Republicans introduce new health care bill This Week!

[Ray From Cleveland]

That all depends on the business. Some will pay that rate while others pay almost nothing in taxes.

And isn't the argument that because there's such a high level of tax, that it can't be the rich running the country? Which companies do you think end up paying no tax? The multi billionaires, the Trumps of this world, the ones who CONTROL THINGS.

Isn't it amazing that you people put someone like that in charge of the country because he spend SO MUCH MONEY telling you he was DIFFERENT?????

Tax write-offs are available to all businesses, and some get more tax qualifications than others. I have hundreds of write-offs every year. It's the only way I can continue staying in the rental business. If I don't make enough money in rental collections, or if I have a lot of bills I needed to pay, I don't pay very much income tax at all.

Okay, and how is it that the super rich are getting the largest write-offs? Is this fair? Does it make for better competition (surely the backbone of their Capitalism argument)?

Your argument, I'll repeat again, was that the rich don't run the US, and your evidence was that they pay a lot of tax, and yet, you've not shown they pay a lot of tax, you've accepted they have massive write-offs, sometimes to the point where they're paying nothing. Er... wait, does this mean the rich DO RUN THE USA?

Again, some pay massive taxes and others don't. It depends on their deductions.

Take away all those write-offs, and businesses won't invest. That puts a damper on our stock market, a damper on Americans that make machinery for production, a damper on office supplies and equipment.

It has noting to do with what the rich are paying the politicians, it has to do with keeping (or helping) the economy grow as a whole.

Some pay massive taxes, but generally the large corporations don't.

Your justification for this is RIDICULOUS. Okay, so take away them having to pay TAXES and they won't invest. Invest in what? Invest in making their company more profitable and stopping other companies being able to stand a chance. It's clear that small businesses suffer massively because of this policy.

The fact is this policy is a negative one that makes the rich richer and fucks over those who are trying to make it and might have better ideas.

It has a LOT to do with the bribery these corporations are paying to the politicians. The politicians are SUPPOSED to represent the people, and yet they have people like you supporting their cause. What the hell? How is it that a guy like you ends up talking about the benefits of giving rich corporations massive amounts of money?

Government is not giving them any money. If they allow a company to keep THEIR OWN MONEY, that's not giving them anything.

You on the left seem to have a great confusion about money. You think all money belongs to government, and anything they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you.

When I take my tax deductions this year, the government is not giving me anything. When I receive my income tax refund check, the government is not giving me anything. This is my money we are talking about here--not governments money. I created this wealth, I spent this money, it's mine.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who is we? The American people? Well, some yes, some no. Who doesn't want it? The rich. Who does want it? The poor, meaning those who aren't well off enough to easily afford healthcare. Even the bottom half of the Middle Class would probably want it, if they're not partisan and easily told what to think.

Nobody is told what to think. Hil-Liar introduced her socialized healthcare system in the 90's, and it cost her husband the loss of Congressional leadership for the first time in over 40 years.

Then DumBama came out with Commie Care. It not only lost him the leadership of Congress and the Senate, but most governorships across the country and most recently, the White House.

No, middle-class people don't want government dictating what kind of care they get no more than we wanted government forcing us to buy insurance we didn't want or couldn't afford. It's totally un-American.

The Canadian system is but one system. There are lots, and some of them are quite good. Every system has pros and cons. The thing is, why do you have a health system? To benefit the rich? Or to benefit the country?

We have a health system for profit. That's it. It's just like any other business. People get an education, people invest money to open up facilities, larger operations buy out smaller operations, FOR PROFIT!

I told you about insults.

I told you I don't play by your rules no more than I insist you play by mine.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And isn't the argument that because there's such a high level of tax, that it can't be the rich running the country? Which companies do you think end up paying no tax? The multi billionaires, the Trumps of this world, the ones who CONTROL THINGS.

Isn't it amazing that you people put someone like that in charge of the country because he spend SO MUCH MONEY telling you he was DIFFERENT?????

Tax write-offs are available to all businesses, and some get more tax qualifications than others. I have hundreds of write-offs every year. It's the only way I can continue staying in the rental business. If I don't make enough money in rental collections, or if I have a lot of bills I needed to pay, I don't pay very much income tax at all.

Okay, and how is it that the super rich are getting the largest write-offs? Is this fair? Does it make for better competition (surely the backbone of their Capitalism argument)?

Your argument, I'll repeat again, was that the rich don't run the US, and your evidence was that they pay a lot of tax, and yet, you've not shown they pay a lot of tax, you've accepted they have massive write-offs, sometimes to the point where they're paying nothing. Er... wait, does this mean the rich DO RUN THE USA?

Again, some pay massive taxes and others don't. It depends on their deductions.

Take away all those write-offs, and businesses won't invest. That puts a damper on our stock market, a damper on Americans that make machinery for production, a damper on office supplies and equipment.

It has noting to do with what the rich are paying the politicians, it has to do with keeping (or helping) the economy grow as a whole.

Some pay massive taxes, but generally the large corporations don't.

Your justification for this is RIDICULOUS. Okay, so take away them having to pay TAXES and they won't invest. Invest in what? Invest in making their company more profitable and stopping other companies being able to stand a chance. It's clear that small businesses suffer massively because of this policy.

The fact is this policy is a negative one that makes the rich richer and fucks over those who are trying to make it and might have better ideas.

It has a LOT to do with the bribery these corporations are paying to the politicians. The politicians are SUPPOSED to represent the people, and yet they have people like you supporting their cause. What the hell? How is it that a guy like you ends up talking about the benefits of giving rich corporations massive amounts of money?

Government is not giving them any money. If they allow a company to keep THEIR OWN MONEY, that's not giving them anything.

You on the left seem to have a great confusion about money. You think all money belongs to government, and anything they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you.

When I take my tax deductions this year, the government is not giving me anything. When I receive my income tax refund check, the government is not giving me anything. This is my money we are talking about here--not governments money. I created this wealth, I spent this money, it's mine.

They're giving them money because they're not making them PAY FOR THINGS they should be paying for.

I'm not confused about money at all, don't start that bullshit on me.

I don't think all money belongs to the govt (technically it actually does) I just want people to pay for what they use. This money belongs to the people, the govt is a representation of the people. So when the govt goes and gives the money of the people to large corporations so they don't have to pay anything, that's stealing.

If anything, those who should get away with not paying their fair share of tax are SMALL BUSINESSES, not fucking large corporations.

You created this wealth huh? Well, i disagree with that. If you were in Somalia, would you be creating this wealth? No, probably not. The govt has set up the conditions for you to be able to do this, infrastructure, stability etc etc, you should pay for that.

If I go to the supermarket and fill my shopping cart with $100 worth of food, and I go to the checkout and they charge me $50, and I getting $50 free, or was this mine in the first place? Why do you not think you have to pay for services?

Also, from your perspective, the tax deductions are ridiculous anyway. It'd be simpler to just make you pay for what you should pay without a whole array of deductions. For the larger corporations to pay NOTHING in tax, is just the govt stealing the people's money and giving it to the rich.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Who is we? The American people? Well, some yes, some no. Who doesn't want it? The rich. Who does want it? The poor, meaning those who aren't well off enough to easily afford healthcare. Even the bottom half of the Middle Class would probably want it, if they're not partisan and easily told what to think.

Nobody is told what to think. Hil-Liar introduced her socialized healthcare system in the 90's, and it cost her husband the loss of Congressional leadership for the first time in over 40 years.

Then DumBama came out with Commie Care. It not only lost him the leadership of Congress and the Senate, but most governorships across the country and most recently, the White House.

No, middle-class people don't want government dictating what kind of care they get no more than we wanted government forcing us to buy insurance we didn't want or couldn't afford. It's totally un-American.

The Canadian system is but one system. There are lots, and some of them are quite good. Every system has pros and cons. The thing is, why do you have a health system? To benefit the rich? Or to benefit the country?

We have a health system for profit. That's it. It's just like any other business. People get an education, people invest money to open up facilities, larger operations buy out smaller operations, FOR PROFIT!

I told you about insults.

I told you I don't play by your rules no more than I insist you play by mine.

I don't care. You insult, I don't respond to what you wrote. It's simple. And when you're telling me that a guy who went to Harvard is stupid, and yet you have to resort to insults.... well.....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Tax write-offs are available to all businesses, and some get more tax qualifications than others. I have hundreds of write-offs every year. It's the only way I can continue staying in the rental business. If I don't make enough money in rental collections, or if I have a lot of bills I needed to pay, I don't pay very much income tax at all.

Okay, and how is it that the super rich are getting the largest write-offs? Is this fair? Does it make for better competition (surely the backbone of their Capitalism argument)?

Your argument, I'll repeat again, was that the rich don't run the US, and your evidence was that they pay a lot of tax, and yet, you've not shown they pay a lot of tax, you've accepted they have massive write-offs, sometimes to the point where they're paying nothing. Er... wait, does this mean the rich DO RUN THE USA?

Again, some pay massive taxes and others don't. It depends on their deductions.

Take away all those write-offs, and businesses won't invest. That puts a damper on our stock market, a damper on Americans that make machinery for production, a damper on office supplies and equipment.

It has noting to do with what the rich are paying the politicians, it has to do with keeping (or helping) the economy grow as a whole.

Some pay massive taxes, but generally the large corporations don't.

Your justification for this is RIDICULOUS. Okay, so take away them having to pay TAXES and they won't invest. Invest in what? Invest in making their company more profitable and stopping other companies being able to stand a chance. It's clear that small businesses suffer massively because of this policy.

The fact is this policy is a negative one that makes the rich richer and fucks over those who are trying to make it and might have better ideas.

It has a LOT to do with the bribery these corporations are paying to the politicians. The politicians are SUPPOSED to represent the people, and yet they have people like you supporting their cause. What the hell? How is it that a guy like you ends up talking about the benefits of giving rich corporations massive amounts of money?

Government is not giving them any money. If they allow a company to keep THEIR OWN MONEY, that's not giving them anything.

You on the left seem to have a great confusion about money. You think all money belongs to government, and anything they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you.

When I take my tax deductions this year, the government is not giving me anything. When I receive my income tax refund check, the government is not giving me anything. This is my money we are talking about here--not governments money. I created this wealth, I spent this money, it's mine.

They're giving them money because they're not making them PAY FOR THINGS they should be paying for.

I'm not confused about money at all, don't start that bullshit on me.

I don't think all money belongs to the govt (technically it actually does) I just want people to pay for what they use. This money belongs to the people, the govt is a representation of the people. So when the govt goes and gives the money of the people to large corporations so they don't have to pay anything, that's stealing.

If anything, those who should get away with not paying their fair share of tax are SMALL BUSINESSES, not fucking large corporations.

You created this wealth huh? Well, i disagree with that. If you were in Somalia, would you be creating this wealth? No, probably not. The govt has set up the conditions for you to be able to do this, infrastructure, stability etc etc, you should pay for that.

If I go to the supermarket and fill my shopping cart with $100 worth of food, and I go to the checkout and they charge me $50, and I getting $50 free, or was this mine in the first place? Why do you not think you have to pay for services?

Also, from your perspective, the tax deductions are ridiculous anyway. It'd be simpler to just make you pay for what you should pay without a whole array of deductions. For the larger corporations to pay NOTHING in tax, is just the govt stealing the people's money and giving it to the rich.

Yep, you could take away my deductions, but my only recourse would be to increase rents on my tenants. That's a solution to you?

I have always wondered where you on the left get this idea that YOU are the judges on what is a "fair share' and what others "owe to government."

So let's say you are my neighbor. And when you go out to walk your dog, I go into your house and steal $100.00 every week. But after a while, I feel guilty about it, so when you walk your dog, I only take $50.00 a week. Do you think I'm "giving" you $50.00 a week?

Money does not belong "to the people" money belongs to the individual that created that money. The founders of this country never meant our nation to be a giant commune.

As far as "who pays for that" the rich do. They do it in corporate taxes, they do it in income taxes, they do it in state taxes, they do it paying local taxes, they do it in personal income taxes, the do it by creating jobs for workers to pay taxes.

The government does not create infrastructure so that businesses can exist, businesses pay for infrastructure so government can exist.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, and how is it that the super rich are getting the largest write-offs? Is this fair? Does it make for better competition (surely the backbone of their Capitalism argument)?

Your argument, I'll repeat again, was that the rich don't run the US, and your evidence was that they pay a lot of tax, and yet, you've not shown they pay a lot of tax, you've accepted they have massive write-offs, sometimes to the point where they're paying nothing. Er... wait, does this mean the rich DO RUN THE USA?

Again, some pay massive taxes and others don't. It depends on their deductions.

Take away all those write-offs, and businesses won't invest. That puts a damper on our stock market, a damper on Americans that make machinery for production, a damper on office supplies and equipment.

It has noting to do with what the rich are paying the politicians, it has to do with keeping (or helping) the economy grow as a whole.

Some pay massive taxes, but generally the large corporations don't.

Your justification for this is RIDICULOUS. Okay, so take away them having to pay TAXES and they won't invest. Invest in what? Invest in making their company more profitable and stopping other companies being able to stand a chance. It's clear that small businesses suffer massively because of this policy.

The fact is this policy is a negative one that makes the rich richer and fucks over those who are trying to make it and might have better ideas.

It has a LOT to do with the bribery these corporations are paying to the politicians. The politicians are SUPPOSED to represent the people, and yet they have people like you supporting their cause. What the hell? How is it that a guy like you ends up talking about the benefits of giving rich corporations massive amounts of money?

Government is not giving them any money. If they allow a company to keep THEIR OWN MONEY, that's not giving them anything.

You on the left seem to have a great confusion about money. You think all money belongs to government, and anything they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you.

When I take my tax deductions this year, the government is not giving me anything. When I receive my income tax refund check, the government is not giving me anything. This is my money we are talking about here--not governments money. I created this wealth, I spent this money, it's mine.

They're giving them money because they're not making them PAY FOR THINGS they should be paying for.

I'm not confused about money at all, don't start that bullshit on me.

I don't think all money belongs to the govt (technically it actually does) I just want people to pay for what they use. This money belongs to the people, the govt is a representation of the people. So when the govt goes and gives the money of the people to large corporations so they don't have to pay anything, that's stealing.

If anything, those who should get away with not paying their fair share of tax are SMALL BUSINESSES, not fucking large corporations.

You created this wealth huh? Well, i disagree with that. If you were in Somalia, would you be creating this wealth? No, probably not. The govt has set up the conditions for you to be able to do this, infrastructure, stability etc etc, you should pay for that.

If I go to the supermarket and fill my shopping cart with $100 worth of food, and I go to the checkout and they charge me $50, and I getting $50 free, or was this mine in the first place? Why do you not think you have to pay for services?

Also, from your perspective, the tax deductions are ridiculous anyway. It'd be simpler to just make you pay for what you should pay without a whole array of deductions. For the larger corporations to pay NOTHING in tax, is just the govt stealing the people's money and giving it to the rich.

Yep, you could take away my deductions, but my only recourse would be to increase rents on my tenants. That's a solution to you?

I have always wondered where you on the left get this idea that YOU are the judges on what is a "fair share' and what others "owe to government."

So let's say you are my neighbor. And when you go out to walk your dog, I go into your house and steal $100.00 every week. But after a while, I feel guilty about it, so when you walk your dog, I only take $50.00 a week. Do you think I'm "giving" you $50.00 a week?

Money does not belong "to the people" money belongs to the individual that created that money. The founders of this country never meant our nation to be a giant commune.

As far as "who pays for that" the rich do. They do it in corporate taxes, they do it in income taxes, they do it in state taxes, they do it paying local taxes, they do it in personal income taxes, the do it by creating jobs for workers to pay taxes.

The government does not create infrastructure so that businesses can exist, businesses pay for infrastructure so government can exist.

First, what I said was, you don't need deductions, you just have the tax. Okay, so the rent goes up. Is it the govt's place to decide these things?

Who am I to judge? Well, I'm a human being with a brain and I WILL judge, thank you very much.

Someone is deciding what is a share. That decision has to be made by humans, you can't avoid that. Giving me the bullshit story of "who are you to decide" doesn't change the fact that someone will decide. And who are they to decide? Well, they're representatives of the people who should do what the people want, so the people better have an idea of what is a "fair share", shouldn't they?

Yes, you've told me this nonsense analogy before. It doesn't fit here and I'm not responding to it again.

Let's make a better one.

You have two businesses, one is a multi-national and the other is a small business that employs three people.

The multi national company needs to transport stuff and they use 1000 trucks in a day to ride over government roads, and rack up 5,000 miles per day on average.
The small company needs to transport stuff and they use one truck a day and average 200 miles per day.

The multinational company pays no tax. They do not pay to use the roads for the 5000 miles that they have used of government road.
The small company must pay 30% tax. So the small company has to pay for the roads that they have used, and they also have to pay for the multinational company to use those roads.

The multi-national company can therefore transport those items more cheaply because they're not paying tax on delivering their goods, whereas the small business does.

Therefore the goods for the multinational are much cheaper, therefore the small business goes bankrupt, not because their company is worse, but because some fucker in govt decided the multinational doesn't need to pay tax and makes the smaller company uncompetitive compared to the multinational.

Sound fair?

The problem is you're saying the multinationals are creating jobs. Yes, and no. They're creating jobs by preventing other jobs from existing. If the multinational didn't do it, a small company would do it. If the small company did it then some middle class dude would be making profits. If the multinational does it, the middle class dude has to work for them and earns a fixed wage and will probably have LESS money.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, some pay massive taxes and others don't. It depends on their deductions.

Take away all those write-offs, and businesses won't invest. That puts a damper on our stock market, a damper on Americans that make machinery for production, a damper on office supplies and equipment.

It has noting to do with what the rich are paying the politicians, it has to do with keeping (or helping) the economy grow as a whole.

Some pay massive taxes, but generally the large corporations don't.

Your justification for this is RIDICULOUS. Okay, so take away them having to pay TAXES and they won't invest. Invest in what? Invest in making their company more profitable and stopping other companies being able to stand a chance. It's clear that small businesses suffer massively because of this policy.

The fact is this policy is a negative one that makes the rich richer and fucks over those who are trying to make it and might have better ideas.

It has a LOT to do with the bribery these corporations are paying to the politicians. The politicians are SUPPOSED to represent the people, and yet they have people like you supporting their cause. What the hell? How is it that a guy like you ends up talking about the benefits of giving rich corporations massive amounts of money?

Government is not giving them any money. If they allow a company to keep THEIR OWN MONEY, that's not giving them anything.

You on the left seem to have a great confusion about money. You think all money belongs to government, and anything they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you.

When I take my tax deductions this year, the government is not giving me anything. When I receive my income tax refund check, the government is not giving me anything. This is my money we are talking about here--not governments money. I created this wealth, I spent this money, it's mine.

They're giving them money because they're not making them PAY FOR THINGS they should be paying for.

I'm not confused about money at all, don't start that bullshit on me.

I don't think all money belongs to the govt (technically it actually does) I just want people to pay for what they use. This money belongs to the people, the govt is a representation of the people. So when the govt goes and gives the money of the people to large corporations so they don't have to pay anything, that's stealing.

If anything, those who should get away with not paying their fair share of tax are SMALL BUSINESSES, not fucking large corporations.

You created this wealth huh? Well, i disagree with that. If you were in Somalia, would you be creating this wealth? No, probably not. The govt has set up the conditions for you to be able to do this, infrastructure, stability etc etc, you should pay for that.

If I go to the supermarket and fill my shopping cart with $100 worth of food, and I go to the checkout and they charge me $50, and I getting $50 free, or was this mine in the first place? Why do you not think you have to pay for services?

Also, from your perspective, the tax deductions are ridiculous anyway. It'd be simpler to just make you pay for what you should pay without a whole array of deductions. For the larger corporations to pay NOTHING in tax, is just the govt stealing the people's money and giving it to the rich.

Yep, you could take away my deductions, but my only recourse would be to increase rents on my tenants. That's a solution to you?

I have always wondered where you on the left get this idea that YOU are the judges on what is a "fair share' and what others "owe to government."

So let's say you are my neighbor. And when you go out to walk your dog, I go into your house and steal $100.00 every week. But after a while, I feel guilty about it, so when you walk your dog, I only take $50.00 a week. Do you think I'm "giving" you $50.00 a week?

Money does not belong "to the people" money belongs to the individual that created that money. The founders of this country never meant our nation to be a giant commune.

As far as "who pays for that" the rich do. They do it in corporate taxes, they do it in income taxes, they do it in state taxes, they do it paying local taxes, they do it in personal income taxes, the do it by creating jobs for workers to pay taxes.

The government does not create infrastructure so that businesses can exist, businesses pay for infrastructure so government can exist.

First, what I said was, you don't need deductions, you just have the tax. Okay, so the rent goes up. Is it the govt's place to decide these things?

Who am I to judge? Well, I'm a human being with a brain and I WILL judge, thank you very much.

Someone is deciding what is a share. That decision has to be made by humans, you can't avoid that. Giving me the bullshit story of "who are you to decide" doesn't change the fact that someone will decide. And who are they to decide? Well, they're representatives of the people who should do what the people want, so the people better have an idea of what is a "fair share", shouldn't they?

Yes, you've told me this nonsense analogy before. It doesn't fit here and I'm not responding to it again.

Let's make a better one.

You have two businesses, one is a multi-national and the other is a small business that employs three people.

The multi national company needs to transport stuff and they use 1000 trucks in a day to ride over government roads, and rack up 5,000 miles per day on average.
The small company needs to transport stuff and they use one truck a day and average 200 miles per day.

The multinational company pays no tax. They do not pay to use the roads for the 5000 miles that they have used of government road.
The small company must pay 30% tax. So the small company has to pay for the roads that they have used, and they also have to pay for the multinational company to use those roads.

The multi-national company can therefore transport those items more cheaply because they're not paying tax on delivering their goods, whereas the small business does.

Therefore the goods for the multinational are much cheaper, therefore the small business goes bankrupt, not because their company is worse, but because some fucker in govt decided the multinational doesn't need to pay tax and makes the smaller company uncompetitive compared to the multinational.

Sound fair?

The problem is you're saying the multinationals are creating jobs. Yes, and no. They're creating jobs by preventing other jobs from existing. If the multinational didn't do it, a small company would do it. If the small company did it then some middle class dude would be making profits. If the multinational does it, the middle class dude has to work for them and earns a fixed wage and will probably have LESS money.

Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea WTF is even going on.

You touched on my expertise which is transportation.

Small (or large) businesses do not pay transportation costs. We in the industry pay those costs. We simply include those costs in our delivery and pickup prices.

You are a human being with a brain, therefore, you are the judge as to what people pay? In essence, people that disagree with your views are people with no brain?

Our idea of "fair share" is different than your idea. But because that's the case, your idea is Gospel and only your opinion counts.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we the people decide what is a fair share. And right now, we Republicans are doing just that. You can disagree all you like, but that does not make your opinion better than mine.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Some pay massive taxes, but generally the large corporations don't.

Your justification for this is RIDICULOUS. Okay, so take away them having to pay TAXES and they won't invest. Invest in what? Invest in making their company more profitable and stopping other companies being able to stand a chance. It's clear that small businesses suffer massively because of this policy.

The fact is this policy is a negative one that makes the rich richer and fucks over those who are trying to make it and might have better ideas.

It has a LOT to do with the bribery these corporations are paying to the politicians. The politicians are SUPPOSED to represent the people, and yet they have people like you supporting their cause. What the hell? How is it that a guy like you ends up talking about the benefits of giving rich corporations massive amounts of money?

Government is not giving them any money. If they allow a company to keep THEIR OWN MONEY, that's not giving them anything.

You on the left seem to have a great confusion about money. You think all money belongs to government, and anything they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you.

When I take my tax deductions this year, the government is not giving me anything. When I receive my income tax refund check, the government is not giving me anything. This is my money we are talking about here--not governments money. I created this wealth, I spent this money, it's mine.

They're giving them money because they're not making them PAY FOR THINGS they should be paying for.

I'm not confused about money at all, don't start that bullshit on me.

I don't think all money belongs to the govt (technically it actually does) I just want people to pay for what they use. This money belongs to the people, the govt is a representation of the people. So when the govt goes and gives the money of the people to large corporations so they don't have to pay anything, that's stealing.

If anything, those who should get away with not paying their fair share of tax are SMALL BUSINESSES, not fucking large corporations.

You created this wealth huh? Well, i disagree with that. If you were in Somalia, would you be creating this wealth? No, probably not. The govt has set up the conditions for you to be able to do this, infrastructure, stability etc etc, you should pay for that.

If I go to the supermarket and fill my shopping cart with $100 worth of food, and I go to the checkout and they charge me $50, and I getting $50 free, or was this mine in the first place? Why do you not think you have to pay for services?

Also, from your perspective, the tax deductions are ridiculous anyway. It'd be simpler to just make you pay for what you should pay without a whole array of deductions. For the larger corporations to pay NOTHING in tax, is just the govt stealing the people's money and giving it to the rich.

Yep, you could take away my deductions, but my only recourse would be to increase rents on my tenants. That's a solution to you?

I have always wondered where you on the left get this idea that YOU are the judges on what is a "fair share' and what others "owe to government."

So let's say you are my neighbor. And when you go out to walk your dog, I go into your house and steal $100.00 every week. But after a while, I feel guilty about it, so when you walk your dog, I only take $50.00 a week. Do you think I'm "giving" you $50.00 a week?

Money does not belong "to the people" money belongs to the individual that created that money. The founders of this country never meant our nation to be a giant commune.

As far as "who pays for that" the rich do. They do it in corporate taxes, they do it in income taxes, they do it in state taxes, they do it paying local taxes, they do it in personal income taxes, the do it by creating jobs for workers to pay taxes.

The government does not create infrastructure so that businesses can exist, businesses pay for infrastructure so government can exist.

First, what I said was, you don't need deductions, you just have the tax. Okay, so the rent goes up. Is it the govt's place to decide these things?

Who am I to judge? Well, I'm a human being with a brain and I WILL judge, thank you very much.

Someone is deciding what is a share. That decision has to be made by humans, you can't avoid that. Giving me the bullshit story of "who are you to decide" doesn't change the fact that someone will decide. And who are they to decide? Well, they're representatives of the people who should do what the people want, so the people better have an idea of what is a "fair share", shouldn't they?

Yes, you've told me this nonsense analogy before. It doesn't fit here and I'm not responding to it again.

Let's make a better one.

You have two businesses, one is a multi-national and the other is a small business that employs three people.

The multi national company needs to transport stuff and they use 1000 trucks in a day to ride over government roads, and rack up 5,000 miles per day on average.
The small company needs to transport stuff and they use one truck a day and average 200 miles per day.

The multinational company pays no tax. They do not pay to use the roads for the 5000 miles that they have used of government road.
The small company must pay 30% tax. So the small company has to pay for the roads that they have used, and they also have to pay for the multinational company to use those roads.

The multi-national company can therefore transport those items more cheaply because they're not paying tax on delivering their goods, whereas the small business does.

Therefore the goods for the multinational are much cheaper, therefore the small business goes bankrupt, not because their company is worse, but because some fucker in govt decided the multinational doesn't need to pay tax and makes the smaller company uncompetitive compared to the multinational.

Sound fair?

The problem is you're saying the multinationals are creating jobs. Yes, and no. They're creating jobs by preventing other jobs from existing. If the multinational didn't do it, a small company would do it. If the small company did it then some middle class dude would be making profits. If the multinational does it, the middle class dude has to work for them and earns a fixed wage and will probably have LESS money.

Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea WTF is even going on.

You touched on my expertise which is transportation.

Small (or large) businesses do not pay transportation costs. We in the industry pay those costs. We simply include those costs in our delivery and pickup prices.

You are a human being with a brain, therefore, you are the judge as to what people pay? In essence, people that disagree with your views are people with no brain?

Our idea of "fair share" is different than your idea. But because that's the case, your idea is Gospel and only your opinion counts.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we the people decide what is a fair share. And right now, we Republicans are doing just that. You can disagree all you like, but that does not make your opinion better than mine.

Oh come on. I'm not talking about transportation costs. I'm talking about INFRASTRUCTURE.


But the point I am making, if you can keep up, is that infrastructure costs are paid for by taxes. We're talking roads here. You've seen them I assume, they're usually some sort of gray color. They cost money. Who pays for that? Well the government. The government gets the money from taxes which come from individuals and companies.

Again, a large multinational is not paying anything for those roads. Yet they're using them. But a small company is paying the taxes which are going to pay for the roads.

Who Pays for Roads? | Frontier Group

"Many Americans believe that drivers pay the full cost of the roads they use through gas taxes and other user fees. That has never been true, and it is less true now than at any other point in modern times."

"Today, general taxes paid by all taxpayers cover nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways as the gas tax and other fees paid by drivers."

"Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012."

"An estimated $597 per U.S. household per year in general tax revenue dedicated to road construction and repair."

So, how much of this is a small business paying and how much is a multinational paying.

Also, this is just a vague example to get my point across, don't throw this bullshit that you know the business lark at me. I'm not talking specifics, because we don't need to get into specifics for you to go massively off track again and again.

The point I am making is that small businesses may a higher percentage of tax. They use things like roads that need to be paid for. There are many things that they use. I could give many examples. But large corporations are not paying for these things.

So, you say that the large corporations are merely getting their money back. I'm saying that's rubbish. That they're getting things for FREE, like infrastructure that they use, but don't pay for.

 

[JoeB131]

You on the left seem to have a great confusion about money. You think all money belongs to government, and anything they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you.

I think you are the one who is confused. Money is issued by the government and it's value is set by the government. It even has pictures of dead government guys on it so you don't get confused.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You on the left seem to have a great confusion about money. You think all money belongs to government, and anything they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you.

I think you are the one who is confused. Money is issued by the government and it's value is set by the government. It even has pictures of dead government guys on it so you don't get confused.

Another confuse one. Just because government prints and issues money doesn't mean it's theirs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Government is not giving them any money. If they allow a company to keep THEIR OWN MONEY, that's not giving them anything.

You on the left seem to have a great confusion about money. You think all money belongs to government, and anything they allow you to keep is a gift from them to you.

When I take my tax deductions this year, the government is not giving me anything. When I receive my income tax refund check, the government is not giving me anything. This is my money we are talking about here--not governments money. I created this wealth, I spent this money, it's mine.

They're giving them money because they're not making them PAY FOR THINGS they should be paying for.

I'm not confused about money at all, don't start that bullshit on me.

I don't think all money belongs to the govt (technically it actually does) I just want people to pay for what they use. This money belongs to the people, the govt is a representation of the people. So when the govt goes and gives the money of the people to large corporations so they don't have to pay anything, that's stealing.

If anything, those who should get away with not paying their fair share of tax are SMALL BUSINESSES, not fucking large corporations.

You created this wealth huh? Well, i disagree with that. If you were in Somalia, would you be creating this wealth? No, probably not. The govt has set up the conditions for you to be able to do this, infrastructure, stability etc etc, you should pay for that.

If I go to the supermarket and fill my shopping cart with $100 worth of food, and I go to the checkout and they charge me $50, and I getting $50 free, or was this mine in the first place? Why do you not think you have to pay for services?

Also, from your perspective, the tax deductions are ridiculous anyway. It'd be simpler to just make you pay for what you should pay without a whole array of deductions. For the larger corporations to pay NOTHING in tax, is just the govt stealing the people's money and giving it to the rich.

Yep, you could take away my deductions, but my only recourse would be to increase rents on my tenants. That's a solution to you?

I have always wondered where you on the left get this idea that YOU are the judges on what is a "fair share' and what others "owe to government."

So let's say you are my neighbor. And when you go out to walk your dog, I go into your house and steal $100.00 every week. But after a while, I feel guilty about it, so when you walk your dog, I only take $50.00 a week. Do you think I'm "giving" you $50.00 a week?

Money does not belong "to the people" money belongs to the individual that created that money. The founders of this country never meant our nation to be a giant commune.

As far as "who pays for that" the rich do. They do it in corporate taxes, they do it in income taxes, they do it in state taxes, they do it paying local taxes, they do it in personal income taxes, the do it by creating jobs for workers to pay taxes.

The government does not create infrastructure so that businesses can exist, businesses pay for infrastructure so government can exist.

First, what I said was, you don't need deductions, you just have the tax. Okay, so the rent goes up. Is it the govt's place to decide these things?

Who am I to judge? Well, I'm a human being with a brain and I WILL judge, thank you very much.

Someone is deciding what is a share. That decision has to be made by humans, you can't avoid that. Giving me the bullshit story of "who are you to decide" doesn't change the fact that someone will decide. And who are they to decide? Well, they're representatives of the people who should do what the people want, so the people better have an idea of what is a "fair share", shouldn't they?

Yes, you've told me this nonsense analogy before. It doesn't fit here and I'm not responding to it again.

Let's make a better one.

You have two businesses, one is a multi-national and the other is a small business that employs three people.

The multi national company needs to transport stuff and they use 1000 trucks in a day to ride over government roads, and rack up 5,000 miles per day on average.
The small company needs to transport stuff and they use one truck a day and average 200 miles per day.

The multinational company pays no tax. They do not pay to use the roads for the 5000 miles that they have used of government road.
The small company must pay 30% tax. So the small company has to pay for the roads that they have used, and they also have to pay for the multinational company to use those roads.

The multi-national company can therefore transport those items more cheaply because they're not paying tax on delivering their goods, whereas the small business does.

Therefore the goods for the multinational are much cheaper, therefore the small business goes bankrupt, not because their company is worse, but because some fucker in govt decided the multinational doesn't need to pay tax and makes the smaller company uncompetitive compared to the multinational.

Sound fair?

The problem is you're saying the multinationals are creating jobs. Yes, and no. They're creating jobs by preventing other jobs from existing. If the multinational didn't do it, a small company would do it. If the small company did it then some middle class dude would be making profits. If the multinational does it, the middle class dude has to work for them and earns a fixed wage and will probably have LESS money.

Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea WTF is even going on.

You touched on my expertise which is transportation.

Small (or large) businesses do not pay transportation costs. We in the industry pay those costs. We simply include those costs in our delivery and pickup prices.

You are a human being with a brain, therefore, you are the judge as to what people pay? In essence, people that disagree with your views are people with no brain?

Our idea of "fair share" is different than your idea. But because that's the case, your idea is Gospel and only your opinion counts.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we the people decide what is a fair share. And right now, we Republicans are doing just that. You can disagree all you like, but that does not make your opinion better than mine.

Oh come on. I'm not talking about transportation costs. I'm talking about INFRASTRUCTURE.


But the point I am making, if you can keep up, is that infrastructure costs are paid for by taxes. We're talking roads here. You've seen them I assume, they're usually some sort of gray color. They cost money. Who pays for that? Well the government. The government gets the money from taxes which come from individuals and companies.

Again, a large multinational is not paying anything for those roads. Yet they're using them. But a small company is paying the taxes which are going to pay for the roads.

Who Pays for Roads? | Frontier Group

"Many Americans believe that drivers pay the full cost of the roads they use through gas taxes and other user fees. That has never been true, and it is less true now than at any other point in modern times."

"Today, general taxes paid by all taxpayers cover nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways as the gas tax and other fees paid by drivers."

"Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012."

"An estimated $597 per U.S. household per year in general tax revenue dedicated to road construction and repair."

So, how much of this is a small business paying and how much is a multinational paying.

Also, this is just a vague example to get my point across, don't throw this bullshit that you know the business lark at me. I'm not talking specifics, because we don't need to get into specifics for you to go massively off track again and again.

The point I am making is that small businesses may a higher percentage of tax. They use things like roads that need to be paid for. There are many things that they use. I could give many examples. But large corporations are not paying for these things.

So, you say that the large corporations are merely getting their money back. I'm saying that's rubbish. That they're getting things for FREE, like infrastructure that they use, but don't pay for.

Who do you think you're talking to? I spent most of my life in the transportation industry. You should see the kind of bucks my employer pays for license plate tags, fuel tax, per axle tax. That's right, you have to pay road taxes based on how many axles the vehicle has. Then they multiply that by the miles the vehicle puts on in a years time.

My truck alone averages about 6 miles per gallon. I have to fuel up about two to three times a week. The federal diesel fuel tax is 24.5 cents per gallon. On top of that, there is a 10% state tax rate as well.

 

[JoeB131]

Another confuse one. Just because government prints and issues money doesn't mean it's theirs.

Actually, quite the contrary. It's actually a federal offense to burn the money.

Is it a crime to burn money?


Specifically, this is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code, which says that “whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.” The law is enforced by the Secret Service.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They're giving them money because they're not making them PAY FOR THINGS they should be paying for.

I'm not confused about money at all, don't start that bullshit on me.

I don't think all money belongs to the govt (technically it actually does) I just want people to pay for what they use. This money belongs to the people, the govt is a representation of the people. So when the govt goes and gives the money of the people to large corporations so they don't have to pay anything, that's stealing.

If anything, those who should get away with not paying their fair share of tax are SMALL BUSINESSES, not fucking large corporations.

You created this wealth huh? Well, i disagree with that. If you were in Somalia, would you be creating this wealth? No, probably not. The govt has set up the conditions for you to be able to do this, infrastructure, stability etc etc, you should pay for that.

If I go to the supermarket and fill my shopping cart with $100 worth of food, and I go to the checkout and they charge me $50, and I getting $50 free, or was this mine in the first place? Why do you not think you have to pay for services?

Also, from your perspective, the tax deductions are ridiculous anyway. It'd be simpler to just make you pay for what you should pay without a whole array of deductions. For the larger corporations to pay NOTHING in tax, is just the govt stealing the people's money and giving it to the rich.

Yep, you could take away my deductions, but my only recourse would be to increase rents on my tenants. That's a solution to you?

I have always wondered where you on the left get this idea that YOU are the judges on what is a "fair share' and what others "owe to government."

So let's say you are my neighbor. And when you go out to walk your dog, I go into your house and steal $100.00 every week. But after a while, I feel guilty about it, so when you walk your dog, I only take $50.00 a week. Do you think I'm "giving" you $50.00 a week?

Money does not belong "to the people" money belongs to the individual that created that money. The founders of this country never meant our nation to be a giant commune.

As far as "who pays for that" the rich do. They do it in corporate taxes, they do it in income taxes, they do it in state taxes, they do it paying local taxes, they do it in personal income taxes, the do it by creating jobs for workers to pay taxes.

The government does not create infrastructure so that businesses can exist, businesses pay for infrastructure so government can exist.

First, what I said was, you don't need deductions, you just have the tax. Okay, so the rent goes up. Is it the govt's place to decide these things?

Who am I to judge? Well, I'm a human being with a brain and I WILL judge, thank you very much.

Someone is deciding what is a share. That decision has to be made by humans, you can't avoid that. Giving me the bullshit story of "who are you to decide" doesn't change the fact that someone will decide. And who are they to decide? Well, they're representatives of the people who should do what the people want, so the people better have an idea of what is a "fair share", shouldn't they?

Yes, you've told me this nonsense analogy before. It doesn't fit here and I'm not responding to it again.

Let's make a better one.

You have two businesses, one is a multi-national and the other is a small business that employs three people.

The multi national company needs to transport stuff and they use 1000 trucks in a day to ride over government roads, and rack up 5,000 miles per day on average.
The small company needs to transport stuff and they use one truck a day and average 200 miles per day.

The multinational company pays no tax. They do not pay to use the roads for the 5000 miles that they have used of government road.
The small company must pay 30% tax. So the small company has to pay for the roads that they have used, and they also have to pay for the multinational company to use those roads.

The multi-national company can therefore transport those items more cheaply because they're not paying tax on delivering their goods, whereas the small business does.

Therefore the goods for the multinational are much cheaper, therefore the small business goes bankrupt, not because their company is worse, but because some fucker in govt decided the multinational doesn't need to pay tax and makes the smaller company uncompetitive compared to the multinational.

Sound fair?

The problem is you're saying the multinationals are creating jobs. Yes, and no. They're creating jobs by preventing other jobs from existing. If the multinational didn't do it, a small company would do it. If the small company did it then some middle class dude would be making profits. If the multinational does it, the middle class dude has to work for them and earns a fixed wage and will probably have LESS money.

Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea WTF is even going on.

You touched on my expertise which is transportation.

Small (or large) businesses do not pay transportation costs. We in the industry pay those costs. We simply include those costs in our delivery and pickup prices.

You are a human being with a brain, therefore, you are the judge as to what people pay? In essence, people that disagree with your views are people with no brain?

Our idea of "fair share" is different than your idea. But because that's the case, your idea is Gospel and only your opinion counts.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we the people decide what is a fair share. And right now, we Republicans are doing just that. You can disagree all you like, but that does not make your opinion better than mine.

Oh come on. I'm not talking about transportation costs. I'm talking about INFRASTRUCTURE.


But the point I am making, if you can keep up, is that infrastructure costs are paid for by taxes. We're talking roads here. You've seen them I assume, they're usually some sort of gray color. They cost money. Who pays for that? Well the government. The government gets the money from taxes which come from individuals and companies.

Again, a large multinational is not paying anything for those roads. Yet they're using them. But a small company is paying the taxes which are going to pay for the roads.

Who Pays for Roads? | Frontier Group

"Many Americans believe that drivers pay the full cost of the roads they use through gas taxes and other user fees. That has never been true, and it is less true now than at any other point in modern times."

"Today, general taxes paid by all taxpayers cover nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways as the gas tax and other fees paid by drivers."

"Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012."

"An estimated $597 per U.S. household per year in general tax revenue dedicated to road construction and repair."

So, how much of this is a small business paying and how much is a multinational paying.

Also, this is just a vague example to get my point across, don't throw this bullshit that you know the business lark at me. I'm not talking specifics, because we don't need to get into specifics for you to go massively off track again and again.

The point I am making is that small businesses may a higher percentage of tax. They use things like roads that need to be paid for. There are many things that they use. I could give many examples. But large corporations are not paying for these things.

So, you say that the large corporations are merely getting their money back. I'm saying that's rubbish. That they're getting things for FREE, like infrastructure that they use, but don't pay for.

Who do you think you're talking to? I spent most of my life in the transportation industry. You should see the kind of bucks my employer pays for license plate tags, fuel tax, per axle tax. That's right, you have to pay road taxes based on how many axles the vehicle has. Then they multiply that by the miles the vehicle puts on in a years time.

My truck alone averages about 6 miles per gallon. I have to fuel up about two to three times a week. The federal diesel fuel tax is 24.5 cents per gallon. On top of that, there is a 10% state tax rate as well.

I think I'm talking to someone who thinks that I'm talking about the transport industry, when really I'm talking about INFRASTRUCTURE....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, you could take away my deductions, but my only recourse would be to increase rents on my tenants. That's a solution to you?

I have always wondered where you on the left get this idea that YOU are the judges on what is a "fair share' and what others "owe to government."

So let's say you are my neighbor. And when you go out to walk your dog, I go into your house and steal $100.00 every week. But after a while, I feel guilty about it, so when you walk your dog, I only take $50.00 a week. Do you think I'm "giving" you $50.00 a week?

Money does not belong "to the people" money belongs to the individual that created that money. The founders of this country never meant our nation to be a giant commune.

As far as "who pays for that" the rich do. They do it in corporate taxes, they do it in income taxes, they do it in state taxes, they do it paying local taxes, they do it in personal income taxes, the do it by creating jobs for workers to pay taxes.

The government does not create infrastructure so that businesses can exist, businesses pay for infrastructure so government can exist.

First, what I said was, you don't need deductions, you just have the tax. Okay, so the rent goes up. Is it the govt's place to decide these things?

Who am I to judge? Well, I'm a human being with a brain and I WILL judge, thank you very much.

Someone is deciding what is a share. That decision has to be made by humans, you can't avoid that. Giving me the bullshit story of "who are you to decide" doesn't change the fact that someone will decide. And who are they to decide? Well, they're representatives of the people who should do what the people want, so the people better have an idea of what is a "fair share", shouldn't they?

Yes, you've told me this nonsense analogy before. It doesn't fit here and I'm not responding to it again.

Let's make a better one.

You have two businesses, one is a multi-national and the other is a small business that employs three people.

The multi national company needs to transport stuff and they use 1000 trucks in a day to ride over government roads, and rack up 5,000 miles per day on average.
The small company needs to transport stuff and they use one truck a day and average 200 miles per day.

The multinational company pays no tax. They do not pay to use the roads for the 5000 miles that they have used of government road.
The small company must pay 30% tax. So the small company has to pay for the roads that they have used, and they also have to pay for the multinational company to use those roads.

The multi-national company can therefore transport those items more cheaply because they're not paying tax on delivering their goods, whereas the small business does.

Therefore the goods for the multinational are much cheaper, therefore the small business goes bankrupt, not because their company is worse, but because some fucker in govt decided the multinational doesn't need to pay tax and makes the smaller company uncompetitive compared to the multinational.

Sound fair?

The problem is you're saying the multinationals are creating jobs. Yes, and no. They're creating jobs by preventing other jobs from existing. If the multinational didn't do it, a small company would do it. If the small company did it then some middle class dude would be making profits. If the multinational does it, the middle class dude has to work for them and earns a fixed wage and will probably have LESS money.

Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea WTF is even going on.

You touched on my expertise which is transportation.

Small (or large) businesses do not pay transportation costs. We in the industry pay those costs. We simply include those costs in our delivery and pickup prices.

You are a human being with a brain, therefore, you are the judge as to what people pay? In essence, people that disagree with your views are people with no brain?

Our idea of "fair share" is different than your idea. But because that's the case, your idea is Gospel and only your opinion counts.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we the people decide what is a fair share. And right now, we Republicans are doing just that. You can disagree all you like, but that does not make your opinion better than mine.

Oh come on. I'm not talking about transportation costs. I'm talking about INFRASTRUCTURE.


But the point I am making, if you can keep up, is that infrastructure costs are paid for by taxes. We're talking roads here. You've seen them I assume, they're usually some sort of gray color. They cost money. Who pays for that? Well the government. The government gets the money from taxes which come from individuals and companies.

Again, a large multinational is not paying anything for those roads. Yet they're using them. But a small company is paying the taxes which are going to pay for the roads.

Who Pays for Roads? | Frontier Group

"Many Americans believe that drivers pay the full cost of the roads they use through gas taxes and other user fees. That has never been true, and it is less true now than at any other point in modern times."

"Today, general taxes paid by all taxpayers cover nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways as the gas tax and other fees paid by drivers."

"Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012."

"An estimated $597 per U.S. household per year in general tax revenue dedicated to road construction and repair."

So, how much of this is a small business paying and how much is a multinational paying.

Also, this is just a vague example to get my point across, don't throw this bullshit that you know the business lark at me. I'm not talking specifics, because we don't need to get into specifics for you to go massively off track again and again.

The point I am making is that small businesses may a higher percentage of tax. They use things like roads that need to be paid for. There are many things that they use. I could give many examples. But large corporations are not paying for these things.

So, you say that the large corporations are merely getting their money back. I'm saying that's rubbish. That they're getting things for FREE, like infrastructure that they use, but don't pay for.

Who do you think you're talking to? I spent most of my life in the transportation industry. You should see the kind of bucks my employer pays for license plate tags, fuel tax, per axle tax. That's right, you have to pay road taxes based on how many axles the vehicle has. Then they multiply that by the miles the vehicle puts on in a years time.

My truck alone averages about 6 miles per gallon. I have to fuel up about two to three times a week. The federal diesel fuel tax is 24.5 cents per gallon. On top of that, there is a 10% state tax rate as well.

I think I'm talking to someone who thinks that I'm talking about the transport industry, when really I'm talking about INFRASTRUCTURE....

No, the subject came up when you said small business pays all kind of road taxes that big companies don't pay. I'm telling you neither pay road taxes because we pay them and include it in our pricing. Therefore small business pays less road taxes because they have less deliveries.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Another confuse one. Just because government prints and issues money doesn't mean it's theirs.

Actually, quite the contrary. It's actually a federal offense to burn the money.

Is it a crime to burn money?


Specifically, this is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code, which says that “whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.” The law is enforced by the Secret Service.

So WTF does burning money have to do with my response?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[JoeNormal]

Yep, you could take away my deductions, but my only recourse would be to increase rents on my tenants. That's a solution to you?

If the playing field is level, where are your tenants going to go? Every other landlord will have to do the same thing. You charge as much as you think the traffic will bear. They can either pay the going rate or find some other arrangement and if you want tenants, you'll have to set a price that somebody can afford.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, you could take away my deductions, but my only recourse would be to increase rents on my tenants. That's a solution to you?

If the playing field is level, where are your tenants going to go? Every other landlord will have to do the same thing. You charge as much as you think the traffic will bear. They can either pay the going rate or find some other arrangement and if you want tenants, you'll have to set a price that somebody can afford.

Point is that if you would take away tax write-offs, that loss gets passed on to somebody else. That's the way it works with most businesses.

 

[JoeB131]

So WTF does burning money have to do with my response?

Did you need someone to help you iwth the big words?

 

[frigidweirdo]

First, what I said was, you don't need deductions, you just have the tax. Okay, so the rent goes up. Is it the govt's place to decide these things?

Who am I to judge? Well, I'm a human being with a brain and I WILL judge, thank you very much.

Someone is deciding what is a share. That decision has to be made by humans, you can't avoid that. Giving me the bullshit story of "who are you to decide" doesn't change the fact that someone will decide. And who are they to decide? Well, they're representatives of the people who should do what the people want, so the people better have an idea of what is a "fair share", shouldn't they?

Yes, you've told me this nonsense analogy before. It doesn't fit here and I'm not responding to it again.

Let's make a better one.

You have two businesses, one is a multi-national and the other is a small business that employs three people.

The multi national company needs to transport stuff and they use 1000 trucks in a day to ride over government roads, and rack up 5,000 miles per day on average.
The small company needs to transport stuff and they use one truck a day and average 200 miles per day.

The multinational company pays no tax. They do not pay to use the roads for the 5000 miles that they have used of government road.
The small company must pay 30% tax. So the small company has to pay for the roads that they have used, and they also have to pay for the multinational company to use those roads.

The multi-national company can therefore transport those items more cheaply because they're not paying tax on delivering their goods, whereas the small business does.

Therefore the goods for the multinational are much cheaper, therefore the small business goes bankrupt, not because their company is worse, but because some fucker in govt decided the multinational doesn't need to pay tax and makes the smaller company uncompetitive compared to the multinational.

Sound fair?

The problem is you're saying the multinationals are creating jobs. Yes, and no. They're creating jobs by preventing other jobs from existing. If the multinational didn't do it, a small company would do it. If the small company did it then some middle class dude would be making profits. If the multinational does it, the middle class dude has to work for them and earns a fixed wage and will probably have LESS money.

Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea WTF is even going on.

You touched on my expertise which is transportation.

Small (or large) businesses do not pay transportation costs. We in the industry pay those costs. We simply include those costs in our delivery and pickup prices.

You are a human being with a brain, therefore, you are the judge as to what people pay? In essence, people that disagree with your views are people with no brain?

Our idea of "fair share" is different than your idea. But because that's the case, your idea is Gospel and only your opinion counts.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we the people decide what is a fair share. And right now, we Republicans are doing just that. You can disagree all you like, but that does not make your opinion better than mine.

Oh come on. I'm not talking about transportation costs. I'm talking about INFRASTRUCTURE.


But the point I am making, if you can keep up, is that infrastructure costs are paid for by taxes. We're talking roads here. You've seen them I assume, they're usually some sort of gray color. They cost money. Who pays for that? Well the government. The government gets the money from taxes which come from individuals and companies.

Again, a large multinational is not paying anything for those roads. Yet they're using them. But a small company is paying the taxes which are going to pay for the roads.

Who Pays for Roads? | Frontier Group

"Many Americans believe that drivers pay the full cost of the roads they use through gas taxes and other user fees. That has never been true, and it is less true now than at any other point in modern times."

"Today, general taxes paid by all taxpayers cover nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways as the gas tax and other fees paid by drivers."

"Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012."

"An estimated $597 per U.S. household per year in general tax revenue dedicated to road construction and repair."

So, how much of this is a small business paying and how much is a multinational paying.

Also, this is just a vague example to get my point across, don't throw this bullshit that you know the business lark at me. I'm not talking specifics, because we don't need to get into specifics for you to go massively off track again and again.

The point I am making is that small businesses may a higher percentage of tax. They use things like roads that need to be paid for. There are many things that they use. I could give many examples. But large corporations are not paying for these things.

So, you say that the large corporations are merely getting their money back. I'm saying that's rubbish. That they're getting things for FREE, like infrastructure that they use, but don't pay for.

Who do you think you're talking to? I spent most of my life in the transportation industry. You should see the kind of bucks my employer pays for license plate tags, fuel tax, per axle tax. That's right, you have to pay road taxes based on how many axles the vehicle has. Then they multiply that by the miles the vehicle puts on in a years time.

My truck alone averages about 6 miles per gallon. I have to fuel up about two to three times a week. The federal diesel fuel tax is 24.5 cents per gallon. On top of that, there is a 10% state tax rate as well.

I think I'm talking to someone who thinks that I'm talking about the transport industry, when really I'm talking about INFRASTRUCTURE....

No, the subject came up when you said small business pays all kind of road taxes that big companies don't pay. I'm telling you neither pay road taxes because we pay them and include it in our pricing. Therefore small business pays less road taxes because they have less deliveries.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So, I make a whole point, I use examples to show this, and because I said one thing, you then feel the need to take this totally off topic? Great.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Thank you for demonstrating you have no idea WTF is even going on.

You touched on my expertise which is transportation.

Small (or large) businesses do not pay transportation costs. We in the industry pay those costs. We simply include those costs in our delivery and pickup prices.

You are a human being with a brain, therefore, you are the judge as to what people pay? In essence, people that disagree with your views are people with no brain?

Our idea of "fair share" is different than your idea. But because that's the case, your idea is Gospel and only your opinion counts.

You are correct on one thing, and that is we the people decide what is a fair share. And right now, we Republicans are doing just that. You can disagree all you like, but that does not make your opinion better than mine.

Oh come on. I'm not talking about transportation costs. I'm talking about INFRASTRUCTURE.


But the point I am making, if you can keep up, is that infrastructure costs are paid for by taxes. We're talking roads here. You've seen them I assume, they're usually some sort of gray color. They cost money. Who pays for that? Well the government. The government gets the money from taxes which come from individuals and companies.

Again, a large multinational is not paying anything for those roads. Yet they're using them. But a small company is paying the taxes which are going to pay for the roads.

Who Pays for Roads? | Frontier Group

"Many Americans believe that drivers pay the full cost of the roads they use through gas taxes and other user fees. That has never been true, and it is less true now than at any other point in modern times."

"Today, general taxes paid by all taxpayers cover nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways as the gas tax and other fees paid by drivers."

"Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other “user fees” on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012."

"An estimated $597 per U.S. household per year in general tax revenue dedicated to road construction and repair."

So, how much of this is a small business paying and how much is a multinational paying.

Also, this is just a vague example to get my point across, don't throw this bullshit that you know the business lark at me. I'm not talking specifics, because we don't need to get into specifics for you to go massively off track again and again.

The point I am making is that small businesses may a higher percentage of tax. They use things like roads that need to be paid for. There are many things that they use. I could give many examples. But large corporations are not paying for these things.

So, you say that the large corporations are merely getting their money back. I'm saying that's rubbish. That they're getting things for FREE, like infrastructure that they use, but don't pay for.

Who do you think you're talking to? I spent most of my life in the transportation industry. You should see the kind of bucks my employer pays for license plate tags, fuel tax, per axle tax. That's right, you have to pay road taxes based on how many axles the vehicle has. Then they multiply that by the miles the vehicle puts on in a years time.

My truck alone averages about 6 miles per gallon. I have to fuel up about two to three times a week. The federal diesel fuel tax is 24.5 cents per gallon. On top of that, there is a 10% state tax rate as well.

I think I'm talking to someone who thinks that I'm talking about the transport industry, when really I'm talking about INFRASTRUCTURE....

No, the subject came up when you said small business pays all kind of road taxes that big companies don't pay. I'm telling you neither pay road taxes because we pay them and include it in our pricing. Therefore small business pays less road taxes because they have less deliveries.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So, I make a whole point, I use examples to show this, and because I said one thing, you then feel the need to take this totally off topic? Great.

What's off topic about what I said? I am merely pointing out the realty of the situation.

Show me one business that gets a road tax bill from the state or federal government for deliveries they get.