What's up with the GOP's slavish devotion to Corporations?

[Winston]

Corporations are where people work and invest and a big source of our tax revenue.
The dumb left wing crackpot Democrats are like the farmer who beats his plow horse.

WTF. Big source of our tax revenue? Corporate tax revenue doesn't even account for ten percent of total government revenues. Get a damn clue.

Without corporations there would not be any employers

You are dumber than a box of rocks. Large corporations only employ 38% of the private sector workforce. Small businesses employ 53%. Better yet, over 99% of employing organizations are small businesses. In other words, for every corporation that employees people, NINETY NINE small businesses employ them, and damn near all of those small businesses have less than ten employees.

Like I said, get a clue.

Five Big Myths About American Small Businesses | HuffPost

ummm small businesses are also corporations
Without people working and paying taxes and buying products and investing there would not be any tax revenues.
Tell us where the tax revenue would come from if there were no corporations.

No, very few "small" businesses are incorporated. You really are an idiot. And if there were no corporations we would still have plenty of tax revenue. I have already pointed out the corporations pay less than ten percent of total taxes. Workers paying income tax account for four times as much. And honestly, that is a problem. Do you want to make the argument that corporations use only ten percent of government resources? I would argue that just copyright protection is worth at least ten percent. Protection of the shipping lanes would be another ten percent. The truth is corporations were not paying their fair share before the tax reform package and most certainly will not be doing so afterwards. They are the definition of "deadbeats".

 

[Aba Incieni]

Reps favor big money producing corporations over big money taxing government.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Corporations are where people work and invest and a big source of our tax revenue.
The dumb left wing crackpot Democrats are like the farmer who beats his plow horse.

WTF. Big source of our tax revenue? Corporate tax revenue doesn't even account for ten percent of total government revenues. Get a damn clue.

Without corporations there would not be any employers

You are dumber than a box of rocks. Large corporations only employ 38% of the private sector workforce. Small businesses employ 53%. Better yet, over 99% of employing organizations are small businesses. In other words, for every corporation that employees people, NINETY NINE small businesses employ them, and damn near all of those small businesses have less than ten employees.

Like I said, get a clue.

Five Big Myths About American Small Businesses | HuffPost

ummm small businesses are also corporations
Without people working and paying taxes and buying products and investing there would not be any tax revenues.
Tell us where the tax revenue would come from if there were no corporations.

No, very few "small" businesses are incorporated. You really are an idiot. And if there were no corporations we would still have plenty of tax revenue. I have already pointed out the corporations pay less than ten percent of total taxes. Workers paying income tax account for four times as much. And honestly, that is a problem. Do you want to make the argument that corporations use only ten percent of government resources? I would argue that just copyright protection is worth at least ten percent. Protection of the shipping lanes would be another ten percent. The truth is corporations were not paying their fair share before the tax reform package and most certainly will not be doing so afterwards. They are the definition of "deadbeats".

Wow, soooooooo where would people work without corporations?
It would be really dumb for a business owner to not incorporate.
In most states it is cheap and easy to do, and it has many benefits.
Where would people invest without corporations?
What countries don't have corporations?
What is it about prosperity that enrages the left wingers so much?

 

[Rustic]

It may not imply a course of action but it is used as an excuse for wealth redistribution and it is not the responciabilty of others to pay for peoples decisions.

It's a barometer like any other measurable statistic. Some may suggest redistribution. I suggest turning off the spigot. They can keep their winnings after justified tax, but policies that favor the wealthy need to end for many reasons. You key on paying for other people's decisions. That is one hell of a Pandoras box that I don't think you are prepared to weather the blowback on.

What anyone makes or doesn’t make is no one else’s business, it’s selfish for anyone to think otherwise...

Why?

Why would anyone care what other people make or don’t make?
It must be a control thing...

I can think of many reasons. And you must have some screws loose if you can't.

Control freak

 

[Rustic]

I always find it interesting how lefties are so hell bent on "income equality." They suspend reality as if raising minimum wage will close that gap, as though taking money from the rich to give to the poor will close that gap... The gap exists because some folks put in more than others and thus get more out - that's the only reason there's a gap at all. American's started getting fat, lazy, and happy after the booming 80s, that's why the gap widened between the rich and poor; not because of this made up "pie" bullshit, the ridiculous idea that the wealthy are taking money from the poor. If you put in the effort, you too can join the top and make your dreams come true; anyone can, they just have to put in the work for it. Or sit at the bottom of the pile and cry ~shrug~

This is subjective b.s. I've worked a number of shitty jobs and you'd be shocked to see how hard some people work. I've also worked in my career and you'd be equally shocked at how little some people can do to skate by once they get in The door. The argument that people who win simply worked harder is simpleton right wing propaganda meant to sedate you. Hard work is certainly necessary for someone coming from nothing. It's not true at all for upper middle class and up. I'm from the upper middle class and I'm a prime example of that, lol.

Yours is one of the most misinformed posts I've seen. For real.

It’s impossible to get fired from a civilian federal government job...

I'm open to reviewing and reforming that. NOW WHAT?

... Single term limits...

It takes 7 years to become an expert at something. Do you want noobs making decisions about critical issues they know nothing about?

Any career politician at the federal level expert????....

 

[EverCurious]

Vandalshandle It's on you man. Folks who have been trying to climb are reaching the top every single day, if you want to sit at the bottom and wait to be carried up, that's your choice - but don't be surprised when people pass you by.

Oh, I don't think you will pass me by; at least not unless you, too, retired at 55.

I probably passed you by decades ago; I invested in computers in the early 80s. Retirement was never really an "end game" for me... I've been "officially" retired for a couple years now, but we'll see how long my "retirement" lasts this time...

So, EC, you have described the poor, playing their video games, buying custom wheels, etc., etc. How many "poor" do you know, in your rarified world? People like my late step father, for example, who quit school at 12 when his father died to support his 5 siblings, mother, and grandmother, never had a chance to get a better education, volunteered for the Marines in WW2, even though he was past draft age, spent his whole life working like a dog in a Ford plant to support my mother, my brothers and I. Or maybe like the kid I went to highschool with, who was always glad when they served hot dogs, because he would mix up a plate of onions, ketchup and mustard that was on the counter, and was able to eat that day. Maybe, people like my aunt, who had to quit her job at Lockheed at age 40, to nurse her bedridden mother for 15 years, leaving her destitute in her old age. Then there is my wife, whose first husband fought leukemia for 16 months before leaving this earth, and leaving her in debt to the hospital for $1.27 million, and three kids to support.

I was born to a family that was middle class, and we lost it all when my father died, only to be brought back into the lower rings of your world by the kindness of a man who married my mother. But, before that happened, we lived in poverty, through no fault of our own. Because of him, we were able to take advantage of opportunities that would have been forever out of our reach, whereas many of the people we knew never that that chance.

And meantime, you self righteously make your judgemental calls on the poor. I don't remember you using the words, "lazy and shiftless", but you might as well had.

You put words into my mouth, a lot of them, and expect me to take your discussion/argument seriously? Please.

Lets start at the top, shall we? What did I say?

The "poor" in America aren't that bad off unless they're doing drugs. The majority of em are paying their bills, have their own home, cars, and all the modern toys and gadgets. The more I look into it, the less sympathy I have for them. They'd be better off to keep a lower profile and tell the D's to stop shining spot lights on their visible luxury... Food stamps and a brand new SUV with custom rims isn't a very sympathy inducing picture, JS.

What exactly does that have to do with your apparently generational "problematic" family? Nothing at all. It has to do with the reality, the majority of America's "poor" are not that bad off.

I then went on to say:

I always find it interesting how lefties are so hell bent on "income equality." They suspend reality as if raising minimum wage will close that gap, as though taking money from the rich to give to the poor will close that gap... The gap exists because some folks put in more than others and thus get more out - that's the only reason there's a gap at all. American's started getting fat, lazy, and happy after the booming 80s, that's why the gap widened between the rich and poor; not because of this made up "pie" bullshit, the ridiculous idea that the wealthy are taking money from the poor. If you put in the effort, you too can join the top and make your dreams come true; anyone can, they just have to put in the work for it. Or sit at the bottom of the pile and cry ~shrug~

What does this have to do with your family problems? Nothing at all. It has to do with the reality that folks who want to succeed are able to do so in America.


You want to make this discussion personal son? Take care of your own sick family, get your ass back to work to pay for their faults, it's your responsibility because it's /your/ family. That's what family does kid, stop being a selfish fuck with your 55 year old retirement when so many in your family are apparently in need of your help.

I have my own idiot "problematic" family to take care of; I pay for my stupid ass brother-in-law who blew all his money partying and gambling, lost his wife and kids, and quit his chef job to "hang out" with strippers. Stupid bastard couldn't even pay his rent this month because all he's capable of doing while drunk/stoned is refinishing Craigslist furniture, had to cover rent, gas, and fucking Christmas presents for his kids, again. (I might as well be on the fucking lease for as often as I cover his bills.) How about my cousin? He passed away from liver failure, after a liver transplant, because his dumbass wouldn't stop drinking - and left his mentally retarded 25 year old son with a huge mess, which ultimately falls in my mother and I's lap to clean up; including the house he "remodeled" over the past 20 fucking years, which still doesn't have actual lights, sheet rock, or apparently, according to the real estate lady, a working damn kitchen sink or stove - oh and it was infested with fucking shrews too... How about my now deceased grandfather, who after grandma's death decided to sow his wild oats with about 10 women, pissing up a rope talking sense into that stubborn bastard who ultimately blew just shy of $1M of his retirement wooing these ladies with new cars and shit; after we got him back on his medication with daily in-home care, he decided to start taking in feral cats to keep him company. Let me tell you, there is nothing like 3,000 sqft of cat piss and shit to make you realize it was long past time for someone to go.


So as much as you want to think that your families problems are uncommon or whatever, everyone has similar problems they have to deal with in their own families.

These are /personal/ problems, they are not /societal/ problems.

 

[longknife]

We already know what it is.

But why is it happening?

When will you catch on that corporations are PEOPLE!!!! Investors.

 

[Winston]

WTF. Big source of our tax revenue? Corporate tax revenue doesn't even account for ten percent of total government revenues. Get a damn clue.

Without corporations there would not be any employers

You are dumber than a box of rocks. Large corporations only employ 38% of the private sector workforce. Small businesses employ 53%. Better yet, over 99% of employing organizations are small businesses. In other words, for every corporation that employees people, NINETY NINE small businesses employ them, and damn near all of those small businesses have less than ten employees.

Like I said, get a clue.

Five Big Myths About American Small Businesses | HuffPost

ummm small businesses are also corporations
Without people working and paying taxes and buying products and investing there would not be any tax revenues.
Tell us where the tax revenue would come from if there were no corporations.

No, very few "small" businesses are incorporated. You really are an idiot. And if there were no corporations we would still have plenty of tax revenue. I have already pointed out the corporations pay less than ten percent of total taxes. Workers paying income tax account for four times as much. And honestly, that is a problem. Do you want to make the argument that corporations use only ten percent of government resources? I would argue that just copyright protection is worth at least ten percent. Protection of the shipping lanes would be another ten percent. The truth is corporations were not paying their fair share before the tax reform package and most certainly will not be doing so afterwards. They are the definition of "deadbeats".

Wow, soooooooo where would people work without corporations?
It would be really dumb for a business owner to not incorporate.
In most states it is cheap and easy to do, and it has many benefits.
Where would people invest without corporations?
What countries don't have corporations?
What is it about prosperity that enrages the left wingers so much?

Wow, can you even read? I already told you, for every corporation that hires people, NINETY NINE SMALL BUSINESSES HIRE THEM. Are you saying that 99 out of 100 employers are really dumb?

But here is the deal. The primary reason to incorporate is to limit liability. It protects both the management and the stockholders from any liability that could occur due to malfeasance, negligence, or illegal activities. For instance, say a chemical company pollutes the local water supply and kills a few hundred people. The corporate "shield" would limit that companies liability to the value of the company. The executives would not be on the line for any damages, nor would the shareholders. Now, there is a price that corporations pay for that protection, it is called the corporate income tax.

So, here is my proposal. I propose we eliminate the corporate income tax totally. Hell, after the tax cut we will be lucky to get five percent of government revenues from corporations. And along with eliminating the corporate tax, well we eliminate the corporate "shield". Let's put executives and shareholders on the line for damages caused by a company, intentional or otherwise. When some bank creates a bunch of fake accounts in order to meet sales quotas, well we garnish the mcmansion of the CEO, sell it, and distribute the proceeds to those harmed by that action. And we send out bills to shareholders so that they can cough up some damages. You invest in a company that harms people or society you pay the costs to make those harmed, or society, whole.

 

[grainbely]

The Democrat Politicians pander to the far left wing fanatics who hate rich people and corporations whilst they are Lobbyist Whores for rich people and corporations. Dem Voters are dolts.

Lol. Growing economic inequality is a sign that our economic policies are broken. They are creating the exact phenomenon that the founding fathers warned us of. Concentrated wealth and power is bad for everyone whether it's from the government or those that buy the government.

Our policies should not prioritize large corporations or billionaires. Truthfully they shouldn't prioritize anyone but by doing nothing, they are prioritizing the rich who will in time defeat the consumer and any laws meant to protect them and competition.

You say we shouldn't prioritize anyone but use the words "economic inequality" which is a catchphrase for redistribution. What modern convenience isn't available to all but the very poorest in this country ?

Economic inequality is a description of the current state and trends of income and wealth distributions. It doesn't imply a course of action, even if the only people who seem to care about it would like to research and address it.

That's an interesting question. I'm sure there are some examples. I don't think it's a categorical yes or no. Individuals will prioritize differently and sacrifice the low priorities. And I guess that could be the answer. My answer for now is that the working poor have to prioritize between necessities and the decision can lead to major detriment in their lives moving forward.

As John Kennedy said "a rising tide lifts all boats".
Today's Democratic Party's economic philosophy is "a low tide keeps everyone down for social justice"

Incorrect. First of all, that's an oversimplified saying used to sell policy to the masses. It doesn't have argumentative weight here. Second of all, the left doesn't typically wish to sacrifice the well being of it's constituents for the extra .5% GDP. The regulations are worth it. They force businesses to pay for their true costs. If that cost gets transferred to the consumer, so be it. If the business can't afford the actual cost of business, then they need to innovate or cease.

 

[grainbely]

You say we shouldn't prioritize anyone but use the words "economic inequality" which is a catchphrase for redistribution. What modern convenience isn't available to all but the very poorest in this country ?

Economic inequality is a description of the current state and trends of income and wealth distributions. It doesn't imply a course of action, even if the only people who seem to care about it would like to research and address it.

That's an interesting question. I'm sure there are some examples. I don't think it's a categorical yes or no. Individuals will prioritize differently and sacrifice the low priorities. And I guess that could be the answer. My answer for now is that the working poor have to prioritize between necessities and the decision can lead to major detriment in their lives moving forward.

It may not imply a course of action but it is used as an excuse for wealth redistribution and it is not the responciabilty of others to pay for peoples decisions.

It's a barometer like any other measurable statistic. Some may suggest redistribution. I suggest turning off the spigot. They can keep their winnings after justified tax, but policies that favor the wealthy need to end for many reasons. You key on paying for other people's decisions. That is one hell of a Pandoras box that I don't think you are prepared to weather the blowback on.

Favor the rich ? How so ? The successful in this country pay the majority of the taxes. I'm curious as to when being successful became a bad thing ?

You have to understand, success is mostly the result of hard work. That's when you lose them... they want everything handed to them... why compete with somebody with ambition?

Based on what? Where is the detail in your post? The world isn't that simple.

 

[grainbely]

Lol. Growing economic inequality is a sign that our economic policies are broken. They are creating the exact phenomenon that the founding fathers warned us of. Concentrated wealth and power is bad for everyone whether it's from the government or those that buy the government.

Our policies should not prioritize large corporations or billionaires. Truthfully they shouldn't prioritize anyone but by doing nothing, they are prioritizing the rich who will in time defeat the consumer and any laws meant to protect them and competition.

You say we shouldn't prioritize anyone but use the words "economic inequality" which is a catchphrase for redistribution. What modern convenience isn't available to all but the very poorest in this country ?

Economic inequality is a description of the current state and trends of income and wealth distributions. It doesn't imply a course of action, even if the only people who seem to care about it would like to research and address it.

That's an interesting question. I'm sure there are some examples. I don't think it's a categorical yes or no. Individuals will prioritize differently and sacrifice the low priorities. And I guess that could be the answer. My answer for now is that the working poor have to prioritize between necessities and the decision can lead to major detriment in their lives moving forward.

It may not imply a course of action but it is used as an excuse for wealth redistribution and it is not the responciabilty of others to pay for peoples decisions.

It's a barometer like any other measurable statistic. Some may suggest redistribution. I suggest turning off the spigot. They can keep their winnings after justified tax, but policies that favor the wealthy need to end for many reasons. You key on paying for other people's decisions. That is one hell of a Pandoras box that I don't think you are prepared to weather the blowback on.

Favor the rich ? How so ? The successful in this country pay the majority of the taxes. I'm curious as to when being successful became a bad thing ?

Did someone say success was bad? Where are you getting that from? And certainly there are policies that favor the rich. I will let you look into it on your own.