Why again do left wingers believe taxing corporations more is helpful to the middle class?

[Theowl32]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

 

[X.Onasis]

Corporations are people. Corporations benefit from the government providing schools, infrastructure, safety and security and all the other services that keep our nation strong and healthy.
In fact these people benefit the most.
They should pay their fair share, shouldn't they?

 

[Theowl32]

Corporations are people. Corporations benefit from the government providing schools, infrastructure, safety and security and all the other services that keep our nation strong and healthy.
In fact these people benefit the most.
They should pay their fair share, shouldn't they?

Fuck you and your fucking talking points.

Look at the originality everyone.

"Fair share."

• The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world, at 38.92 percent. Due to the recent reduction in Chad’s corporate tax rate, the U.S. rate is exceeded only by the United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico.
• The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate, across 188 countries and tax jurisdictions, is 22.5 percent. After weighting by each jurisdiction’s GDP, the average rate is 29.5 percent.
• By region, Europe has the lowest average corporate tax rate, at 18.88 percent (26.22 percent, weighted by GDP). The G7 has the highest simple average, at 30.21 percent.
• Larger, more industrialized countries tend to have higher corporate income tax rates than developing countries.
• The worldwide average corporate tax rate has declined since 2003 from 30 percent to 22.5 percent.
• Every region in the world has seen a decline in its average corporate tax rate in the past thirteen years.

Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2016 - Tax Foundation


Fuck you, and your stupid long tired democrat talking points.

What about those facts for "fair share?" You know what? I am talking to a robot who is going to go back to the bag of robin hood cliches.

"Steal from the rich, give to the poor!!!"

Morons.

 

[DGS49]

A corporation is a FICTITIOUS PERSON, created by the state in order to facilitate investment by individuals without imminent threat of their financial ruination.

The vast, vast, vast majority of corporations pay NO INCOME TAXES, because they operate under "Subchapter S," which treats their profits the same as a partnership - that is, the profits are passed along directly to the owners (partners), where they are taxed as the partners' income. But the corporation itself pays no income taxes.

There are two logical theories on corporate income taxation: The rate should be zero, and the rate should be 100%.

If the rate were zero, then the profits would be: (1) paid to the employees in salary and bonuses, which would be taxed to the employees, (2) paid out to the shareholders as dividends, where they would be taxed to the stockholders, or (3) plowed back into the business or held in reserve. With a zero corporate income tax rate, the corporations would not have to have their business decisions clouded by tax impacts, and could focus on maximizing profit - which is what they are created to do. In such a tax regime, there would have to be requirements for paying dividends and limits on how much cash can be held in reserve.

If the rate were 100%, then corporations would plow ALL their profits back into the business, which would be a good thing, but then who would want to be a owner? You buy stock in order to make money.

People who wail about corporations not paying their "fair share" of income taxes are economic ignorami. 'Nuff said.

 

[brummelben]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Do you have something to post that shows that lower taxes equal more jobs? All lower taxes do is increase profits, no effect at all on jobs

 

[mudwhistle]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

 

[brummelben]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

You can't tax the poor, so who is left, Homer?

 

[martybegan]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

because they have armies of Tax Lawyers that can hide their earnings, either their own, or the ones provided by the Studios.

Some Multi-franchise owner pulling in $250k a year? not so much.

 

[martybegan]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

You can't tax the poor, so who is left, Homer?

I notice cutting government spending doesn't even register in your mind.

Very telling.

Next you will be all for cuts, but only those involving Defense.

 

[brummelben]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

because they have armies of Tax Lawyers that can hide their earnings, either their own, or the ones provided by the Studios.

Some Multi-franchise owner pulling in $250k a year? not so much.

You should talk about anyone hiding their taxes, after you elected Rump

 

[brummelben]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

You can't tax the poor, so who is left, Homer?

I notice cutting government spending doesn't even register in your mind.

Very telling.

Next you will be all for cuts, but only those involving Defense.

Do you really think this administration is concerned about cutting spending? If you do, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you

 

[martybegan]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

because they have armies of Tax Lawyers that can hide their earnings, either their own, or the ones provided by the Studios.

Some Multi-franchise owner pulling in $250k a year? not so much.

You should talk about anyone hiding their taxes, after you elected Rump

Why do you imply wrongdoing? They have the best lawyers money can pay for.

It's all legit, and all part of the game. Taxes for thee and not for me.

 

[martybegan]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

You can't tax the poor, so who is left, Homer?

I notice cutting government spending doesn't even register in your mind.

Very telling.

Next you will be all for cuts, but only those involving Defense.

Do you really think this administration is concerned about cutting spending? If you do, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you

If he takes the Axe to the agencies he is targeting, there should be some substantial cost savings. A drop in the bucket, but a start.

 

[brummelben]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

You can't tax the poor, so who is left, Homer?

I notice cutting government spending doesn't even register in your mind.

Very telling.

Next you will be all for cuts, but only those involving Defense.

Do you really think this administration is concerned about cutting spending? If you do, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you

If he takes the Axe to the agencies he is targeting, there should be some substantial cost savings. A drop in the bucket, but a start.

It will never happen, his budget proposals had major increases in national debt. How do you pay for a massive increase in defense spending, as if we really needed it,

 

[martybegan]

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

You can't tax the poor, so who is left, Homer?

I notice cutting government spending doesn't even register in your mind.

Very telling.

Next you will be all for cuts, but only those involving Defense.

Do you really think this administration is concerned about cutting spending? If you do, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you

If he takes the Axe to the agencies he is targeting, there should be some substantial cost savings. A drop in the bucket, but a start.

It will never happen, his budget proposals had major increases in national debt. How do you pay for a massive increase in defense spending, as if we really needed it,

By cutting other things. Also Trump can propose things, but only the House can start budget bills, so they are in the driver's seat.

 

[Theowl32]

Trying, always trying to figure this out. Trust me, they won't have an answer that makes any sense. They follow the same cliches that they need to "tax the rich" and "feed the poor."

Taxing corporations large amounts somehow is good for the middle class?

Do they know that when corporations are taxed less that it leads to more jobs, more jobs lead to more money stimulating the economy and more economic growth.

Do they have any other cliche or something original rather than this notion that trickle down does not work? They believe Reaganomics was bad for this country?

They actually use the notion "trickle up." Someone ought to tell them things don't trickle up. It is literally impossible and they should maybe get their own term and stop using phrases that make zero sense.

So, get ready for complete bullshit from them and more left wing marxist talking points. Nothing original.

Any economist will tell you it doesn't, but Democrats use their anti-American tax the rich rhetoric simply to gin up donations.
What's funny is wealthy Hollywood liberals buy it, gobble it up and ask for seconds.

Then they take tax cuts themselves. Not one of them volunteer to pay more, which of course they can. Nothing stopping one rich left wing gas bag from giving more in taxes. Like Warren Buffet who crows about how unfair it is for him to receive any tax benefits and pays less than his secretary. Ask him why he does not pay more voluntarily since he is sooooo concerned about that.

Funny, how the skinny lying marxist kept his trains going by stopping the keystone which kept the buffet trains going.

Ask a left wing fake environmental asshole how exactly does the keystone pipeline do bad things for the environment. Not one inch of it goes over any native Americans land. Which, I am still trying to figure out why we bend over backwards everytime they cry too.

Oh, but whatever.

Hollywood....tax cuts. LOL At the stupidity of the left.

Hollywood Hypocrisy: From Gun Violence to Tax Breaks Hollywood Holds a Double Standard

lol

 

[brummelben]

You can't tax the poor, so who is left, Homer?

I notice cutting government spending doesn't even register in your mind.

Very telling.

Next you will be all for cuts, but only those involving Defense.

Do you really think this administration is concerned about cutting spending? If you do, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you

If he takes the Axe to the agencies he is targeting, there should be some substantial cost savings. A drop in the bucket, but a start.

It will never happen, his budget proposals had major increases in national debt. How do you pay for a massive increase in defense spending, as if we really needed it,

By cutting other things. Also Trump can propose things, but only the House can start budget bills, so they are in the driver's seat.

I understand that, but again Trumps promises...............................

 

[Mac1958]

Being willing to hamstring employers - in an intensely competitive global marketplace - is naive and short-sighted.

 

[martybegan]

I notice cutting government spending doesn't even register in your mind.

Very telling.

Next you will be all for cuts, but only those involving Defense.

Do you really think this administration is concerned about cutting spending? If you do, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you

If he takes the Axe to the agencies he is targeting, there should be some substantial cost savings. A drop in the bucket, but a start.

It will never happen, his budget proposals had major increases in national debt. How do you pay for a massive increase in defense spending, as if we really needed it,

By cutting other things. Also Trump can propose things, but only the House can start budget bills, so they are in the driver's seat.

I understand that, but again Trumps promises...............................

He's been doing pretty good so far on following through on his campaign promises. Now the issue is can he get them past the other government branches.

 

[brummelben]

Do you really think this administration is concerned about cutting spending? If you do, I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you

If he takes the Axe to the agencies he is targeting, there should be some substantial cost savings. A drop in the bucket, but a start.

It will never happen, his budget proposals had major increases in national debt. How do you pay for a massive increase in defense spending, as if we really needed it,

By cutting other things. Also Trump can propose things, but only the House can start budget bills, so they are in the driver's seat.

I understand that, but again Trumps promises...............................

He's been doing pretty good so far on following through on his campaign promises. Now the issue is can he get them past the other government branches.

How has that immigration thing gone?
How has that Obamacare repeal gone?
What has he really accomplished?
Where are the jobs that was his number 1 goal?