Why does the left believe a corporate tax break "steals" money from the taxpayers?

[Dragonlady]

I mentioned Marco Rubios' tax plan earlier.

Here is Rubio's white paper: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/...?File_id=2d839ff1-f995-427a-86e9-267365609942

Perhaps nowhere are the distortions of our broken tax code more obvious than in our system of business taxation. Simply put, the Internal Revenue Code limits economic growth, destroys jobs, and is fundamentally unfair. Americans will not experience the kind of widespread opportunity and shared prosperity they deserve unless we fix this destructive tax code.

Business taxation in the United States occurs across two separate and complex regimes – the corporate code and “pass-through” portions of the individual code. xii Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed worldxiii, which encourages businesses to incorporate abroad. The top tax rate on “pass through” businesses is even higher.xiv

Finally, this proposal will restore fairness to the tax code, by leveling the playing field for all businesses, providing permanence in the code, and removing patchwork exemptions and special-interest carve-outs

He totally gets it. By taking away tax expenditures, you can lower tax rates for everyone.

And he points out the unlevel business playing field.

If there was a 15% consumption tax, then everyone would have to pay. The poor would pay less, because the poor buys less. The rich pay more, because the rich buy more. No regressive income tax, but 1 flat tax, no deductions.

Wrong. The poor would pay 15% of their income in taxes.

The rich, who make millions, would pay maybe 1% of their income, or less because they don't spend all of their income or even close to it.

Consumption taxes are the most burdensome and regressive of all of the taxes levied.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Got an example of a tax break that hurts the poor?

A tax break that assists companies moving overseas.

There is no tax break for moving overseas.

Yes there is. The company gets deductions for shipping equipment overseas, for sending employees over to train the workers, and every trip they make to the offshore manufacturer to negotiate the deal, check on their manufacturing site and every phone call they make, as well as the costs of shipping the raw materials to the manufacturer and the finished goods to the customers.

W's changes to the tax code are credited with encouraging employers to offshore.

The company gets deductions for shipping equipment overseas

Excellent! Because that other claim is just moronic.
If IBM sends a new piece of equipment to their London plant, they get to deduct that shipping expense.
Just like they get to deduct all their legitimate business expenses.

W's changes to the tax code are credited with encouraging employers to offshore

Sounds awful! Any backup? Or is this just something you heard?

This bill would have ended that tax break. Republicans refused to pass it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...-block-bill-to-end-tax-breaks-for-outsourcing

So no backup for the claim it was W's fault for changing the tax code?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I mentioned Marco Rubios' tax plan earlier.

Here is Rubio's white paper: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/...?File_id=2d839ff1-f995-427a-86e9-267365609942

Perhaps nowhere are the distortions of our broken tax code more obvious than in our system of business taxation. Simply put, the Internal Revenue Code limits economic growth, destroys jobs, and is fundamentally unfair. Americans will not experience the kind of widespread opportunity and shared prosperity they deserve unless we fix this destructive tax code.

Business taxation in the United States occurs across two separate and complex regimes – the corporate code and “pass-through” portions of the individual code. xii Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed worldxiii, which encourages businesses to incorporate abroad. The top tax rate on “pass through” businesses is even higher.xiv

Finally, this proposal will restore fairness to the tax code, by leveling the playing field for all businesses, providing permanence in the code, and removing patchwork exemptions and special-interest carve-outs

He totally gets it. By taking away tax expenditures, you can lower tax rates for everyone.

And he points out the unlevel business playing field.

If there was a 15% consumption tax, then everyone would have to pay. The poor would pay less, because the poor buys less. The rich pay more, because the rich buy more. No regressive income tax, but 1 flat tax, no deductions.

Wrong. The poor would pay 15% of their income in taxes.

The rich, who make millions, would pay maybe 1% of their income, or less because they don't spend all of their income or even close to it.

Consumption taxes are the most burdensome and regressive of all of the taxes levied.

You are as stupid as I say you are.

This is the Obama's on a very costly yacht. The person who paid for it, would only spend about 1% of their income for it? Yep, you are very stupid. The caviar they eat, would be taxed. The expensive champagne would be taxed. But you are just plain stupid.

 

[AntonToo]

Unlike the other party which lowers taxes on the rich and cuts social benefits for the poor? Why do the poor even vote red instead of blue.

Why do poor keep voting for the party that keeps them poor? FREE STUFF and lack of education, that is why they vote Dumbocrat.

Typical liberal voter....

lol. to try to get better benefits for the poor instead of simply giving tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor.

Got an example of a tax break that hurts the poor?

Tax cuts reduce revenues, increase deficits and down the line makes more likely spending cuts on programs that help the poor like food stamps, Medicaid and etc.

Tax cuts reduce revenues, increase deficits and down the line makes more likely spending cuts on programs that help the poor like food stamps, Medicaid and etc.

So in other words, keep the fucking poor , poor.

Umm that IS NOT other words. That is a straw man.

 

[Votto]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

It boggles my mind why Dims keep saying that the rich in general need to be taxed more.

It's not like voters will be given more money if the government takes in more money. After all, they routinely run trillion dollar deficits. The government is going to spend what they want to spend when they want to spend it. None of it depends upon incoming tax revenue.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I mentioned Marco Rubios' tax plan earlier.

Here is Rubio's white paper: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/...?File_id=2d839ff1-f995-427a-86e9-267365609942

Perhaps nowhere are the distortions of our broken tax code more obvious than in our system of business taxation. Simply put, the Internal Revenue Code limits economic growth, destroys jobs, and is fundamentally unfair. Americans will not experience the kind of widespread opportunity and shared prosperity they deserve unless we fix this destructive tax code.

Business taxation in the United States occurs across two separate and complex regimes – the corporate code and “pass-through” portions of the individual code. xii Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed worldxiii, which encourages businesses to incorporate abroad. The top tax rate on “pass through” businesses is even higher.xiv

Finally, this proposal will restore fairness to the tax code, by leveling the playing field for all businesses, providing permanence in the code, and removing patchwork exemptions and special-interest carve-outs

He totally gets it. By taking away tax expenditures, you can lower tax rates for everyone.

And he points out the unlevel business playing field.

If there was a 15% consumption tax, then everyone would have to pay. The poor would pay less, because the poor buys less. The rich pay more, because the rich buy more. No regressive income tax, but 1 flat tax, no deductions.

I'm a big fan of the Fair Tax. I believe a tax on consumption is superior to a tax on production.

But no tax scheme will work if you allow deductions, exemptions, or credits. Simple fact.

A consumption tax is just as wide open to corruption as any other tax scheme.

/----/ No flat tax unless the 16th Amendment is repealed otherwise Congress will just use that to raise revenue in the future.

 

[bendog]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

It boggles my mind why Dims keep saying that the rich in general need to be taxed more.

It's not like voters will be given more money if the government takes in more money. After all, they routinely run trillion dollar deficits. The government is going to spend what they want to spend when they want to spend it. None of it depends upon incoming tax revenue.

It's good your children will have a debt burden.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Well there is no money with the immigrants to raise wages.

No money with the immigrants? Can you translate that into English?

They make about nothing.

It's true, they drag down the wages of Americans they compete with.

So there is no prosperity with the Unions pretty much gone.

Americans are making more than ever.

You are making the worst paying jobs available. That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs. At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs.

Wages are stagnant. The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false like your claims for immigrants. Just scapegoats. Want to increase wages? Go to the money!

You are making the worst paying jobs available.

Millions of jobs. Removing millions of workers has no impact on the supply of workers? Are you sure?

That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs.

Removing millions of illegal aliens will not raise the wages of computer programmers. So what?

At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs

Excellent! Git 'er done!!!

Wages are stagnant.

Especially at the low end, eh?

The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false

What prosperity claims? Kill the unions, because they're evil.

Yes I am sure.

Immigration Doesn't Hurt Native Jobs or Wages: Report

Who will be your next scapegoat?

You should ask some American roofers how all the illegals impacted their wages.

You have some stats on that?

/---/ Call a few for estimates and ask how the illegals hurt them.

 

[AntonToo]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

It boggles my mind why Dims keep saying that the rich in general need to be taxed more.

It's not like voters will be given more money if the government takes in more money. After all, they routinely run trillion dollar deficits. The government is going to spend what they want to spend when they want to spend it. None of it depends upon incoming tax revenue.

It boggles my mind that Repubs, who are usually the ones bitching about deficits have zero interest in actually reducing them as soon as a dirty word like tax is introduced.

 

[Dragonlady]

I mentioned Marco Rubios' tax plan earlier.

Here is Rubio's white paper: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/...?File_id=2d839ff1-f995-427a-86e9-267365609942

Perhaps nowhere are the distortions of our broken tax code more obvious than in our system of business taxation. Simply put, the Internal Revenue Code limits economic growth, destroys jobs, and is fundamentally unfair. Americans will not experience the kind of widespread opportunity and shared prosperity they deserve unless we fix this destructive tax code.

Business taxation in the United States occurs across two separate and complex regimes – the corporate code and “pass-through” portions of the individual code. xii Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed worldxiii, which encourages businesses to incorporate abroad. The top tax rate on “pass through” businesses is even higher.xiv

Finally, this proposal will restore fairness to the tax code, by leveling the playing field for all businesses, providing permanence in the code, and removing patchwork exemptions and special-interest carve-outs

He totally gets it. By taking away tax expenditures, you can lower tax rates for everyone.

And he points out the unlevel business playing field.

If there was a 15% consumption tax, then everyone would have to pay. The poor would pay less, because the poor buys less. The rich pay more, because the rich buy more. No regressive income tax, but 1 flat tax, no deductions.

Wrong. The poor would pay 15% of their income in taxes.

The rich, who make millions, would pay maybe 1% of their income, or less because they don't spend all of their income or even close to it.

Consumption taxes are the most burdensome and regressive of all of the taxes levied.

You are as stupid as I say you are.

This is the Obama's on a very costly yacht. The person who paid for it, would only spend about 1% of their income for it? Yep, you are very stupid. The caviar they eat, would be taxed. The expensive champagne would be taxed. But you are just plain stupid.

The yacht belongs to a multi billionaire. Yes a huge extravagance but it's a 1-time purchase. He's not buying one of these every year.

Richard Branson makes $6,450,000 per year as his salary. He's also not drinking champagne or eating caviar every day either. Yes rich people spend more money, but unlike the poor, who spend every dollar they get, he's able to live on his salary and save most of it. That's because the yacht, and the costs of his entertaining other millionaires, is mostly tax deductible. Business meetings.

Notice that Branson, who is British, doesn't pay himself 20 million or more per year, unlike American executives who all voted themselves 8 figure salaries while their workers apply for food stamps.

 

[Cellblock2429]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

It boggles my mind why Dims keep saying that the rich in general need to be taxed more.

It's not like voters will be given more money if the government takes in more money. After all, they routinely run trillion dollar deficits. The government is going to spend what they want to spend when they want to spend it. None of it depends upon incoming tax revenue.

It boggles my mind that Repubs, who are usually the ones bitching about deficits have zero interest in actually reducing them as soon as a dirty word like tax is introduced.

/----/ it boggles my mind that Libs have zero interest in reducing the debt period. Any new tax revenue would just be squandered

 

[Brain357]

You are making the worst paying jobs available. That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs. At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs.

Wages are stagnant. The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false like your claims for immigrants. Just scapegoats. Want to increase wages? Go to the money!

You are making the worst paying jobs available.

Millions of jobs. Removing millions of workers has no impact on the supply of workers? Are you sure?

That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs.

Removing millions of illegal aliens will not raise the wages of computer programmers. So what?

At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs

Excellent! Git 'er done!!!

Wages are stagnant.

Especially at the low end, eh?

The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false

What prosperity claims? Kill the unions, because they're evil.

Yes I am sure.

Immigration Doesn't Hurt Native Jobs or Wages: Report

Who will be your next scapegoat?

You should ask some American roofers how all the illegals impacted their wages.

You have some stats on that?

/---/ Call a few for estimates and ask how the illegals hurt them.

So no stats?

 

[Brain357]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

It boggles my mind why Dims keep saying that the rich in general need to be taxed more.

It's not like voters will be given more money if the government takes in more money. After all, they routinely run trillion dollar deficits. The government is going to spend what they want to spend when they want to spend it. None of it depends upon incoming tax revenue.

It boggles my mind that Repubs, who are usually the ones bitching about deficits have zero interest in actually reducing them as soon as a dirty word like tax is introduced.

/----/ it boggles my mind that Libs have zero interest in reducing the debt period. Any new tax revenue would just be squandered

The repubs have control, how is that debt?

 

[BluesLegend]

If loser Democrats got a job we wouldn't need to raise taxes.

 

[BluesLegend]

I mentioned Marco Rubios' tax plan earlier.

Here is Rubio's white paper: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/...?File_id=2d839ff1-f995-427a-86e9-267365609942

Perhaps nowhere are the distortions of our broken tax code more obvious than in our system of business taxation. Simply put, the Internal Revenue Code limits economic growth, destroys jobs, and is fundamentally unfair. Americans will not experience the kind of widespread opportunity and shared prosperity they deserve unless we fix this destructive tax code.

Business taxation in the United States occurs across two separate and complex regimes – the corporate code and “pass-through” portions of the individual code. xii Our corporate tax rate is the highest in the developed worldxiii, which encourages businesses to incorporate abroad. The top tax rate on “pass through” businesses is even higher.xiv

Finally, this proposal will restore fairness to the tax code, by leveling the playing field for all businesses, providing permanence in the code, and removing patchwork exemptions and special-interest carve-outs

He totally gets it. By taking away tax expenditures, you can lower tax rates for everyone.

And he points out the unlevel business playing field.

If there was a 15% consumption tax, then everyone would have to pay. The poor would pay less, because the poor buys less. The rich pay more, because the rich buy more. No regressive income tax, but 1 flat tax, no deductions.

Wrong. The poor would pay 15% of their income in taxes.

The rich, who make millions, would pay maybe 1% of their income, or less because they don't spend all of their income or even close to it.

Consumption taxes are the most burdensome and regressive of all of the taxes levied.

You are as stupid as I say you are.

This is the Obama's on a very costly yacht. The person who paid for it, would only spend about 1% of their income for it? Yep, you are very stupid. The caviar they eat, would be taxed. The expensive champagne would be taxed. But you are just plain stupid.

The yacht belongs to a multi billionaire. Yes a huge extravagance but it's a 1-time purchase. He's not buying one of these every year.

Richard Branson makes $6,450,000 per year as his salary. He's also not drinking champagne or eating caviar every day either. Yes rich people spend more money, but unlike the poor, who spend every dollar they get, he's able to live on his salary and save most of it. That's because the yacht, and the costs of his entertaining other millionaires, is mostly tax deductible. Business meetings.

Notice that Branson, who is British, doesn't pay himself 20 million or more per year, unlike American executives who all voted themselves 8 figure salaries while their workers apply for food stamps.

Its none of your busy body business what other people earn and you are not entitled to their money. The 'rich' already pay the lions share of the taxes, its absurd how much they pay.

 

[g5000]

Consumption taxes are the most burdensome and regressive of all of the taxes levied.

The more you tax something, the more you discourage that behavior. Think about that when you think about whether it is better to tax production or tax consumption.

As for the regressive nature of consumption taxes, you are correct. However, the Fair Tax mitigates that with a prebate which nulls out the consumption taxes on necessities.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are making the worst paying jobs available.

Millions of jobs. Removing millions of workers has no impact on the supply of workers? Are you sure?

That will not do anything to increase the wages of decent paying jobs.

Removing millions of illegal aliens will not raise the wages of computer programmers. So what?

At best it will very slightly increase wages for other very poorly paying jobs

Excellent! Git 'er done!!!

Wages are stagnant.

Especially at the low end, eh?

The prosperity claims after getting rid of unions were false

What prosperity claims? Kill the unions, because they're evil.

Yes I am sure.

Immigration Doesn't Hurt Native Jobs or Wages: Report

Who will be your next scapegoat?

You should ask some American roofers how all the illegals impacted their wages.

You have some stats on that?

/---/ Call a few for estimates and ask how the illegals hurt them.

So no stats?

I just tried to ask a few roofing crews working in my area.
They were all illegals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

It boggles my mind why Dims keep saying that the rich in general need to be taxed more.

It's not like voters will be given more money if the government takes in more money. After all, they routinely run trillion dollar deficits. The government is going to spend what they want to spend when they want to spend it. None of it depends upon incoming tax revenue.

It boggles my mind that Repubs, who are usually the ones bitching about deficits have zero interest in actually reducing them as soon as a dirty word like tax is introduced.

/----/ it boggles my mind that Libs have zero interest in reducing the debt period. Any new tax revenue would just be squandered

The repubs have control, how is that debt?

The repubs have control, how is that debt?

$9.3 trillion higher during Obama's tenure.

 

[Brain357]

Yes I am sure.

Immigration Doesn't Hurt Native Jobs or Wages: Report

Who will be your next scapegoat?

You should ask some American roofers how all the illegals impacted their wages.

You have some stats on that?

/---/ Call a few for estimates and ask how the illegals hurt them.

So no stats?

I just tried to ask a few roofing crews working in my area.
They were all illegals.

Didn't think you had anything. Try again when you have something real.

 

[Brain357]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

It boggles my mind why Dims keep saying that the rich in general need to be taxed more.

It's not like voters will be given more money if the government takes in more money. After all, they routinely run trillion dollar deficits. The government is going to spend what they want to spend when they want to spend it. None of it depends upon incoming tax revenue.

It boggles my mind that Repubs, who are usually the ones bitching about deficits have zero interest in actually reducing them as soon as a dirty word like tax is introduced.

/----/ it boggles my mind that Libs have zero interest in reducing the debt period. Any new tax revenue would just be squandered

The repubs have control, how is that debt?

The repubs have control, how is that debt?

$9.3 trillion higher during Obama's tenure.

What have repubs done?