Raise Retirement age and cut benefits or not?

[BluesLegend]

You need to stop worrying about what the 'rich' pay and worry about what government is taking from you.

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

LOL, are you suggesting the money we as individuals pay into real estate, sales, state income and excise taxes, auto license and registration fees, parking fees and fees for special districts - sewer, water, schools, etc. - are a fiction and all those are only paid for by corporations?

Roads, tunnels and bridges came first, paid for by We The People; corporations have 15,000+ loop holes to exploit reducing their tax burden.

Where did the money come from? Yes in the vast majority of cases it came from a business. No business no jobs no tax revenue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Okay, so a company goes to a city which has the investment. So... they want stuff. And they want it free? Oh come on.

If you want infrastructure, you pay for it, if you don't want infrastructure, then don't pay for it. It doesn't seem that hard.

If those companies are the ones that built it, it's because they're paying for it, right? Or not?

We're talking fair share here. Rather than big companies going around asking for handouts in order to go move into a city. That's not fair on any level at all. They're playing the game and they're winning. They claim job creation and all that, but they're sucking the US and other countries dry.

How do smaller companies compete against the big companies with their massive hand outs? Oh, well the small companies need handouts too in order to do this. So, then everyone ends up subsidizing business at all levels.

Then the people being subsidized say it's THEIR MONEY and why should they have to pay the government any tax?
So, govt pays businesses to make jobs, the businessmen and women take loads of that money and spend it on nice houses, and the poor get what?

Is this SMALL GOVERNMENT? I mean, the same people advocating giving a shed load of money to businesses are the same asking for smaller government. I don't get it.

Government acts just like the private market when it comes to attracting businesses and jobs; they compete for them. I don't see anything wrong with that myself. It's my tax money and I want my city to compete to get that business.

Nobody is giving away money to attract these businesses. Again, an investment. If the city managers thought for one minute the city would get screwed by getting a company to move to their town, they wouldn't compete or offer much less. Obviously, a city has much to gain by making these offers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Its FAR more common that government requires the business to foot the bill for the infrastructure. Look into governments use of 'impact fees' something they invented out of thin air that's not far from mob type protection money. My home builder had to pay several of these impact fees to various local government, they totaled over $15,000. Since I'm already paying my share of school property taxes why did I have to pay thousands of dollars more in school impact fees? Add park impact fees and library impact fees it was ridiculous. Mind you I'm using none of those things. Its just a money grab.

As to my original point the money for infrastructure comes from businesses, either directly via business taxes and fees or indirectly via businesses hiring people who then pay taxes. No jobs, no tax revenue.

Isn't this the point. You and your builder are footing the bill. What about Amazon? I doubt they're paying their fair amount.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't worry what the rich pay, but I'm willing to increase their taxes if we need more revenue. You on the other hand seem to think they need your help and advocacy.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid the rich are just as entitled to keeping their money as you are to keeping yours. Wishing the government would vamp suck the rich, is that really going to make you feel better about them vamp sucking you?

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

LOL, are you suggesting the money we as individuals pay into real estate, sales, state income and excise taxes, auto license and registration fees, parking fees and fees for special districts - sewer, water, schools, etc. - are a fiction and all those are only paid for by corporations?

Roads, tunnels and bridges came first, paid for by We The People; corporations have 15,000+ loop holes to exploit reducing their tax burden.

Where did the money come from? Yes in the vast majority of cases it came from a business. No business no jobs no tax revenue.

But there's business, which includes small businesses, who generally do pay their way fairly, then there's big business which often doesn't pay its fair way. Did big business pay for this stuff? No.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Okay, so a company goes to a city which has the investment. So... they want stuff. And they want it free? Oh come on.

If you want infrastructure, you pay for it, if you don't want infrastructure, then don't pay for it. It doesn't seem that hard.

If those companies are the ones that built it, it's because they're paying for it, right? Or not?

We're talking fair share here. Rather than big companies going around asking for handouts in order to go move into a city. That's not fair on any level at all. They're playing the game and they're winning. They claim job creation and all that, but they're sucking the US and other countries dry.

How do smaller companies compete against the big companies with their massive hand outs? Oh, well the small companies need handouts too in order to do this. So, then everyone ends up subsidizing business at all levels.

Then the people being subsidized say it's THEIR MONEY and why should they have to pay the government any tax?
So, govt pays businesses to make jobs, the businessmen and women take loads of that money and spend it on nice houses, and the poor get what?

Is this SMALL GOVERNMENT? I mean, the same people advocating giving a shed load of money to businesses are the same asking for smaller government. I don't get it.

Government acts just like the private market when it comes to attracting businesses and jobs; they compete for them. I don't see anything wrong with that myself. It's my tax money and I want my city to compete to get that business.

Nobody is giving away money to attract these businesses. Again, an investment. If the city managers thought for one minute the city would get screwed by getting a company to move to their town, they wouldn't compete or offer much less. Obviously, a city has much to gain by making these offers.

The problem here is that cities are looking to attract business, people end up following the jobs. So if City A gets the work, then workers move to City A from City B which didn't get the jobs.
If no one did this stuff, then companies would just have to go to where they see best. Therefore they'd have to compete on a fair basis, rather than this way that big companies are getting massive profits from tax money, or being able to undercut smaller business.

The trend is clear. The number of people being employed by small businesses has been dropping steadily over the last decades. Big business is taking over making it harder for smaller businesses to compete.
There was a slight increase from 2000 to 2004, then it dropped. Why did it drop when the economy was absolutely booming at this time? Probably because bigger companies were getting in and stifling the growing smaller businesses.

 

[BluesLegend]

They are. But what is "their money" exactly?

The govt gives so much money directly to businesses, take farmers as an example.

Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm

"
Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People Who Don't Farm"

"Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice."

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0

Local govts give up to $80 billion a year to business. Texas (small govt state huh?) giving the most $19.1 billion.

$11 billion of that goes to manufacturing.

$277 million goes to Amazon
$232 million to Samsung
$50 million to Texas Instruments.

Do these companies need to be given state money? Are they poor somehow? Are they needy somehow? Or are they just having money thrown at them?

Then think of the infrastructure all of these companies use. They use roads and they use them a lot. Some companies make a lot of money out of the US going to war, like Halliburton, as an easy example, but also companies like BP, Exxon and so on who are getting large profits from oilfields in Iraq.

Shouldn't these companies be paying THEIR FAIR SHARE, which basically means paying for the wars they benefit from, paying for the infrastructure they use and so on?

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Its FAR more common that government requires the business to foot the bill for the infrastructure. Look into governments use of 'impact fees' something they invented out of thin air that's not far from mob type protection money. My home builder had to pay several of these impact fees to various local government, they totaled over $15,000. Since I'm already paying my share of school property taxes why did I have to pay thousands of dollars more in school impact fees? Add park impact fees and library impact fees it was ridiculous. Mind you I'm using none of those things. Its just a money grab.

As to my original point the money for infrastructure comes from businesses, either directly via business taxes and fees or indirectly via businesses hiring people who then pay taxes. No jobs, no tax revenue.

Isn't this the point. You and your builder are footing the bill. What about Amazon? I doubt they're paying their fair amount.

Ugh you libs are so poorly informed living in your bubble its almost impossible to communicate with you. Lets take General Electric as an example, once upon a time they employed over 70,000 people in an Upstate NY town. Shocker state and local government decided to vamp suck GE dry to the point that GE finally got fed up and said fuck you NY and began moving the jobs out of state. Today GE employs less than 3,000 people down from 70,000 and the town is now a shit hole where poor people live. Addicted to the spending that used to be funded by vamp sucking on GE the town raised the taxes on the local residents through the roof. GE demolished a bunch of their buildings then sued the town to get back millions of dollars in property taxes, the town didn't have the money so they raised the property taxes on the residents again. This is what liberals do, its how they destroy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Okay, so a company goes to a city which has the investment. So... they want stuff. And they want it free? Oh come on.

If you want infrastructure, you pay for it, if you don't want infrastructure, then don't pay for it. It doesn't seem that hard.

If those companies are the ones that built it, it's because they're paying for it, right? Or not?

We're talking fair share here. Rather than big companies going around asking for handouts in order to go move into a city. That's not fair on any level at all. They're playing the game and they're winning. They claim job creation and all that, but they're sucking the US and other countries dry.

How do smaller companies compete against the big companies with their massive hand outs? Oh, well the small companies need handouts too in order to do this. So, then everyone ends up subsidizing business at all levels.

Then the people being subsidized say it's THEIR MONEY and why should they have to pay the government any tax?
So, govt pays businesses to make jobs, the businessmen and women take loads of that money and spend it on nice houses, and the poor get what?

Is this SMALL GOVERNMENT? I mean, the same people advocating giving a shed load of money to businesses are the same asking for smaller government. I don't get it.

Government acts just like the private market when it comes to attracting businesses and jobs; they compete for them. I don't see anything wrong with that myself. It's my tax money and I want my city to compete to get that business.

Nobody is giving away money to attract these businesses. Again, an investment. If the city managers thought for one minute the city would get screwed by getting a company to move to their town, they wouldn't compete or offer much less. Obviously, a city has much to gain by making these offers.

The problem here is that cities are looking to attract business, people end up following the jobs. So if City A gets the work, then workers move to City A from City B which didn't get the jobs.
If no one did this stuff, then companies would just have to go to where they see best. Therefore they'd have to compete on a fair basis, rather than this way that big companies are getting massive profits from tax money, or being able to undercut smaller business.

The trend is clear. The number of people being employed by small businesses has been dropping steadily over the last decades. Big business is taking over making it harder for smaller businesses to compete.
There was a slight increase from 2000 to 2004, then it dropped. Why did it drop when the economy was absolutely booming at this time? Probably because bigger companies were getting in and stifling the growing smaller businesses.

Well yes, you are partially correct. But what you're forgetting about is the biggest enemy to brick and mortar stores: the internet.

Internet sales have boomed over the last decade or more. It's convenient, saves you a lot of gas running around looking for the best price, and best of all, you can relax in the comfort of your home while researching a product. It's great!

Christmas time is coming and my sister usually does the shopping for both of us for our family. She used to complain about it all the time because she works a lot of hours. But I convinced her of internet shopping because of her limited time. She finally started to do just that.

And you also have to consider automation. We are replacing human beings with machines. In fact, I took off today for a doctors appointment. Usually I stop by the desk and check in. When I went there today, those receptionists were gone. I was instructed by a woman to go one of the six the kiosks. I had to manually punch in all my information that I used to give to those receptionists.

There are even experiments with employee-less McDonald's around. Like my clinic, you have to manually place your order. Machines prepare your drinks and food. Then perhaps a human may give you your order, but that's about it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Corporations built the infrastructure, if anything you should be paying them to use it. Where do you think money comes from, hint it doesn't fall from the sky and government didn't hold a bake sale.

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Its FAR more common that government requires the business to foot the bill for the infrastructure. Look into governments use of 'impact fees' something they invented out of thin air that's not far from mob type protection money. My home builder had to pay several of these impact fees to various local government, they totaled over $15,000. Since I'm already paying my share of school property taxes why did I have to pay thousands of dollars more in school impact fees? Add park impact fees and library impact fees it was ridiculous. Mind you I'm using none of those things. Its just a money grab.

As to my original point the money for infrastructure comes from businesses, either directly via business taxes and fees or indirectly via businesses hiring people who then pay taxes. No jobs, no tax revenue.

Isn't this the point. You and your builder are footing the bill. What about Amazon? I doubt they're paying their fair amount.

Ugh you libs are so poorly informed living in your bubble its almost impossible to communicate with you. Lets take General Electric as an example, once upon a time they employed over 70,000 people in an Upstate NY town. Shocker state and local government decided to vamp suck GE dry to the point that GE finally got fed up and said fuck you NY and began moving the jobs out of state. Today GE employs less than 3,000 people down from 70,000 and the town is now a shit hole where poor people live. Addicted to the spending that used to be funded by vamp sucking on GE the town raised the taxes on the local residents through the roof. GE demolished a bunch of their buildings then sued the town to get back millions of dollars in property taxes, the town didn't have the money so they raised the property taxes on the residents again. This is what liberals do, its how they destroy.

So you're basically telling me you have a communication problem. Right, got it. I'll bear that in mind for future posts.

But based on what you've said, I'm not really sure what your point is.

Sure, a town can do well if it attracts business. But if this two attracts business, some other town isn't attracting business.

If Town A has 70,000 workers for a company, then the company up sticks and moves to Town B, what do you think happens? Simply that workers move from Town A to Town B. What's the difference? Things move here and there. The US economy is still going to be the same, only people lose money because they'd have to move house.

Nothing here changes the economy of the US.

What changes is that towns are all competing, by throwing tax payers money at companies. So, all in all, businesses are getting better of, some communities are doing well, but then taxes are being spent, not on education and social issues, but on big business. Do you not see the problem?

Also, smaller businesses are suffering, more people are working for big business who make massive profits, and who wins? Big business, who spend their time telling you how great this system is. Whereas the poor guys are poor.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Okay, so a company goes to a city which has the investment. So... they want stuff. And they want it free? Oh come on.

If you want infrastructure, you pay for it, if you don't want infrastructure, then don't pay for it. It doesn't seem that hard.

If those companies are the ones that built it, it's because they're paying for it, right? Or not?

We're talking fair share here. Rather than big companies going around asking for handouts in order to go move into a city. That's not fair on any level at all. They're playing the game and they're winning. They claim job creation and all that, but they're sucking the US and other countries dry.

How do smaller companies compete against the big companies with their massive hand outs? Oh, well the small companies need handouts too in order to do this. So, then everyone ends up subsidizing business at all levels.

Then the people being subsidized say it's THEIR MONEY and why should they have to pay the government any tax?
So, govt pays businesses to make jobs, the businessmen and women take loads of that money and spend it on nice houses, and the poor get what?

Is this SMALL GOVERNMENT? I mean, the same people advocating giving a shed load of money to businesses are the same asking for smaller government. I don't get it.

Government acts just like the private market when it comes to attracting businesses and jobs; they compete for them. I don't see anything wrong with that myself. It's my tax money and I want my city to compete to get that business.

Nobody is giving away money to attract these businesses. Again, an investment. If the city managers thought for one minute the city would get screwed by getting a company to move to their town, they wouldn't compete or offer much less. Obviously, a city has much to gain by making these offers.

The problem here is that cities are looking to attract business, people end up following the jobs. So if City A gets the work, then workers move to City A from City B which didn't get the jobs.
If no one did this stuff, then companies would just have to go to where they see best. Therefore they'd have to compete on a fair basis, rather than this way that big companies are getting massive profits from tax money, or being able to undercut smaller business.

The trend is clear. The number of people being employed by small businesses has been dropping steadily over the last decades. Big business is taking over making it harder for smaller businesses to compete.
There was a slight increase from 2000 to 2004, then it dropped. Why did it drop when the economy was absolutely booming at this time? Probably because bigger companies were getting in and stifling the growing smaller businesses.

Well yes, you are partially correct. But what you're forgetting about is the biggest enemy to brick and mortar stores: the internet.

Internet sales have boomed over the last decade or more. It's convenient, saves you a lot of gas running around looking for the best price, and best of all, you can relax in the comfort of your home while researching a product. It's great!

Christmas time is coming and my sister usually does the shopping for both of us for our family. She used to complain about it all the time because she works a lot of hours. But I convinced her of internet shopping because of her limited time. She finally started to do just that.

And you also have to consider automation. We are replacing human beings with machines. In fact, I took off today for a doctors appointment. Usually I stop by the desk and check in. When I went there today, those receptionists were gone. I was instructed by a woman to go one of the six the kiosks. I had to manually punch in all my information that I used to give to those receptionists.

There are even experiments with employee-less McDonald's around. Like my clinic, you have to manually place your order. Machines prepare your drinks and food. Then perhaps a human may give you your order, but that's about it.

I'm not forgetting this at all. It happens. But still, is it big business still getting tax money to do business? Is that paying their fair amount of tax? It's still not, regardless of internet.

 

[BluesLegend]

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Its FAR more common that government requires the business to foot the bill for the infrastructure. Look into governments use of 'impact fees' something they invented out of thin air that's not far from mob type protection money. My home builder had to pay several of these impact fees to various local government, they totaled over $15,000. Since I'm already paying my share of school property taxes why did I have to pay thousands of dollars more in school impact fees? Add park impact fees and library impact fees it was ridiculous. Mind you I'm using none of those things. Its just a money grab.

As to my original point the money for infrastructure comes from businesses, either directly via business taxes and fees or indirectly via businesses hiring people who then pay taxes. No jobs, no tax revenue.

Isn't this the point. You and your builder are footing the bill. What about Amazon? I doubt they're paying their fair amount.

Ugh you libs are so poorly informed living in your bubble its almost impossible to communicate with you. Lets take General Electric as an example, once upon a time they employed over 70,000 people in an Upstate NY town. Shocker state and local government decided to vamp suck GE dry to the point that GE finally got fed up and said fuck you NY and began moving the jobs out of state. Today GE employs less than 3,000 people down from 70,000 and the town is now a shit hole where poor people live. Addicted to the spending that used to be funded by vamp sucking on GE the town raised the taxes on the local residents through the roof. GE demolished a bunch of their buildings then sued the town to get back millions of dollars in property taxes, the town didn't have the money so they raised the property taxes on the residents again. This is what liberals do, its how they destroy.

So you're basically telling me you have a communication problem. Right, got it. I'll bear that in mind for future posts.

But based on what you've said, I'm not really sure what your point is.

Sure, a town can do well if it attracts business. But if this two attracts business, some other town isn't attracting business.

If Town A has 70,000 workers for a company, then the company up sticks and moves to Town B, what do you think happens? Simply that workers move from Town A to Town B. What's the difference? Things move here and there. The US economy is still going to be the same, only people lose money because they'd have to move house.

Nothing here changes the economy of the US.

What changes is that towns are all competing, by throwing tax payers money at companies. So, all in all, businesses are getting better of, some communities are doing well, but then taxes are being spent, not on education and social issues, but on big business. Do you not see the problem?

Also, smaller businesses are suffering, more people are working for big business who make massive profits, and who wins? Big business, who spend their time telling you how great this system is. Whereas the poor guys are poor.

^^^ ahahaha irony. Some of you libs are funny your not all bad.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Its FAR more common that government requires the business to foot the bill for the infrastructure. Look into governments use of 'impact fees' something they invented out of thin air that's not far from mob type protection money. My home builder had to pay several of these impact fees to various local government, they totaled over $15,000. Since I'm already paying my share of school property taxes why did I have to pay thousands of dollars more in school impact fees? Add park impact fees and library impact fees it was ridiculous. Mind you I'm using none of those things. Its just a money grab.

As to my original point the money for infrastructure comes from businesses, either directly via business taxes and fees or indirectly via businesses hiring people who then pay taxes. No jobs, no tax revenue.

Isn't this the point. You and your builder are footing the bill. What about Amazon? I doubt they're paying their fair amount.

Ugh you libs are so poorly informed living in your bubble its almost impossible to communicate with you. Lets take General Electric as an example, once upon a time they employed over 70,000 people in an Upstate NY town. Shocker state and local government decided to vamp suck GE dry to the point that GE finally got fed up and said fuck you NY and began moving the jobs out of state. Today GE employs less than 3,000 people down from 70,000 and the town is now a shit hole where poor people live. Addicted to the spending that used to be funded by vamp sucking on GE the town raised the taxes on the local residents through the roof. GE demolished a bunch of their buildings then sued the town to get back millions of dollars in property taxes, the town didn't have the money so they raised the property taxes on the residents again. This is what liberals do, its how they destroy.

So you're basically telling me you have a communication problem. Right, got it. I'll bear that in mind for future posts.

But based on what you've said, I'm not really sure what your point is.

Sure, a town can do well if it attracts business. But if this two attracts business, some other town isn't attracting business.

If Town A has 70,000 workers for a company, then the company up sticks and moves to Town B, what do you think happens? Simply that workers move from Town A to Town B. What's the difference? Things move here and there. The US economy is still going to be the same, only people lose money because they'd have to move house.

Nothing here changes the economy of the US.

What changes is that towns are all competing, by throwing tax payers money at companies. So, all in all, businesses are getting better of, some communities are doing well, but then taxes are being spent, not on education and social issues, but on big business. Do you not see the problem?

Also, smaller businesses are suffering, more people are working for big business who make massive profits, and who wins? Big business, who spend their time telling you how great this system is. Whereas the poor guys are poor.

^^^ ahahaha irony. Some of you libs are funny your not all bad.

So, basically, a waste of time AND bad grammar.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Okay, so a company goes to a city which has the investment. So... they want stuff. And they want it free? Oh come on.

If you want infrastructure, you pay for it, if you don't want infrastructure, then don't pay for it. It doesn't seem that hard.

If those companies are the ones that built it, it's because they're paying for it, right? Or not?

We're talking fair share here. Rather than big companies going around asking for handouts in order to go move into a city. That's not fair on any level at all. They're playing the game and they're winning. They claim job creation and all that, but they're sucking the US and other countries dry.

How do smaller companies compete against the big companies with their massive hand outs? Oh, well the small companies need handouts too in order to do this. So, then everyone ends up subsidizing business at all levels.

Then the people being subsidized say it's THEIR MONEY and why should they have to pay the government any tax?
So, govt pays businesses to make jobs, the businessmen and women take loads of that money and spend it on nice houses, and the poor get what?

Is this SMALL GOVERNMENT? I mean, the same people advocating giving a shed load of money to businesses are the same asking for smaller government. I don't get it.

Government acts just like the private market when it comes to attracting businesses and jobs; they compete for them. I don't see anything wrong with that myself. It's my tax money and I want my city to compete to get that business.

Nobody is giving away money to attract these businesses. Again, an investment. If the city managers thought for one minute the city would get screwed by getting a company to move to their town, they wouldn't compete or offer much less. Obviously, a city has much to gain by making these offers.

The problem here is that cities are looking to attract business, people end up following the jobs. So if City A gets the work, then workers move to City A from City B which didn't get the jobs.
If no one did this stuff, then companies would just have to go to where they see best. Therefore they'd have to compete on a fair basis, rather than this way that big companies are getting massive profits from tax money, or being able to undercut smaller business.

The trend is clear. The number of people being employed by small businesses has been dropping steadily over the last decades. Big business is taking over making it harder for smaller businesses to compete.
There was a slight increase from 2000 to 2004, then it dropped. Why did it drop when the economy was absolutely booming at this time? Probably because bigger companies were getting in and stifling the growing smaller businesses.

Well yes, you are partially correct. But what you're forgetting about is the biggest enemy to brick and mortar stores: the internet.

Internet sales have boomed over the last decade or more. It's convenient, saves you a lot of gas running around looking for the best price, and best of all, you can relax in the comfort of your home while researching a product. It's great!

Christmas time is coming and my sister usually does the shopping for both of us for our family. She used to complain about it all the time because she works a lot of hours. But I convinced her of internet shopping because of her limited time. She finally started to do just that.

And you also have to consider automation. We are replacing human beings with machines. In fact, I took off today for a doctors appointment. Usually I stop by the desk and check in. When I went there today, those receptionists were gone. I was instructed by a woman to go one of the six the kiosks. I had to manually punch in all my information that I used to give to those receptionists.

There are even experiments with employee-less McDonald's around. Like my clinic, you have to manually place your order. Machines prepare your drinks and food. Then perhaps a human may give you your order, but that's about it.

I'm not forgetting this at all. It happens. But still, is it big business still getting tax money to do business? Is that paying their fair amount of tax? It's still not, regardless of internet.

Well if you have a consumption tax in your state, internet sales seldom include that tax, so then your state is losing out.

In most cases, the city is not giving anybody anything. They offer tax breaks and the city may not be raking in what they want, but they are still getting taxes of some kind.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They build the infrastructure, who paid them to do this job? Oh, yeah, the government, using the money the people gave them through taxes.

Money comes from people doing business, producing things, selling no physical things etc.

The point is that corporations are using a LOT of the things that are made. Shouldn't they be paying their FAIR amount for using those things?

Government (cities) create that infrastructure because it's an investment. I've seen this several times where I work. A company is deciding on what city or state they wish to open or move their company to. Cities compete for that business by promising new roads, improved roads, better lighting, tax exemptions and so on.

The city that wins the contest has to make the investment they promised, but in return, have a business that's going to hire hundreds or thousands of people. Plus they will really make out with the new taxation of employees that work there whether they live in that city or not.

Without those companies, the city would not have that tax revenue to build that infrastructure. Obama was wrong, those companies DID build that.

Its FAR more common that government requires the business to foot the bill for the infrastructure. Look into governments use of 'impact fees' something they invented out of thin air that's not far from mob type protection money. My home builder had to pay several of these impact fees to various local government, they totaled over $15,000. Since I'm already paying my share of school property taxes why did I have to pay thousands of dollars more in school impact fees? Add park impact fees and library impact fees it was ridiculous. Mind you I'm using none of those things. Its just a money grab.

As to my original point the money for infrastructure comes from businesses, either directly via business taxes and fees or indirectly via businesses hiring people who then pay taxes. No jobs, no tax revenue.

Isn't this the point. You and your builder are footing the bill. What about Amazon? I doubt they're paying their fair amount.

Ugh you libs are so poorly informed living in your bubble its almost impossible to communicate with you. Lets take General Electric as an example, once upon a time they employed over 70,000 people in an Upstate NY town. Shocker state and local government decided to vamp suck GE dry to the point that GE finally got fed up and said fuck you NY and began moving the jobs out of state. Today GE employs less than 3,000 people down from 70,000 and the town is now a shit hole where poor people live. Addicted to the spending that used to be funded by vamp sucking on GE the town raised the taxes on the local residents through the roof. GE demolished a bunch of their buildings then sued the town to get back millions of dollars in property taxes, the town didn't have the money so they raised the property taxes on the residents again. This is what liberals do, its how they destroy.

So you're basically telling me you have a communication problem. Right, got it. I'll bear that in mind for future posts.

But based on what you've said, I'm not really sure what your point is.

Sure, a town can do well if it attracts business. But if this two attracts business, some other town isn't attracting business.

If Town A has 70,000 workers for a company, then the company up sticks and moves to Town B, what do you think happens? Simply that workers move from Town A to Town B. What's the difference? Things move here and there. The US economy is still going to be the same, only people lose money because they'd have to move house.

Nothing here changes the economy of the US.

What changes is that towns are all competing, by throwing tax payers money at companies. So, all in all, businesses are getting better of, some communities are doing well, but then taxes are being spent, not on education and social issues, but on big business. Do you not see the problem?

Also, smaller businesses are suffering, more people are working for big business who make massive profits, and who wins? Big business, who spend their time telling you how great this system is. Whereas the poor guys are poor.

No, everybody wins.

The business wins because yes, they did get some tax breaks.

The city wins because even with those breaks, they are still bringing in more money.

The citizens win especially when it comes to malls and big box stores. They also win if they get a job at one of these places.

If the city beats out other locations in different states, then the state wins too. More state tax money from employees and business.

So with all these winners, who loses? The cities that didn't get the bid for the business.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well if you have a consumption tax in your state, internet sales seldom include that tax, so then your state is losing out.

In most cases, the city is not giving anybody anything. They offer tax breaks and the city may not be raking in what they want, but they are still getting taxes of some kind.

Internet sales taxes will probably change over time. However what's the point you are making? Large corporations aren't paying enough taxes as it is, selling online doesn't change that.

The cities are getting some taxes, but generally taxing the people and not the corporations or the rich guys. Is that fair. Those who earn the most, get the most out of infrastructure etc, paying the smallest percentage?

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, everybody wins.

The business wins because yes, they did get some tax breaks.

The city wins because even with those breaks, they are still bringing in more money.

The citizens win especially when it comes to malls and big box stores. They also win if they get a job at one of these places.

If the city beats out other locations in different states, then the state wins too. More state tax money from employees and business.

So with all these winners, who loses? The cities that didn't get the bid for the business.

No, I disagree that "everybody wins".

The business wins, they get tax breaks. They get to undercut rivals. They get to make higher profits because the govt essential threw money at them.

The city wins? A city is a collection of buildings. I don't see how it can win. And no, I'm not being pedantic, I understand what you wanted to say. However the point I'm making ends up seeing the city as just that, buildings.

The citizens win? Do they? So, more people work for larger companies, less people are able to compete with the larger companies. Those business people who lose profits because they're being undercut by big business getting tax breaks don't win. Those whose business goes bust don't win. Those people who end up working for a greedy big business like, for example, Walmart probably don't win either. I'm struggling to see who wins here. How about the tax payers who end up giving a chunk of their taxes to a large company which doesn't need those taxes, do they win? I fail to see how me paying a large company money just to be there helps me.

Maybe some people do benefit. Maybe some poorer people who are unwilling to move, they get their jobs in Walmart instead of being unemployed.

However back to the non-pedantic point. Does the US benefit? Not really. It's taking money from the workers, the people who spend the money, gives it to big companies, who post a profit, who then give it to shareholders (or to the main person if it doesn't have shares), how many of the shareholders aren't American? Essentially funnelling money out of the country.

If one city benefits, perhaps another city loses. When if everything were equal, then perhaps one city could do better without having to pay loads of tax money in the first place. So, it's giving money to companies, when it really shouldn't be happening.

On a national level perhaps keeping companies in the US can help. Perhaps. The problem here is that the US isn't aiming its production towards higher end products, education is simply not being dealt with properly, and so in the future the US might be struggling to keep high end jobs, or importing many foreigners to do those jobs.

Yes, I'm rambling a little. I haven't done loads of research into this in order to give definitive answers, however even on the surface I don't see much winning going on for anyone other than big businesses who are getting away with tax murder.

 

[eagle1462010]

So who should you expect to support you and your generation when it comes time for you to retire?

If you cannot support yourself in retirement, then you have failed in life.

Really? Then what about the people that can't support themselves long before retirement?

I'll be fine come retirement, but what if I wasn't?

Would it be my fault for not having enough to save, or would it be governments fault for forcing me into a social program I knew would eventually be a failure instead of them letting me keep that money for my own retirement?

You are spot on with that point, and that is government causes people to be failures.

The problem is not social security itself. The problem is that the trust fund is not an asset held by the government, therefore the money you put in is gone. The government did not invest social security surpluses in every year you paid in, they spent every penny. That was your generation that did that.

No, it's your government that did that. It's your government that conned everybody years ago into believing in this system. It's your government that is ripping everybody off and are still ripping everybody off with new social programs like Obama Care.

Since it is not your government, why not get the hell out of our country? Take your money and assets and move, you won't be missed.

LOL

Agree with me or ELSE..................We are the Borg.........Resistance is Futile.................

The Democratic tactic for those who don't agree............You WILL ACCEPT WHAT WE DEMAND OF YOU..........

The Hell you say..........You shove laws down our throats during a time of TEMPORARY DOMINANCE OF ONE PARTY.........which is the reason why our Gov't is a Republic...........Pure Democracy turns to Tyranny of a small majority of 51% telling the other how to live.............

Polls state most do NOT LIKE OBAMACARE..............If it is the will of the people then why do people say they don't like it.........and why is IT FAILING TO DO AS PROMISED........................

Yet you say it's good for you.............

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well if you have a consumption tax in your state, internet sales seldom include that tax, so then your state is losing out.

In most cases, the city is not giving anybody anything. They offer tax breaks and the city may not be raking in what they want, but they are still getting taxes of some kind.

Internet sales taxes will probably change over time. However what's the point you are making? Large corporations aren't paying enough taxes as it is, selling online doesn't change that.

The cities are getting some taxes, but generally taxing the people and not the corporations or the rich guys. Is that fair. Those who earn the most, get the most out of infrastructure etc, paying the smallest percentage?

Sure it's fair. If the people of such location don't want the business for whatever reason, they can petition their representatives to stop it.

This is what we did by my home about ten years ago. A dollar store was about to open up around the corner. The problem was we had 10 dollar stores in the suburb and even that was five too many. Also it was a round peg in a square hole because they wanted to tear down a few houses to put put the store there.

Our councilman must have been on the take somewhere along the lines because he fought us tooth and nail to erect this store nobody here wanted. To make a long story short, we won, and the councilman had to retire because he stood no chance at ever being reelected.

A new business bringing in new taxes (albeit not as much as they would otherwise contribute) is better than no business at all, and the citizens get to decide this. If you don't like rich people getting tax breaks, then fight to keep them out and your neighbors in the next city will gladly welcome this new business. In the meantime, you will still be paying the same taxes for those schools and roads you already have.

 

[eagle1462010]

If you cannot support yourself in retirement, then you have failed in life.

SS is not intended to be sole support but rather to supplement

There are many legit reasons why one could be in poor financial straits at retirement but those who failed to sacrifice some spending and save for retirement have indeed failed and, I would argue, did so knowingly, perhaps believing others - family or gov't - would carry them.

SS's biggest problem is the mass of soon-to-be retired (and collecting SS) baby-boomers. Currently there are 5 workers for every SS beneficiary. In 10 years the ratio will be 3.5 to 1.

A bank charges double digit interest and pays less than 1% interest and charges those with small balances a fee, while providing loans at a lesser rate to those with large accounts and paying a higher rate of interest isn't fair, and is an example of legal institutional discrimination.

Double digit interest? Are you living in 1978? My mortgage was about 4%, my stepfather's car loan is 1.5%.

Wry seems to live in a loony leftist fog where any lie that smears "the rich" is justifiable. Hers is a pretty common Bernie Sanders lament where the rich are rich because the poor are poor.

It's stupid but it seems to make them feel good about themselves.

Facts seem to confuse you. Greed is a deadly sin,

So is envy...

I'd bet I pay more in taxes in a year, than you gross in the same year.

So.................Under a Republic system of Gov't..............I have the same vote as you...........whether I make a penny or a million.....................................

It doesn't change a dang thing on opposite opinions.

 

[eagle1462010]

Big Business pushes the cost of doing business to the consumer.............They don't eat all the taxes they pay..................

They add it to the cost of the product.............and then the people say why is everything going up in price............Dang Rich people and Corps...............TAX THEM TAX THEM................So the Gov't does..............

Then the price goes up again.................and they don't even know that they are paying for their chant anyway..................

You can't fix stupid.............

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure it's fair. If the people of such location don't want the business for whatever reason, they can petition their representatives to stop it.

This is what we did by my home about ten years ago. A dollar store was about to open up around the corner. The problem was we had 10 dollar stores in the suburb and even that was five too many. Also it was a round peg in a square hole because they wanted to tear down a few houses to put put the store there.

Our councilman must have been on the take somewhere along the lines because he fought us tooth and nail to erect this store nobody here wanted. To make a long story short, we won, and the councilman had to retire because he stood no chance at ever being reelected.

A new business bringing in new taxes (albeit not as much as they would otherwise contribute) is better than no business at all, and the citizens get to decide this. If you don't like rich people getting tax breaks, then fight to keep them out and your neighbors in the next city will gladly welcome this new business. In the meantime, you will still be paying the same taxes for those schools and roads you already have.

I understand what you're saying, and understand the principle of what you're saying too. However I don't agree.

You say business is better than no business. Is it? How many people are put off from opening their own local business because they simply can't compete with the bigger business?

Does having all the money in the hands of the big businesses really benefit a society? I would doubt it very much.