business environment.

Obviously, simplistic and punitive regulations levied by people who view corporations and profit as negatives destroy that equilibrium, but these people don't really seem to care about that.

.

Irregardless of whether or not Citizen's United was or was not a dumb ruling [I wholeheartedly agree BTW], it IS A RULING. And so, it is law. I'm looking for all parameters of citizenship when that law was passed. If you are a citizen, you are equal to all others in rights and responsibilities. While I see corporations enjoying all manner of rights, I see them completely unaccountable for their responsibilities.

I'm pretty sure If I held a significant portion of the American economic wellbeing in my daily affairs in my back pocket, and I acted in ways where I calculated my own personal gain at the expense of the American economy, I'd be thrown in jail for treason. At the very least I'd be targeted as a national security risk. Corporations are citizens now whether they like it or not. No "half" or "supercitizens" allowed.