Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm highlighting this because of how radically insane this is. I don't think you fundamentally understand the reason why there are taxes or what corporations are for you to assert this claim. Your knowledge base is seriously lacking in a critical place somewhere.Companies shouldn't be paying taxes. Shareholders are the owners of a company like GM, and they pay taxes on their earnings, which count as income. Employees who work for companies like GM also pay income tax. I think the corporate tax rate should be 0% for this reason.
Hardly, I understand taxes pretty well.
For instance, I know sales tax is bull shit because it's essentially double taxation. You're taxed once when you get paid, and then taxed again when you buy something... Complete thievery by the local and state government right there.
The only people who should be paying a tax within a company are its owners and employees. The NFL doesn't pay a tax because the owners and players pay taxes, but the NFL itself doesn't. The same concept should be used for other companies... The shareholders should be taxed on their earnings (which is all the profit), while the operating costs (used to buy materials, etc, is sales taxed), while the employees who make an income who profit from working there pay income tax. Not really a hard concept to understand what I'm talking about.
Actually, no, as neither should have been in place in the first place. Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, and should never have existed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing it out. If enough people understand, then it's possible we won't elect someone who would put such a poor piece of legislation in place again.This is what you said, "Well for starters, when you send $200 million to a different country hours before leaving the WH, I would say that's a waste of taxpayer money. I've never met anyone who doesn't think the government wastes tax dollars on other countries"Deflecting to somebody else to justify Trump's actions means, at the base, you don't have a good argument. Who cares about Obama? I'm not here to talk about him nor defend him...he has no effect on America anymore.So you are taking an argument of degrees. You think that, if used properly, taxes are beneficial.No, wasting money = bad.
Double taxation = bad.
Taxes are good when used responsibly, but the rates are inflated because our government wastes money.
Then the question becomes what is acceptable? What is waste? What is needed? Why is your opinion on waste more important than other American's opinion on what is wasted versus needed? I will also point out that if you don't have an issue with taxation, but have an issue with the levels of taxation, you shouldn't really have an issue with double taxation. You can tax somebody twice at 5% each time and have it be less than the ~30-40% tax the wealthy pay (without deductions).
I will go ahead and say that I believe that our government does waste a lot of money (coming from somebody in the military who has seen a lot of waste). However, i also feel that a lot of our programs are needed and, given our insane level of debt, we should actually be increasing our tax levels rather than decreasing them (unless large portions of government spending were cut).
Well for starters, when you send $200 million to a different country hours before leaving the WH, I would say that's a waste of taxpayer money. I've never met anyone who doesn't think the government wastes tax dollars on other countries, unless you speak to Occupy Democrats members, though, who think a democrat president can do no wrong.
Why shouldn't I have an issue with double taxation? I am part of the double taxation bull shit... When I get paid, I pay federal and state income tax, and then the state and local government charges me sales tax when I buy something. I pay roughly 23% in state, federal, and local taxes and then another 8.25% in sales tax, so 31.25% of my money goes towards taxes... It seems like I'm better paying 10% more to get all of the goodies the Canadian socialist system offers me such as free college and healthcare.
I pointed out the reason why in a previous post. You can have an issue with the levels of taxes, but how you are taxed is largely irrelevant. You should also recognize that corporations are afforded a lot of legal protections which is the base reasoning for their taxation. If you want to remove their taxability status you should tax them as you tax a small business...which would mean that whomever the owners are have full liability, the company lives and dies with its owners (no ownership shares anymore, simply partnerships), they don't have the ability to bring cases to court nor defend them, etc.
Pretty sure Obama still has an effect on our country... Dodd-Frank and Obamacare still exist.
1:I'm not sure if you are new to this nation, but what you said here has nothing to do with Dodd-Frank nor Obamacare. Furthermore, Trump has stated and started moving towards rolling back both Dodd-Frank and Obamacare...so complaining about programs that are already in the initial phases of getting rolled back...is like a child whining that they aren't receiving their ice cream sundae immediately after it is bought because it has to get made first.
2:Getting back to the core discussion on taxes you seem to have ignored my question on why we should award special privileges to corporations and their owners without taxing them for those special privileges. We have a form of business where the company is taxed as the individual...the sole proprietorship. There is a reason why corporations are a separate form of business, how do you justify the privileges awarded to them without taxing them?
Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.Actually, no, as neither should have been in place in the first place. Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, and should never have existed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing it out. If enough people understand, then it's possible we won't elect someone who would put such a poor piece of legislation in place again.This is what you said, "Well for starters, when you send $200 million to a different country hours before leaving the WH, I would say that's a waste of taxpayer money. I've never met anyone who doesn't think the government wastes tax dollars on other countries"Deflecting to somebody else to justify Trump's actions means, at the base, you don't have a good argument. Who cares about Obama? I'm not here to talk about him nor defend him...he has no effect on America anymore.So you are taking an argument of degrees. You think that, if used properly, taxes are beneficial.
Then the question becomes what is acceptable? What is waste? What is needed? Why is your opinion on waste more important than other American's opinion on what is wasted versus needed? I will also point out that if you don't have an issue with taxation, but have an issue with the levels of taxation, you shouldn't really have an issue with double taxation. You can tax somebody twice at 5% each time and have it be less than the ~30-40% tax the wealthy pay (without deductions).
I will go ahead and say that I believe that our government does waste a lot of money (coming from somebody in the military who has seen a lot of waste). However, i also feel that a lot of our programs are needed and, given our insane level of debt, we should actually be increasing our tax levels rather than decreasing them (unless large portions of government spending were cut).
Well for starters, when you send $200 million to a different country hours before leaving the WH, I would say that's a waste of taxpayer money. I've never met anyone who doesn't think the government wastes tax dollars on other countries, unless you speak to Occupy Democrats members, though, who think a democrat president can do no wrong.
Why shouldn't I have an issue with double taxation? I am part of the double taxation bull shit... When I get paid, I pay federal and state income tax, and then the state and local government charges me sales tax when I buy something. I pay roughly 23% in state, federal, and local taxes and then another 8.25% in sales tax, so 31.25% of my money goes towards taxes... It seems like I'm better paying 10% more to get all of the goodies the Canadian socialist system offers me such as free college and healthcare.
I pointed out the reason why in a previous post. You can have an issue with the levels of taxes, but how you are taxed is largely irrelevant. You should also recognize that corporations are afforded a lot of legal protections which is the base reasoning for their taxation. If you want to remove their taxability status you should tax them as you tax a small business...which would mean that whomever the owners are have full liability, the company lives and dies with its owners (no ownership shares anymore, simply partnerships), they don't have the ability to bring cases to court nor defend them, etc.
Pretty sure Obama still has an effect on our country... Dodd-Frank and Obamacare still exist.
1:I'm not sure if you are new to this nation, but what you said here has nothing to do with Dodd-Frank nor Obamacare. Furthermore, Trump has stated and started moving towards rolling back both Dodd-Frank and Obamacare...so complaining about programs that are already in the initial phases of getting rolled back...is like a child whining that they aren't receiving their ice cream sundae immediately after it is bought because it has to get made first.
2:Getting back to the core discussion on taxes you seem to have ignored my question on why we should award special privileges to corporations and their owners without taxing them for those special privileges. We have a form of business where the company is taxed as the individual...the sole proprietorship. There is a reason why corporations are a separate form of business, how do you justify the privileges awarded to them without taxing them?
Business shouldn't be taxed for multiple reasons. Firstly, the government never should have been big enough to be able to waste as much money as they're getting in the first place, so they don't need what they get from businesses. The government never should have had 400+ agencies, shouldn't be handing money to foreign governments, and shouldn't be giving taxpayer money to other people.
Furthermore, businesses just pass down the cost of taxes to their consumer and employees in various forms anyway, so taxing them just makes the Liberals with wealth envy happy, rather than actually accomplishing anything, plus taxes and subsidies are just being used to hurt certain businesses, and help others in the first place, which is not the government's place.
Lastly, the private sector businesses are where jobs come from in the first place, and if anything, taxes on them only damage the economy. Taxing those businesses only does harm, and no good. The government should drastically cut spending, not tax businesses, let alone more.
Your strawman is the absolute opposite of what I said. I said absolutely nothing about NOT working for self interest. In fact, what I stated was letting self interest run the economy entirely. Not only that, what I was advocating was making the government significantly smaller, not expanding it to ridiculous proportions. Did you even read my post?Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.Actually, no, as neither should have been in place in the first place. Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, and should never have existed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing it out. If enough people understand, then it's possible we won't elect someone who would put such a poor piece of legislation in place again.This is what you said, "Well for starters, when you send $200 million to a different country hours before leaving the WH, I would say that's a waste of taxpayer money. I've never met anyone who doesn't think the government wastes tax dollars on other countries"Deflecting to somebody else to justify Trump's actions means, at the base, you don't have a good argument. Who cares about Obama? I'm not here to talk about him nor defend him...he has no effect on America anymore.Well for starters, when you send $200 million to a different country hours before leaving the WH, I would say that's a waste of taxpayer money. I've never met anyone who doesn't think the government wastes tax dollars on other countries, unless you speak to Occupy Democrats members, though, who think a democrat president can do no wrong.
Why shouldn't I have an issue with double taxation? I am part of the double taxation bull shit... When I get paid, I pay federal and state income tax, and then the state and local government charges me sales tax when I buy something. I pay roughly 23% in state, federal, and local taxes and then another 8.25% in sales tax, so 31.25% of my money goes towards taxes... It seems like I'm better paying 10% more to get all of the goodies the Canadian socialist system offers me such as free college and healthcare.
I pointed out the reason why in a previous post. You can have an issue with the levels of taxes, but how you are taxed is largely irrelevant. You should also recognize that corporations are afforded a lot of legal protections which is the base reasoning for their taxation. If you want to remove their taxability status you should tax them as you tax a small business...which would mean that whomever the owners are have full liability, the company lives and dies with its owners (no ownership shares anymore, simply partnerships), they don't have the ability to bring cases to court nor defend them, etc.
Pretty sure Obama still has an effect on our country... Dodd-Frank and Obamacare still exist.
1:I'm not sure if you are new to this nation, but what you said here has nothing to do with Dodd-Frank nor Obamacare. Furthermore, Trump has stated and started moving towards rolling back both Dodd-Frank and Obamacare...so complaining about programs that are already in the initial phases of getting rolled back...is like a child whining that they aren't receiving their ice cream sundae immediately after it is bought because it has to get made first.
2:Getting back to the core discussion on taxes you seem to have ignored my question on why we should award special privileges to corporations and their owners without taxing them for those special privileges. We have a form of business where the company is taxed as the individual...the sole proprietorship. There is a reason why corporations are a separate form of business, how do you justify the privileges awarded to them without taxing them?
Business shouldn't be taxed for multiple reasons. Firstly, the government never should have been big enough to be able to waste as much money as they're getting in the first place, so they don't need what they get from businesses. The government never should have had 400+ agencies, shouldn't be handing money to foreign governments, and shouldn't be giving taxpayer money to other people.
Furthermore, businesses just pass down the cost of taxes to their consumer and employees in various forms anyway, so taxing them just makes the Liberals with wealth envy happy, rather than actually accomplishing anything, plus taxes and subsidies are just being used to hurt certain businesses, and help others in the first place, which is not the government's place.
Lastly, the private sector businesses are where jobs come from in the first place, and if anything, taxes on them only damage the economy. Taxing those businesses only does harm, and no good. The government should drastically cut spending, not tax businesses, let alone more.
1: Name a nation where businesses are not taxed nor state-owned and it has proven to have been beneficial to the population. If you want to work off of what may make sense in your head (not agreeing with you, but just pointing out how absurd it is what you are proposing), then communism should have worked and would be the best system of governance for the people...it presented an idyllic utopian society where people work, not based off of self-interest, but based off of their own altruism.
2:Maybe it is just me...but it didn't really seemed like that worked out so well. Likewise, prove that your inane "theory" actually has practical application in the real-world by showing an example, on a nation-wide scale, where it has shown success.
Read my post before calling it a straw man...I pointed out an example of an academic theory that sounded good on paper, but didn't work out in reality. If you thought my strawman was saying that not taxing a business is communist...then you lack fundamental reading comprehension.Your strawman is the absolute opposite of what I said. I said absolutely nothing about NOT working for self interest. In fact, what I stated was letting self interest run the economy entirely. Not only that, what I was advocating was making the government significantly smaller, not expanding it to ridiculous proportions. Did you even read my post?Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.Actually, no, as neither should have been in place in the first place. Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, and should never have existed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing it out. If enough people understand, then it's possible we won't elect someone who would put such a poor piece of legislation in place again.This is what you said, "Well for starters, when you send $200 million to a different country hours before leaving the WH, I would say that's a waste of taxpayer money. I've never met anyone who doesn't think the government wastes tax dollars on other countries"Deflecting to somebody else to justify Trump's actions means, at the base, you don't have a good argument. Who cares about Obama? I'm not here to talk about him nor defend him...he has no effect on America anymore.
I pointed out the reason why in a previous post. You can have an issue with the levels of taxes, but how you are taxed is largely irrelevant. You should also recognize that corporations are afforded a lot of legal protections which is the base reasoning for their taxation. If you want to remove their taxability status you should tax them as you tax a small business...which would mean that whomever the owners are have full liability, the company lives and dies with its owners (no ownership shares anymore, simply partnerships), they don't have the ability to bring cases to court nor defend them, etc.
Pretty sure Obama still has an effect on our country... Dodd-Frank and Obamacare still exist.
1:I'm not sure if you are new to this nation, but what you said here has nothing to do with Dodd-Frank nor Obamacare. Furthermore, Trump has stated and started moving towards rolling back both Dodd-Frank and Obamacare...so complaining about programs that are already in the initial phases of getting rolled back...is like a child whining that they aren't receiving their ice cream sundae immediately after it is bought because it has to get made first.
2:Getting back to the core discussion on taxes you seem to have ignored my question on why we should award special privileges to corporations and their owners without taxing them for those special privileges. We have a form of business where the company is taxed as the individual...the sole proprietorship. There is a reason why corporations are a separate form of business, how do you justify the privileges awarded to them without taxing them?
Business shouldn't be taxed for multiple reasons. Firstly, the government never should have been big enough to be able to waste as much money as they're getting in the first place, so they don't need what they get from businesses. The government never should have had 400+ agencies, shouldn't be handing money to foreign governments, and shouldn't be giving taxpayer money to other people.
Furthermore, businesses just pass down the cost of taxes to their consumer and employees in various forms anyway, so taxing them just makes the Liberals with wealth envy happy, rather than actually accomplishing anything, plus taxes and subsidies are just being used to hurt certain businesses, and help others in the first place, which is not the government's place.
Lastly, the private sector businesses are where jobs come from in the first place, and if anything, taxes on them only damage the economy. Taxing those businesses only does harm, and no good. The government should drastically cut spending, not tax businesses, let alone more.
1: Name a nation where businesses are not taxed nor state-owned and it has proven to have been beneficial to the population. If you want to work off of what may make sense in your head (not agreeing with you, but just pointing out how absurd it is what you are proposing), then communism should have worked and would be the best system of governance for the people...it presented an idyllic utopian society where people work, not based off of self-interest, but based off of their own altruism.
2:Maybe it is just me...but it didn't really seemed like that worked out so well. Likewise, prove that your inane "theory" actually has practical application in the real-world by showing an example, on a nation-wide scale, where it has shown success.
My "inane theory" is that businesses would hire more people and expand faster if they had more money. That's pure logic. If people have more money, they spend more. Likewise, if a business has more money, they spend more. Or would you like to try to make the argument that if a business has less money, they spend more?
Except no, businesses are under a 60(?)% tax rate, and Obamacare is taxing them per-employee. They don't have free access to cash, the economy is outright garbage, with extremely slow economic expansion, thanks to government intervention.Read my post before calling it a straw man...I pointed out an example of an academic theory that sounded good on paper, but didn't work out in reality. If you thought my strawman was saying that not taxing a business is communist...then you lack fundamental reading comprehension.Your strawman is the absolute opposite of what I said. I said absolutely nothing about NOT working for self interest. In fact, what I stated was letting self interest run the economy entirely. Not only that, what I was advocating was making the government significantly smaller, not expanding it to ridiculous proportions. Did you even read my post?Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.Actually, no, as neither should have been in place in the first place. Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, and should never have existed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing it out. If enough people understand, then it's possible we won't elect someone who would put such a poor piece of legislation in place again.This is what you said, "Well for starters, when you send $200 million to a different country hours before leaving the WH, I would say that's a waste of taxpayer money. I've never met anyone who doesn't think the government wastes tax dollars on other countries"Pretty sure Obama still has an effect on our country... Dodd-Frank and Obamacare still exist.
1:I'm not sure if you are new to this nation, but what you said here has nothing to do with Dodd-Frank nor Obamacare. Furthermore, Trump has stated and started moving towards rolling back both Dodd-Frank and Obamacare...so complaining about programs that are already in the initial phases of getting rolled back...is like a child whining that they aren't receiving their ice cream sundae immediately after it is bought because it has to get made first.
2:Getting back to the core discussion on taxes you seem to have ignored my question on why we should award special privileges to corporations and their owners without taxing them for those special privileges. We have a form of business where the company is taxed as the individual...the sole proprietorship. There is a reason why corporations are a separate form of business, how do you justify the privileges awarded to them without taxing them?
Business shouldn't be taxed for multiple reasons. Firstly, the government never should have been big enough to be able to waste as much money as they're getting in the first place, so they don't need what they get from businesses. The government never should have had 400+ agencies, shouldn't be handing money to foreign governments, and shouldn't be giving taxpayer money to other people.
Furthermore, businesses just pass down the cost of taxes to their consumer and employees in various forms anyway, so taxing them just makes the Liberals with wealth envy happy, rather than actually accomplishing anything, plus taxes and subsidies are just being used to hurt certain businesses, and help others in the first place, which is not the government's place.
Lastly, the private sector businesses are where jobs come from in the first place, and if anything, taxes on them only damage the economy. Taxing those businesses only does harm, and no good. The government should drastically cut spending, not tax businesses, let alone more.
1: Name a nation where businesses are not taxed nor state-owned and it has proven to have been beneficial to the population. If you want to work off of what may make sense in your head (not agreeing with you, but just pointing out how absurd it is what you are proposing), then communism should have worked and would be the best system of governance for the people...it presented an idyllic utopian society where people work, not based off of self-interest, but based off of their own altruism.
2:Maybe it is just me...but it didn't really seemed like that worked out so well. Likewise, prove that your inane "theory" actually has practical application in the real-world by showing an example, on a nation-wide scale, where it has shown success.
My "inane theory" is that businesses would hire more people and expand faster if they had more money. That's pure logic. If people have more money, they spend more. Likewise, if a business has more money, they spend more. Or would you like to try to make the argument that if a business has less money, they spend more?
1: If you would follow businesses, which I know you don't, but if, in theory, you would...you would realize that what you are saying is just plain false. Right now we are living in an environment where, for the past decade, businesses had have pretty much free access to cash. 2:So, have we seen a rapidly expanding economy? No. We have seen most of the major corporations move to leverage themselves more, borrowing money, maintaining (not growing) assets, and paying back dividends and buying back stock. 2: The problem with your outside of real world thinking is a "if you build it they will come" mentality that simply doesn't pan out in the real world. There are not infinite growth opportunities out there, there is market saturation. You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something you heard on the internet here.
Again, you simply don't follow business, and it is sad that you are trying to comment on it. Here is a map of the top 500 corporations in the world. If businesses rushed towards less taxation and less regulation, you would see this map flooded by all the businesses being in places like Africa or some spots in South America or Southeast Asia, where government has little to no realistic power.Except no, businesses are under a 60(?)% tax rate, and Obamacare is taxing them per-employee. They don't have free access to cash, the economy is outright garbage, with extremely slow economic expansion, thanks to government intervention.Read my post before calling it a straw man...I pointed out an example of an academic theory that sounded good on paper, but didn't work out in reality. If you thought my strawman was saying that not taxing a business is communist...then you lack fundamental reading comprehension.Your strawman is the absolute opposite of what I said. I said absolutely nothing about NOT working for self interest. In fact, what I stated was letting self interest run the economy entirely. Not only that, what I was advocating was making the government significantly smaller, not expanding it to ridiculous proportions. Did you even read my post?Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.Actually, no, as neither should have been in place in the first place. Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, and should never have existed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing it out. If enough people understand, then it's possible we won't elect someone who would put such a poor piece of legislation in place again.This is what you said, "Well for starters, when you send $200 million to a different country hours before leaving the WH, I would say that's a waste of taxpayer money. I've never met anyone who doesn't think the government wastes tax dollars on other countries"
1:I'm not sure if you are new to this nation, but what you said here has nothing to do with Dodd-Frank nor Obamacare. Furthermore, Trump has stated and started moving towards rolling back both Dodd-Frank and Obamacare...so complaining about programs that are already in the initial phases of getting rolled back...is like a child whining that they aren't receiving their ice cream sundae immediately after it is bought because it has to get made first.
2:Getting back to the core discussion on taxes you seem to have ignored my question on why we should award special privileges to corporations and their owners without taxing them for those special privileges. We have a form of business where the company is taxed as the individual...the sole proprietorship. There is a reason why corporations are a separate form of business, how do you justify the privileges awarded to them without taxing them?
Business shouldn't be taxed for multiple reasons. Firstly, the government never should have been big enough to be able to waste as much money as they're getting in the first place, so they don't need what they get from businesses. The government never should have had 400+ agencies, shouldn't be handing money to foreign governments, and shouldn't be giving taxpayer money to other people.
Furthermore, businesses just pass down the cost of taxes to their consumer and employees in various forms anyway, so taxing them just makes the Liberals with wealth envy happy, rather than actually accomplishing anything, plus taxes and subsidies are just being used to hurt certain businesses, and help others in the first place, which is not the government's place.
Lastly, the private sector businesses are where jobs come from in the first place, and if anything, taxes on them only damage the economy. Taxing those businesses only does harm, and no good. The government should drastically cut spending, not tax businesses, let alone more.
1: Name a nation where businesses are not taxed nor state-owned and it has proven to have been beneficial to the population. If you want to work off of what may make sense in your head (not agreeing with you, but just pointing out how absurd it is what you are proposing), then communism should have worked and would be the best system of governance for the people...it presented an idyllic utopian society where people work, not based off of self-interest, but based off of their own altruism.
2:Maybe it is just me...but it didn't really seemed like that worked out so well. Likewise, prove that your inane "theory" actually has practical application in the real-world by showing an example, on a nation-wide scale, where it has shown success.
My "inane theory" is that businesses would hire more people and expand faster if they had more money. That's pure logic. If people have more money, they spend more. Likewise, if a business has more money, they spend more. Or would you like to try to make the argument that if a business has less money, they spend more?
1: If you would follow businesses, which I know you don't, but if, in theory, you would...you would realize that what you are saying is just plain false. Right now we are living in an environment where, for the past decade, businesses had have pretty much free access to cash. 2:So, have we seen a rapidly expanding economy? No. We have seen most of the major corporations move to leverage themselves more, borrowing money, maintaining (not growing) assets, and paying back dividends and buying back stock. 2: The problem with your outside of real world thinking is a "if you build it they will come" mentality that simply doesn't pan out in the real world. There are not infinite growth opportunities out there, there is market saturation. You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something you heard on the internet here.
You can thank government intervention for that. The government can only undo damage it has already done to the economy, or damage it more. I can tell from your lack of understanding of the actual state of the economy that you're a flaming lefty.
Your outside of reality mindset comes from the thought that businesses are inherently evil and would rather spite people than make money. The actual fact is that if you give businesses opportunities to make more money, they take those opportunities. That's why chains exist, so that they can expand and make more money in more locations, which is what ANY business does when given the opportunity. SURPRISINGLY, to do that, you have to stop warring against those businesses. Go figure that they wouldn't move out of the Nation if it wasn't cheaper. What's that? There's a less than 60% business tax and fewer regulations in X Nation than Y Nation? Of course they'd move, any business would. If America had absolutely no taxes and no regulations, it would be a better location for business. As of right now, because lefties don't understand economics, businesses are moving. Why? Because they can make more money elsewhere.
It's not a hard concept to understand. If the government steals less from you in America than where you're currently located, then it's a more profitable location. I'm sure if you try REALLY hard, you may be able to understand it. You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something CNN told you.
Those areas are based on what they're required to pay their employees and how long they're allowed to work them. For a long time, people in Asia have been spending less time at home and working longer hours, hence the quality of their vehicles, animation, and video games. It's actually frowned upon for people in those areas to leave work on time. What you're looking at is culture and currency as factors in business placement. If America had the lowest taxation and fewest regulations, they'd still be moving their businesses to America.Again, you simply don't follow business, and it is sad that you are trying to comment on it. Here is a map of the top 500 corporations in the world. If businesses rushed towards less taxation and less regulation, you would see this map flooded by all the businesses being in places like Africa or some spots in South America or Southeast Asia, where government has little to no realistic power.Except no, businesses are under a 60(?)% tax rate, and Obamacare is taxing them per-employee. They don't have free access to cash, the economy is outright garbage, with extremely slow economic expansion, thanks to government intervention.Read my post before calling it a straw man...I pointed out an example of an academic theory that sounded good on paper, but didn't work out in reality. If you thought my strawman was saying that not taxing a business is communist...then you lack fundamental reading comprehension.Your strawman is the absolute opposite of what I said. I said absolutely nothing about NOT working for self interest. In fact, what I stated was letting self interest run the economy entirely. Not only that, what I was advocating was making the government significantly smaller, not expanding it to ridiculous proportions. Did you even read my post?Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.Actually, no, as neither should have been in place in the first place. Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, and should never have existed, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing it out. If enough people understand, then it's possible we won't elect someone who would put such a poor piece of legislation in place again.
Business shouldn't be taxed for multiple reasons. Firstly, the government never should have been big enough to be able to waste as much money as they're getting in the first place, so they don't need what they get from businesses. The government never should have had 400+ agencies, shouldn't be handing money to foreign governments, and shouldn't be giving taxpayer money to other people.
Furthermore, businesses just pass down the cost of taxes to their consumer and employees in various forms anyway, so taxing them just makes the Liberals with wealth envy happy, rather than actually accomplishing anything, plus taxes and subsidies are just being used to hurt certain businesses, and help others in the first place, which is not the government's place.
Lastly, the private sector businesses are where jobs come from in the first place, and if anything, taxes on them only damage the economy. Taxing those businesses only does harm, and no good. The government should drastically cut spending, not tax businesses, let alone more.
1: Name a nation where businesses are not taxed nor state-owned and it has proven to have been beneficial to the population. If you want to work off of what may make sense in your head (not agreeing with you, but just pointing out how absurd it is what you are proposing), then communism should have worked and would be the best system of governance for the people...it presented an idyllic utopian society where people work, not based off of self-interest, but based off of their own altruism.
2:Maybe it is just me...but it didn't really seemed like that worked out so well. Likewise, prove that your inane "theory" actually has practical application in the real-world by showing an example, on a nation-wide scale, where it has shown success.
My "inane theory" is that businesses would hire more people and expand faster if they had more money. That's pure logic. If people have more money, they spend more. Likewise, if a business has more money, they spend more. Or would you like to try to make the argument that if a business has less money, they spend more?
1: If you would follow businesses, which I know you don't, but if, in theory, you would...you would realize that what you are saying is just plain false. Right now we are living in an environment where, for the past decade, businesses had have pretty much free access to cash. 2:So, have we seen a rapidly expanding economy? No. We have seen most of the major corporations move to leverage themselves more, borrowing money, maintaining (not growing) assets, and paying back dividends and buying back stock. 2: The problem with your outside of real world thinking is a "if you build it they will come" mentality that simply doesn't pan out in the real world. There are not infinite growth opportunities out there, there is market saturation. You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something you heard on the internet here.
You can thank government intervention for that. The government can only undo damage it has already done to the economy, or damage it more. I can tell from your lack of understanding of the actual state of the economy that you're a flaming lefty.
Your outside of reality mindset comes from the thought that businesses are inherently evil and would rather spite people than make money. The actual fact is that if you give businesses opportunities to make more money, they take those opportunities. That's why chains exist, so that they can expand and make more money in more locations, which is what ANY business does when given the opportunity. SURPRISINGLY, to do that, you have to stop warring against those businesses. Go figure that they wouldn't move out of the Nation if it wasn't cheaper. What's that? There's a less than 60% business tax and fewer regulations in X Nation than Y Nation? Of course they'd move, any business would. If America had absolutely no taxes and no regulations, it would be a better location for business. As of right now, because lefties don't understand economics, businesses are moving. Why? Because they can make more money elsewhere.
It's not a hard concept to understand. If the government steals less from you in America than where you're currently located, then it's a more profitable location. I'm sure if you try REALLY hard, you may be able to understand it. You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something CNN told you.
Instead you see a concentration in Europe, America, and East Asia...where government regulations (and control, if speaking of China) and taxation are all heavily prevalent. You really need to stop commenting on issues that are outside the scope of your knowledge base.
Visualize The Global 500
Again, if you would follow current business, like reading the WSJ daily, or just being in the business world an environment, and not parroting things you search for on the internet...you wouldn't look so unfortunately uninformed. Japan has that work ethic you are talking about and was renowned for it...it is what put them in competition with other developed nations in the 70's and 80's. However, due to their stagnating workforce (they have very strict immigration laws, and declining birthrates), they are no longer as strong as they once were...in fact, they are starting on their second decade in a row of stagnation and slow, but steady, decline.Those areas are based on what they're required to pay their employees and how long they're allowed to work them. For a long time, people in Asia have been spending less time at home and working longer hours, hence the quality of their vehicles, animation, and video games. It's actually frowned upon for people in those areas to leave work on time. What you're looking at is culture and currency as factors in business placement. If America had the lowest taxation and fewest regulations, they'd still be moving their businesses to America.Again, you simply don't follow business, and it is sad that you are trying to comment on it. Here is a map of the top 500 corporations in the world. If businesses rushed towards less taxation and less regulation, you would see this map flooded by all the businesses being in places like Africa or some spots in South America or Southeast Asia, where government has little to no realistic power.Except no, businesses are under a 60(?)% tax rate, and Obamacare is taxing them per-employee. They don't have free access to cash, the economy is outright garbage, with extremely slow economic expansion, thanks to government intervention.Read my post before calling it a straw man...I pointed out an example of an academic theory that sounded good on paper, but didn't work out in reality. If you thought my strawman was saying that not taxing a business is communist...then you lack fundamental reading comprehension.Your strawman is the absolute opposite of what I said. I said absolutely nothing about NOT working for self interest. In fact, what I stated was letting self interest run the economy entirely. Not only that, what I was advocating was making the government significantly smaller, not expanding it to ridiculous proportions. Did you even read my post?Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.
1: Name a nation where businesses are not taxed nor state-owned and it has proven to have been beneficial to the population. If you want to work off of what may make sense in your head (not agreeing with you, but just pointing out how absurd it is what you are proposing), then communism should have worked and would be the best system of governance for the people...it presented an idyllic utopian society where people work, not based off of self-interest, but based off of their own altruism.
2:Maybe it is just me...but it didn't really seemed like that worked out so well. Likewise, prove that your inane "theory" actually has practical application in the real-world by showing an example, on a nation-wide scale, where it has shown success.
My "inane theory" is that businesses would hire more people and expand faster if they had more money. That's pure logic. If people have more money, they spend more. Likewise, if a business has more money, they spend more. Or would you like to try to make the argument that if a business has less money, they spend more?
1: If you would follow businesses, which I know you don't, but if, in theory, you would...you would realize that what you are saying is just plain false. Right now we are living in an environment where, for the past decade, businesses had have pretty much free access to cash. 2:So, have we seen a rapidly expanding economy? No. We have seen most of the major corporations move to leverage themselves more, borrowing money, maintaining (not growing) assets, and paying back dividends and buying back stock. 2: The problem with your outside of real world thinking is a "if you build it they will come" mentality that simply doesn't pan out in the real world. There are not infinite growth opportunities out there, there is market saturation. You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something you heard on the internet here.
You can thank government intervention for that. The government can only undo damage it has already done to the economy, or damage it more. I can tell from your lack of understanding of the actual state of the economy that you're a flaming lefty.
Your outside of reality mindset comes from the thought that businesses are inherently evil and would rather spite people than make money. The actual fact is that if you give businesses opportunities to make more money, they take those opportunities. That's why chains exist, so that they can expand and make more money in more locations, which is what ANY business does when given the opportunity. SURPRISINGLY, to do that, you have to stop warring against those businesses. Go figure that they wouldn't move out of the Nation if it wasn't cheaper. What's that? There's a less than 60% business tax and fewer regulations in X Nation than Y Nation? Of course they'd move, any business would. If America had absolutely no taxes and no regulations, it would be a better location for business. As of right now, because lefties don't understand economics, businesses are moving. Why? Because they can make more money elsewhere.
It's not a hard concept to understand. If the government steals less from you in America than where you're currently located, then it's a more profitable location. I'm sure if you try REALLY hard, you may be able to understand it. You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something CNN told you.
Instead you see a concentration in Europe, America, and East Asia...where government regulations (and control, if speaking of China) and taxation are all heavily prevalent. You really need to stop commenting on issues that are outside the scope of your knowledge base.
Visualize The Global 500
And if you're so right, how about explaining to me how taxing the hell out of businesses helps them thrive? Please enlighten me.Again, if you would follow current business, like reading the WSJ daily, or just being in the business world an environment, and not parroting things you search for on the internet...you wouldn't look so unfortunately uninformed. Japan has that work ethic you are talking about and was renowned for it...it is what put them in competition with other developed nations in the 70's and 80's. However, due to their stagnating workforce (they have very strict immigration laws, and declining birthrates), they are no longer as strong as they once were...in fact, they are starting on their second decade in a row of stagnation and slow, but steady, decline.Those areas are based on what they're required to pay their employees and how long they're allowed to work them. For a long time, people in Asia have been spending less time at home and working longer hours, hence the quality of their vehicles, animation, and video games. It's actually frowned upon for people in those areas to leave work on time. What you're looking at is culture and currency as factors in business placement. If America had the lowest taxation and fewest regulations, they'd still be moving their businesses to America.Again, you simply don't follow business, and it is sad that you are trying to comment on it. Here is a map of the top 500 corporations in the world. If businesses rushed towards less taxation and less regulation, you would see this map flooded by all the businesses being in places like Africa or some spots in South America or Southeast Asia, where government has little to no realistic power.Except no, businesses are under a 60(?)% tax rate, and Obamacare is taxing them per-employee. They don't have free access to cash, the economy is outright garbage, with extremely slow economic expansion, thanks to government intervention.Read my post before calling it a straw man...I pointed out an example of an academic theory that sounded good on paper, but didn't work out in reality. If you thought my strawman was saying that not taxing a business is communist...then you lack fundamental reading comprehension.Your strawman is the absolute opposite of what I said. I said absolutely nothing about NOT working for self interest. In fact, what I stated was letting self interest run the economy entirely. Not only that, what I was advocating was making the government significantly smaller, not expanding it to ridiculous proportions. Did you even read my post?
My "inane theory" is that businesses would hire more people and expand faster if they had more money. That's pure logic. If people have more money, they spend more. Likewise, if a business has more money, they spend more. Or would you like to try to make the argument that if a business has less money, they spend more?
1: If you would follow businesses, which I know you don't, but if, in theory, you would...you would realize that what you are saying is just plain false. Right now we are living in an environment where, for the past decade, businesses had have pretty much free access to cash. 2:So, have we seen a rapidly expanding economy? No. We have seen most of the major corporations move to leverage themselves more, borrowing money, maintaining (not growing) assets, and paying back dividends and buying back stock. 2: The problem with your outside of real world thinking is a "if you build it they will come" mentality that simply doesn't pan out in the real world. There are not infinite growth opportunities out there, there is market saturation. You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something you heard on the internet here.
You can thank government intervention for that. The government can only undo damage it has already done to the economy, or damage it more. I can tell from your lack of understanding of the actual state of the economy that you're a flaming lefty.
Your outside of reality mindset comes from the thought that businesses are inherently evil and would rather spite people than make money. The actual fact is that if you give businesses opportunities to make more money, they take those opportunities. That's why chains exist, so that they can expand and make more money in more locations, which is what ANY business does when given the opportunity. SURPRISINGLY, to do that, you have to stop warring against those businesses. Go figure that they wouldn't move out of the Nation if it wasn't cheaper. What's that? There's a less than 60% business tax and fewer regulations in X Nation than Y Nation? Of course they'd move, any business would. If America had absolutely no taxes and no regulations, it would be a better location for business. As of right now, because lefties don't understand economics, businesses are moving. Why? Because they can make more money elsewhere.
It's not a hard concept to understand. If the government steals less from you in America than where you're currently located, then it's a more profitable location. I'm sure if you try REALLY hard, you may be able to understand it. You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something CNN told you.
Instead you see a concentration in Europe, America, and East Asia...where government regulations (and control, if speaking of China) and taxation are all heavily prevalent. You really need to stop commenting on issues that are outside the scope of your knowledge base.
Visualize The Global 500
Furthermore, you skirted around the fact that the real world doesn't reflect your fantastical dreams. We have places with little to not government regulation or taxation...places in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia...however, those are not the places where businesses are prospering. They are prospering in the developed world where there are regulations and taxation...sometimes heavily so. This strictly contrasts with the dream world you create in your mind where people flock to places simply due to their tax or regulatory policies. The frank fact of the matter is that you don't seem to understand business or the economy and are just repeating something you heard on the internet that agreed with your worldview, so you took it as truth.
Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.
Name a nation where businesses are not taxed nor state-owned and it has proven to have been beneficial to the population. If you want to work off of what may make sense in your head (not agreeing with you, but just pointing out how absurd it is what you are proposing), then communism should have worked and would be the best system of governance for the people...it presented an idyllic utopian society where people work, not based off of self-interest, but based off of their own altruism.
Maybe it is just me...but it didn't really seemed like that worked out so well. Likewise, prove that your inane "theory" actually has practical application in the real-world by showing an example, on a nation-wide scale, where it has shown success.
It is a matter of degrees. "Taxing the hell" out of businesses does not help them thrive. The key is in taxing them proportionally speaking to the benefits that are gained by remaining in a certain nation (if international movement is available).And if you're so right, how about explaining to me how taxing the hell out of businesses helps them thrive? Please enlighten me.Again, if you would follow current business, like reading the WSJ daily, or just being in the business world an environment, and not parroting things you search for on the internet...you wouldn't look so unfortunately uninformed. Japan has that work ethic you are talking about and was renowned for it...it is what put them in competition with other developed nations in the 70's and 80's. However, due to their stagnating workforce (they have very strict immigration laws, and declining birthrates), they are no longer as strong as they once were...in fact, they are starting on their second decade in a row of stagnation and slow, but steady, decline.Those areas are based on what they're required to pay their employees and how long they're allowed to work them. For a long time, people in Asia have been spending less time at home and working longer hours, hence the quality of their vehicles, animation, and video games. It's actually frowned upon for people in those areas to leave work on time. What you're looking at is culture and currency as factors in business placement. If America had the lowest taxation and fewest regulations, they'd still be moving their businesses to America.Again, you simply don't follow business, and it is sad that you are trying to comment on it. Here is a map of the top 500 corporations in the world. If businesses rushed towards less taxation and less regulation, you would see this map flooded by all the businesses being in places like Africa or some spots in South America or Southeast Asia, where government has little to no realistic power.Except no, businesses are under a 60(?)% tax rate, and Obamacare is taxing them per-employee. They don't have free access to cash, the economy is outright garbage, with extremely slow economic expansion, thanks to government intervention.Read my post before calling it a straw man...I pointed out an example of an academic theory that sounded good on paper, but didn't work out in reality. If you thought my strawman was saying that not taxing a business is communist...then you lack fundamental reading comprehension.
1: If you would follow businesses, which I know you don't, but if, in theory, you would...you would realize that what you are saying is just plain false. Right now we are living in an environment where, for the past decade, businesses had have pretty much free access to cash. 2:So, have we seen a rapidly expanding economy? No. We have seen most of the major corporations move to leverage themselves more, borrowing money, maintaining (not growing) assets, and paying back dividends and buying back stock. 2: The problem with your outside of real world thinking is a "if you build it they will come" mentality that simply doesn't pan out in the real world. There are not infinite growth opportunities out there, there is market saturation. You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something you heard on the internet here.
You can thank government intervention for that. The government can only undo damage it has already done to the economy, or damage it more. I can tell from your lack of understanding of the actual state of the economy that you're a flaming lefty.
Your outside of reality mindset comes from the thought that businesses are inherently evil and would rather spite people than make money. The actual fact is that if you give businesses opportunities to make more money, they take those opportunities. That's why chains exist, so that they can expand and make more money in more locations, which is what ANY business does when given the opportunity. SURPRISINGLY, to do that, you have to stop warring against those businesses. Go figure that they wouldn't move out of the Nation if it wasn't cheaper. What's that? There's a less than 60% business tax and fewer regulations in X Nation than Y Nation? Of course they'd move, any business would. If America had absolutely no taxes and no regulations, it would be a better location for business. As of right now, because lefties don't understand economics, businesses are moving. Why? Because they can make more money elsewhere.
It's not a hard concept to understand. If the government steals less from you in America than where you're currently located, then it's a more profitable location. I'm sure if you try REALLY hard, you may be able to understand it. You need to study the real world before you regurgitate something CNN told you.
Instead you see a concentration in Europe, America, and East Asia...where government regulations (and control, if speaking of China) and taxation are all heavily prevalent. You really need to stop commenting on issues that are outside the scope of your knowledge base.
Visualize The Global 500
Furthermore, you skirted around the fact that the real world doesn't reflect your fantastical dreams. We have places with little to not government regulation or taxation...places in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia...however, those are not the places where businesses are prospering. They are prospering in the developed world where there are regulations and taxation...sometimes heavily so. This strictly contrasts with the dream world you create in your mind where people flock to places simply due to their tax or regulatory policies. The frank fact of the matter is that you don't seem to understand business or the economy and are just repeating something you heard on the internet that agreed with your worldview, so you took it as truth.
This is just false...Apple's headquarters is in California. They moved their European HQ to Ireland for tax reasons...because there isn't a ton of difference or penalties between moving between nations over there (they have free movement of people so they can take high performers with them, and the EU imposes general guidelines on business conduct for all EU members). You should do a bit of homework before you regurgitate falsehoods. Due to various subsidies, tax loopholes, and deductions, some American tech firms are reported to have tax rates as low as 8%...the government gives them a lot of leeway since tech is our best industry and remains one of our faster growing ones. Our flat tax (before deductions or subsidies are concerned) is the highest among developed nations to my knowledge, but it is negated by provisions in our tax code as well as programs in our government built to help certain industries (again tech, but I think green energy also gets a big boost...and you can rest assured that dirty energy is about to get a huge governmental boost from Trump).Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.
Name a nation where businesses are not taxed nor state-owned and it has proven to have been beneficial to the population. If you want to work off of what may make sense in your head (not agreeing with you, but just pointing out how absurd it is what you are proposing), then communism should have worked and would be the best system of governance for the people...it presented an idyllic utopian society where people work, not based off of self-interest, but based off of their own altruism.
Maybe it is just me...but it didn't really seemed like that worked out so well. Likewise, prove that your inane "theory" actually has practical application in the real-world by showing an example, on a nation-wide scale, where it has shown success.
All First World countries I know of have taxes on corporations. Sadly, our country has chosen to drive corporations away to other shores.
Ireland has a 12.5% maximum tax rate for corporations. Major corporations have moved their headquarter to that country infuriating...the European Union. Their economy is BOOMING. Far greater than the mediocre growth of our country. Apple moved their headquarters to Ireland in the 1990's. CNN, a far left news source, headlined that Apple "artificially" lowered their tax bill. I'm not sure how one "artificially" lowers their tax bill. The article claims Apple paid a low of 2% of the profits attributed to their subsidiaries in Ireland.
Our corporate tax rate is either the highest or second highest in the world at a maximum of 39%. That is simply obscene.
What Progressives simply cannot comprehend is that our economy is NOT static. Our economy is dynamic and we must recognize that fact. By that, I mean that Progressives believe that if we collect taxes at a rate of 10% on net profits of $100,000.00 the tax collected will be $10,000.00. Progressives believe that if you raise that rate to 39%, the tax collected will be $39,000.00! How cool is that? The problem is that at 39%, the company, who has a fiduciary relationship with their stockholders will find any way legally possible to avoid that exorbitant tax. The result is that you collect 39% on $10,000.00 instead of $100,000.00 resulting in tax collected of $3,900.00 and not $39,000.00. How is that good for anyone?
This is just false...Apple's headquarters is in California. They moved their European HQ to Ireland for tax reasons...because there isn't a ton of difference or penalties between moving between nations over there (they have free movement of people so they can take high performers with them, and the EU imposes general guidelines on business conduct for all EU members). You should do a bit of homework before you regurgitate falsehoods. Due to various subsidies, tax loopholes, and deductions, some American tech firms are reported to have tax rates as low as 8%...the government gives them a lot of leeway since tech is our best industry and remains one of our faster growing ones. Our flat tax (before deductions or subsidies are concerned) is the highest among developed nations to my knowledge, but it is negated by provisions in our tax code as well as programs in our government built to help certain industries (again tech, but I think green energy also gets a big boost...and you can rest assured that dirty energy is about to get a huge governmental boost from Trump).Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.
Name a nation where businesses are not taxed nor state-owned and it has proven to have been beneficial to the population. If you want to work off of what may make sense in your head (not agreeing with you, but just pointing out how absurd it is what you are proposing), then communism should have worked and would be the best system of governance for the people...it presented an idyllic utopian society where people work, not based off of self-interest, but based off of their own altruism.
Maybe it is just me...but it didn't really seemed like that worked out so well. Likewise, prove that your inane "theory" actually has practical application in the real-world by showing an example, on a nation-wide scale, where it has shown success.
All First World countries I know of have taxes on corporations. Sadly, our country has chosen to drive corporations away to other shores.
Ireland has a 12.5% maximum tax rate for corporations. Major corporations have moved their headquarter to that country infuriating...the European Union. Their economy is BOOMING. Far greater than the mediocre growth of our country. Apple moved their headquarters to Ireland in the 1990's. CNN, a far left news source, headlined that Apple "artificially" lowered their tax bill. I'm not sure how one "artificially" lowers their tax bill. The article claims Apple paid a low of 2% of the profits attributed to their subsidiaries in Ireland.
Our corporate tax rate is either the highest or second highest in the world at a maximum of 39%. That is simply obscene.
What Progressives simply cannot comprehend is that our economy is NOT static. Our economy is dynamic and we must recognize that fact. By that, I mean that Progressives believe that if we collect taxes at a rate of 10% on net profits of $100,000.00 the tax collected will be $10,000.00. Progressives believe that if you raise that rate to 39%, the tax collected will be $39,000.00! How cool is that? The problem is that at 39%, the company, who has a fiduciary relationship with their stockholders will find any way legally possible to avoid that exorbitant tax. The result is that you collect 39% on $10,000.00 instead of $100,000.00 resulting in tax collected of $3,900.00 and not $39,000.00. How is that good for anyone?
Again, parroting information you hear on the internet that simply upholds your worldview is not going to convince any informed party of the strength of your positions...just the opposite in fact.
Again study business.This is just false...Apple's headquarters is in California. They moved their European HQ to Ireland for tax reasons...because there isn't a ton of difference or penalties between moving between nations over there (they have free movement of people so they can take high performers with them, and the EU imposes general guidelines on business conduct for all EU members). You should do a bit of homework before you regurgitate falsehoods. Due to various subsidies, tax loopholes, and deductions, some American tech firms are reported to have tax rates as low as 8%...the government gives them a lot of leeway since tech is our best industry and remains one of our faster growing ones. Our flat tax (before deductions or subsidies are concerned) is the highest among developed nations to my knowledge, but it is negated by provisions in our tax code as well as programs in our government built to help certain industries (again tech, but I think green energy also gets a big boost...and you can rest assured that dirty energy is about to get a huge governmental boost from Trump).Okay, let's put this theory to the smell test.
Name a nation where businesses are not taxed nor state-owned and it has proven to have been beneficial to the population. If you want to work off of what may make sense in your head (not agreeing with you, but just pointing out how absurd it is what you are proposing), then communism should have worked and would be the best system of governance for the people...it presented an idyllic utopian society where people work, not based off of self-interest, but based off of their own altruism.
Maybe it is just me...but it didn't really seemed like that worked out so well. Likewise, prove that your inane "theory" actually has practical application in the real-world by showing an example, on a nation-wide scale, where it has shown success.
All First World countries I know of have taxes on corporations. Sadly, our country has chosen to drive corporations away to other shores.
Ireland has a 12.5% maximum tax rate for corporations. Major corporations have moved their headquarter to that country infuriating...the European Union. Their economy is BOOMING. Far greater than the mediocre growth of our country. Apple moved their headquarters to Ireland in the 1990's. CNN, a far left news source, headlined that Apple "artificially" lowered their tax bill. I'm not sure how one "artificially" lowers their tax bill. The article claims Apple paid a low of 2% of the profits attributed to their subsidiaries in Ireland.
Our corporate tax rate is either the highest or second highest in the world at a maximum of 39%. That is simply obscene.
What Progressives simply cannot comprehend is that our economy is NOT static. Our economy is dynamic and we must recognize that fact. By that, I mean that Progressives believe that if we collect taxes at a rate of 10% on net profits of $100,000.00 the tax collected will be $10,000.00. Progressives believe that if you raise that rate to 39%, the tax collected will be $39,000.00! How cool is that? The problem is that at 39%, the company, who has a fiduciary relationship with their stockholders will find any way legally possible to avoid that exorbitant tax. The result is that you collect 39% on $10,000.00 instead of $100,000.00 resulting in tax collected of $3,900.00 and not $39,000.00. How is that good for anyone?
Again, parroting information you hear on the internet that simply upholds your worldview is not going to convince any informed party of the strength of your positions...just the opposite in fact.
If taxes are 8%, as you allege, why are so many companies leaving the US and holding their profits in other countries?
I posted facts, you posted fantasies. As I said, you live in a static world instead of dynamic.
Wow, you agree that they moved their headquarters for their European HQ to...ta da...Ireland for...TAX REASONS! Thank you!
Europe's top regulator has accused Ireland of striking a deal with Apple in 1991 that helped the tech giant to artificially lower its tax bill for more than 20 years.
by Alanna Petroff @AlannaPetroffSeptember 30, 2014: 8:56 AM ET
[...]
The European Commission published details of its case Tuesday after announcing in June that it was probing tax arrangements between Apple (AAPL, Tech30) and Ireland, and Starbucks(SBUX) and the Netherlands.
Apple has paid as little as 2% on profits attributed to its subsidiaries in Ireland, where the top rate of corporate tax is 12.5%.[...]
EU says Apple benefits from Irish state aid
You rightly ignored the fact that the economy in Ireland is expanding sharply instead of the lackadasical growth of America for the past ten years. Smart boy!
Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.
I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.
Well let me give you the non-standard liberal approach by a left-leaner.Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.
I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.
The standard liberal approach.
"If you're cutting taxes, you are just trying to screw the poor."
"If you're cutting taxes, you are just giving tax breaks to rich people."
"Wahhh -wahhh - wahhh!!"
Not once did you see anything in this rant about increased tax revenue by stimulating the economy thru tax cuts. No discussion about jobs created as the result of released capital for investment.
Not once in this rant did you see anything about cutting spending commensurate with tax cuts. The idea that government services might be cut is anathema to the left. They are incapable of believing that nanny government is expensive and unnecessary. They do not comprehend people being responsible for themselves.
In short .... s.o.b.s.
I'm highlighting this because of how radically insane this is. I don't think you fundamentally understand the reason why there are taxes or what corporations are for you to assert this claim. Your knowledge base is seriously lacking in a critical place somewhere.Companies shouldn't be paying taxes. Shareholders are the owners of a company like GM, and they pay taxes on their earnings, which count as income. Employees who work for companies like GM also pay income tax. I think the corporate tax rate should be 0% for this reason.
Hardly, I understand taxes pretty well.
For instance, I know sales tax is bull shit because it's essentially double taxation. You're taxed once when you get paid, and then taxed again when you buy something... Complete thievery by the local and state government right there.
The only people who should be paying a tax within a company are its owners and employees. The NFL doesn't pay a tax because the owners and players pay taxes, but the NFL itself doesn't. The same concept should be used for other companies... The shareholders should be taxed on their earnings (which is all the profit), while the operating costs (used to buy materials, etc, is sales taxed), while the employees who make an income who profit from working there pay income tax. Not really a hard concept to understand what I'm talking about.
Your ignorance about taxes is not surprising. Just two examples, then scoot along. Federal Income Taxes go to the...ta da...Federal Government. Sales taxes go to the...ta da...the state unless the area where you live has a local option tax and that part goes to the city or county.
Your last paragraph confirms what I said in my first sentence.
Well let me give you the non-standard liberal approach by a left-leaner.Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.
I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.
The standard liberal approach.
"If you're cutting taxes, you are just trying to screw the poor."
"If you're cutting taxes, you are just giving tax breaks to rich people."
"Wahhh -wahhh - wahhh!!"
Not once did you see anything in this rant about increased tax revenue by stimulating the economy thru tax cuts. No discussion about jobs created as the result of released capital for investment.
Not once in this rant did you see anything about cutting spending commensurate with tax cuts. The idea that government services might be cut is anathema to the left. They are incapable of believing that nanny government is expensive and unnecessary. They do not comprehend people being responsible for themselves.
In short .... s.o.b.s.
I'm a big fan of tax breaks...if the government can afford to. Seeing the size of our budget deficit, we do not have room to afford to cut taxes. Additionally, I'm also a fan of reducing the amount of our government spending...specifically our entitlement programs, which, last I heard, made up ~50% of government spending.
You must not follow our government spending very much. If you are complaining about some party being thrown it kinda shows how ignorant you are because I can guarantee you that it wouldn't even register on a percentage basis of our budget spending. We could literally burn millions of dollars and dance around it like savages and not really have it register on a percentage basis of our budget spending...our spending issues are literally much, much larger than things you seem to have a problem with, which means you just have no clue what they are.Well let me give you the non-standard liberal approach by a left-leaner.Trump, as I expected, is talking giving companies tax breaks to create jobs here. Well if you give them tax breaks, then guess who pays the taxes. The Poor! Slavery in action. The more that things change, the more they stay the same.
Here is the way things work in the U.S. Capitalism-Corporations = Society = Government = AMERICA! We are "supposed" to live in a democracy. But the business world rules your lives. How many people in business did you vote for. Do you vote for business or government. People in business who aren't elected shouldn't be directing how people live. That is the government's job.
I say to hell with bribing companies with tax breaks or outright corporate welfare to create jobs. If the private sector can't create jobs, I say that the government should just cut away that that dead weight and start doing the job themselves. Also, want to see something interesting? Go to the internet and look up any year in the last 50 years and see the number of companies in whatever year paid no taxes at all.
The standard liberal approach.
"If you're cutting taxes, you are just trying to screw the poor."
"If you're cutting taxes, you are just giving tax breaks to rich people."
"Wahhh -wahhh - wahhh!!"
Not once did you see anything in this rant about increased tax revenue by stimulating the economy thru tax cuts. No discussion about jobs created as the result of released capital for investment.
Not once in this rant did you see anything about cutting spending commensurate with tax cuts. The idea that government services might be cut is anathema to the left. They are incapable of believing that nanny government is expensive and unnecessary. They do not comprehend people being responsible for themselves.
In short .... s.o.b.s.
I'm a big fan of tax breaks...if the government can afford to. Seeing the size of our budget deficit, we do not have room to afford to cut taxes. Additionally, I'm also a fan of reducing the amount of our government spending...specifically our entitlement programs, which, last I heard, made up ~50% of government spending.
You need to cut taxes for a capitalist society to thrive. Only in a socialist society would higher taxes allow the society to be "well off" like in Canada. The problem isn't "the government can't afford to cut taxes," no, the problem is the government (either federal, local, or both) wastes money on stupid programs like Planned Parenthood and welfare, exporting it overseas to other countries, and throwing stupid events to celebrate a minor event which is also used with taxpayer money. Last year my state politicians threw a party to celebrate the opening of a taxpayer funded amphitheater... What did they do after that? Throw a party as a celebration, also with taxpayer money instead of just using money from their own salaries (also funded by taxpayers) to do it. Do you see where I'm getting at? Why are the politicians throwing a party with taxpayer money that can be saved or used somewhere important? Did they ask if they could use our money to pay for a party?
Also, there's the issue that companies keep money overseas because they don't want to pay the high import tax to bring it in. So the government would rather get 0% of those trillions of dollars rather than 10-15% of it. Makes sense right?
