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

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would they dream of being a roofer when the illegal aliens took all the roofing jobs?

It's a crappy, dangerous job...

View attachment 141741

2. Occupations of unauthorized immigrant workers

America's most dangerous jobs

Yes, roofing is a dangerous job that Americans with little schooling can do.
Until we started letting unlimited numbers of illegal aliens come here.

Don't you care about those Americans who can't/don't get a college degree?
They used to make pretty good money in the Chicago area from Spring-Fall.
Enough money to survive with no work over the winter. They can't do that, now
that they're undercut by illegals.

Were a President Trump to deport all illegal immigrants, the economy would suffer greatly. Just ask Arizona, where a crackdown on illegal immigrants in 2007 shrank the economy by 2%, according to a private analysis by Moody’s, a ratings agency, for the Wall Street Journal. The incomes of most workers would fall. Yet strangely enough, those best placed to benefit from a mass deportation would be those who had crossed the border legally.

https://www.economist.com/news/unit...nomic-losers-low-skilled-immigration-wage-war

Were a President Trump to deport all illegal immigrants, the economy would suffer greatly.

If a growing economy means all our low skilled American workers are suffering.........

according to a private analysis by Moody’s, a ratings agency, for the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ has always been a cheerleader for open borders.

The incomes of most workers would fall.

LOL! Because supply and demand doesn't matter when you're talking about illegal aliens. DERP!

Yet strangely enough, those best placed to benefit from a mass deportation would be those who had crossed the border legally.

It's true, Hispanic Americans and legal immigrants aren't thrilled about millions of illegals depressing their wages either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, roofing is a dangerous job that Americans with little schooling can do.
Until we started letting unlimited numbers of illegal aliens come here.

Don't you care about those Americans who can't/don't get a college degree?
They used to make pretty good money in the Chicago area from Spring-Fall.
Enough money to survive with no work over the winter. They can't do that, now
that they're undercut by illegals.

Shipping out all the illegals will make no difference. There are not people lining up to fall off roofs.

Not lining up now, wages are depressed.
Once illegals are gone, wages will rise.

Just like things would be great when Unions were gone. Just another scapegoat. Want to increase wages, look where the money is.

Yeah, unions are evil.
We need to kill the government unions now. They really suck.

Want to increase wages, look where the money is.

Employers. Want to force employers to pay more? Deport their cheap, illegal alien labor.

Evil? The middle class was strong when unions were strong. Repubs killed unions and with them the middle class. And now that scapegoat is dead you claim immigrants are the problem. Amazing.

Yes, unions are evil. Die, die, die.

And now that scapegoat is dead you claim immigrants are the problem.

Immigrants? I'm not talking about immigrants. I'm talking about illegal aliens.

 

[Brain357]

It's a crappy, dangerous job...

View attachment 141741

2. Occupations of unauthorized immigrant workers

America's most dangerous jobs

Yes, roofing is a dangerous job that Americans with little schooling can do.
Until we started letting unlimited numbers of illegal aliens come here.

Don't you care about those Americans who can't/don't get a college degree?
They used to make pretty good money in the Chicago area from Spring-Fall.
Enough money to survive with no work over the winter. They can't do that, now
that they're undercut by illegals.

Were a President Trump to deport all illegal immigrants, the economy would suffer greatly. Just ask Arizona, where a crackdown on illegal immigrants in 2007 shrank the economy by 2%, according to a private analysis by Moody’s, a ratings agency, for the Wall Street Journal. The incomes of most workers would fall. Yet strangely enough, those best placed to benefit from a mass deportation would be those who had crossed the border legally.

https://www.economist.com/news/unit...nomic-losers-low-skilled-immigration-wage-war

Were a President Trump to deport all illegal immigrants, the economy would suffer greatly.

If a growing economy means all our low skilled American workers are suffering.........

according to a private analysis by Moody’s, a ratings agency, for the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ has always been a cheerleader for open borders.

The incomes of most workers would fall.

LOL! Because supply and demand doesn't matter when you're talking about illegal aliens. DERP!

Yet strangely enough, those best placed to benefit from a mass deportation would be those who had crossed the border legally.

It's true, Hispanic Americans and legal immigrants aren't thrilled about millions of illegals depressing their wages either.

A shrinking economy won't have much demand for labor.

. Just ask Arizona, where a crackdown on illegal immigrants in 2007 shrank the economy by 2%, according to a private analysis by Moody’s, a ratings agency, for the Wall Street Journal.

 

[radical right]

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

Didn't Trump promise to send all of them home within his first 100 days? So unless Trump is a failure, those illegal were just a figment of your imagination.

 

[Indeependent]

It's a crappy, dangerous job...

View attachment 141741

2. Occupations of unauthorized immigrant workers

America's most dangerous jobs

Yes, roofing is a dangerous job that Americans with little schooling can do.
Until we started letting unlimited numbers of illegal aliens come here.

Don't you care about those Americans who can't/don't get a college degree?
They used to make pretty good money in the Chicago area from Spring-Fall.
Enough money to survive with no work over the winter. They can't do that, now
that they're undercut by illegals.

Were a President Trump to deport all illegal immigrants, the economy would suffer greatly. Just ask Arizona, where a crackdown on illegal immigrants in 2007 shrank the economy by 2%, according to a private analysis by Moody’s, a ratings agency, for the Wall Street Journal. The incomes of most workers would fall. Yet strangely enough, those best placed to benefit from a mass deportation would be those who had crossed the border legally.

https://www.economist.com/news/unit...nomic-losers-low-skilled-immigration-wage-war

Were a President Trump to deport all illegal immigrants, the economy would suffer greatly.

If a growing economy means all our low skilled American workers are suffering.........

according to a private analysis by Moody’s, a ratings agency, for the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ has always been a cheerleader for open borders.

The incomes of most workers would fall.

LOL! Because supply and demand doesn't matter when you're talking about illegal aliens. DERP!

Yet strangely enough, those best placed to benefit from a mass deportation would be those who had crossed the border legally.

It's true, Hispanic Americans and legal immigrants aren't thrilled about millions of illegals depressing their wages either.

Don't you love it when Liberals justify slave labor?

 

[Indeependent]

Brain, I am convinced you're not putting any thought into your posts.

 

[Brain357]

Brain, I am convinced you're not putting any thought into your posts.

Are you expecting wages to soar after kicking out illegals? Did you expect great things from the decline in Unions too?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Didn't Trump promise to send all of them home within his first 100 days? So unless Trump is a failure, those illegal were just a figment of your imagination.

Didn't Trump promise to send all of them home within his first 100 days?

Did he? Link?

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

Baseless bullshit - in the late 80 and early 90's taxes were increased, some spending was cut, economy was good and yes we even posted a budget with a surplus.

/----/ Speaking of baseless bullshit there has been no surplus since WWII

Pathetic tomato-tomahtoing.

2001 Federal Budget:

Total Receipts: $2.39T
Total Outlays: $2.23T

2001

/----/ Here's the truth if you can handle it: The Clinton “Surplus” Was an Accounting Trick - Matt Palumbo

 

[AntonToo]

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

Baseless bullshit - in the late 80 and early 90's taxes were increased, some spending was cut, economy was good and yes we even posted a budget with a surplus.

/----/ Speaking of baseless bullshit there has been no surplus since WWII

Pathetic tomato-tomahtoing.

2001 Federal Budget:

Total Receipts: $2.39T
Total Outlays: $2.23T

2001

/----/ Here's the truth if you can handle it: The Clinton “Surplus” Was an Accounting Trick - Matt Palumbo

What the fuck is your problem?

Yea you can nitpick various technicalities but even from your link, with numbers you insist on, year 2000 is showing only 17B deficit - compare that to ANY year since tax-cuts were passed.

You are playing dishonest dodging games.

Revenues DO MATTER and right wingers look like idiots when they come up with all kinds of convoluted stories to justify a position to the contrary.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

Baseless bullshit - in the late 80 and early 90's taxes were increased, some spending was cut, economy was good and yes we even posted a budget with a surplus.

/----/ Speaking of baseless bullshit there has been no surplus since WWII

Pathetic tomato-tomahtoing.

2001 Federal Budget:

Total Receipts: $2.39T
Total Outlays: $2.23T

2001

/----/ Here's the truth if you can handle it: The Clinton “Surplus” Was an Accounting Trick - Matt Palumbo

What the fuck is your problem?

Yea you can nitpick various technicalities but even from your link, with numbers you insist on, year 2000 is showing only 17B deficit - compare that to ANY year since tax-cuts were passed.

You are playing dishonest dodging games.

Revenues DO MATTER and right wingers look like idiots when they come up with all kinds of convoluted stories to justify a position to the contrary.

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

 

[danielpalos]

Tax expenditures = higher tax rates.

Higher tax rates = more money taken from all taxpayers.

Tax expenditures = more money taken from all taxpayers.

I can't dumb it down for you any more than that, tards.

The right claims they want smaller government, but ask for a bigger drug war and more defense spending.

And rights over women's birth control choices, unnecessary tests to raise the cost of abortions, not to mention waiting periods and admitting privileges for abortion doctors and all sorts of rules and regulations governing that choice.

National Thong Day, women. Back your male elected representative against a wall, and don't take "no" for an answer!

 

[danielpalos]

First of all all corporate taxes are paid for by the people that buy the goods and services of the corporations. Any increase in taxation only increases the cost of the good and services.

If corps made no profit that would be true, but IT ISN'T.

You are confused Moon Bat.

If you make $10 and the filthy ass government takes $5 then you have really only made $5, haven't you? You price your goods and services to include the loss of that $5 the filthy government steals from you, don't you?

If they didn't make any profit then there would be no incentive for them to be in business, would it? No jobs, no tax revenues and no goods or services.

Profits are a good thing Moon Bat. They should never be taxed.

Taxes are a cost of doing business and that expense is passed along to the consumers.

Corporations don't really pay taxes. They just pass along the expense to the people that buy the goods and services. In other words when you stupid Moon Bats advocate raising corporate taxes then you are fucking yourself.

By the way, corporations have the liability of the filthy Federal corporate tax on profits but they are also paying a ton of other state and local taxes that are not dependent upon profits.

One more time, for you willfully blind monkeys:No tax reform without border adjustment tax, Rep. Nunes says

"If people wanted to drop the corporate rate from 35 to say 33, 32, maybe 30, we could probably do it. But if you go back to several years that we looked at doing just that, the goal was to get to 25 percent, and by the time every lobbyist, every special interest group in town, representing every major corporation in this country, the tax rate was automatically all the way back above 30 by the time you put everybody's special loophole in."

"Willful blindness" is a moral turpitude. Nobody takes the right wing any more seriously about morals, than they do about economics or the law.

 

[danielpalos]

https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-Tax-PolicyPaper.pdf

Problem #2: The Current Code Delivers Special Interest Subsidies and Crony Capitalism. The tax code is littered with hundreds of preferences and subsidies that pick winners and losers and create complexity. Instead of free-market competition that rewards success, our tax code directs resources to politically favored interests, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation. In fact, Washington encourages individuals and businesses to make investment decisions based not on the most promising new technologies and innovations, but instead on the promise of tax savings. Many of these tax preferences, sometimes referred to as “tax expenditures,” are special-interest giveaways that are masked as tax breaks instead of direct grants. For fiscal year 2016, such “spending” through the tax code amounts to more than $1.4 trillion, or almost three-fourths of the amount of revenue raised by the entire Federal income tax. When Washington picks winners and losers with the tax code, the American people ultimately pay higher tax rates and keep less of their hard-earned money.


Boom!

Get that through your THICK HEADS.

Are mortgage deductions and child credits examples of "government picking winners and losers and creating complexity"?


I'm not saying it's not a real issue, but there is complexity in there that people do want.

I addressed the MID pages ago. It's a massive wealth transfer scheme. You are being robbed while bleeving you are getting to keep more of your own money.

One of the biggest hoaxes every pulled on taxpayers.

Even our One Percenter in Chief realizes the Institutional nature of "income redistribution" through the "goodness" of socialism.

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[19] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Coincidence or public policy directives.

Just trickle down economics that simply bails out the rich and then, allegedly trickles down to the poor.

 

[g5000]

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

A simplistic answer that does not address tax expenditure theft. It's just as stupid a simplistic answer as the Left's "tax the rich more".

See posts 350 and 355.

 

[bendog]

Baseless bullshit - in the late 80 and early 90's taxes were increased, some spending was cut, economy was good and yes we even posted a budget with a surplus.

/----/ Speaking of baseless bullshit there has been no surplus since WWII

Pathetic tomato-tomahtoing.

2001 Federal Budget:

Total Receipts: $2.39T
Total Outlays: $2.23T

2001

/----/ Here's the truth if you can handle it: The Clinton “Surplus” Was an Accounting Trick - Matt Palumbo

What the fuck is your problem?

Yea you can nitpick various technicalities but even from your link, with numbers you insist on, year 2000 is showing only 17B deficit - compare that to ANY year since tax-cuts were passed.

You are playing dishonest dodging games.

Revenues DO MATTER and right wingers look like idiots when they come up with all kinds of convoluted stories to justify a position to the contrary.

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

Genius. Have a bud.

 

[AntonToo]

Baseless bullshit - in the late 80 and early 90's taxes were increased, some spending was cut, economy was good and yes we even posted a budget with a surplus.

/----/ Speaking of baseless bullshit there has been no surplus since WWII

Pathetic tomato-tomahtoing.

2001 Federal Budget:

Total Receipts: $2.39T
Total Outlays: $2.23T

2001

/----/ Here's the truth if you can handle it: The Clinton “Surplus” Was an Accounting Trick - Matt Palumbo

What the fuck is your problem?

Yea you can nitpick various technicalities but even from your link, with numbers you insist on, year 2000 is showing only 17B deficit - compare that to ANY year since tax-cuts were passed.

You are playing dishonest dodging games.

Revenues DO MATTER and right wingers look like idiots when they come up with all kinds of convoluted stories to justify a position to the contrary.

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

REVENUES - SPENDING = DEFICIT(-)

Yes, you can reduce deficit by reducing spending, but THERE IS A SECOND COMPONENT TO THAT SIDE OF EQUATION that many conservatives do not seem to be able to admit exists.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Speaking of baseless bullshit there has been no surplus since WWII

Pathetic tomato-tomahtoing.

2001 Federal Budget:

Total Receipts: $2.39T
Total Outlays: $2.23T

2001

/----/ Here's the truth if you can handle it: The Clinton “Surplus” Was an Accounting Trick - Matt Palumbo

What the fuck is your problem?

Yea you can nitpick various technicalities but even from your link, with numbers you insist on, year 2000 is showing only 17B deficit - compare that to ANY year since tax-cuts were passed.

You are playing dishonest dodging games.

Revenues DO MATTER and right wingers look like idiots when they come up with all kinds of convoluted stories to justify a position to the contrary.

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

REVENUES - SPENDING = DEFICIT(-)

Yes, you can reduce deficit by reducing spending, but THERE IS A SECOND COMPONENT TO THAT SIDE OF EQUATION that many conservatives do not seem to be able to admit exists.

/----/ So 3 1/2 Trillion in taxes isn't enough? How much more? 4 trillion 5 trillion? US Total Government Revenue for 2016 - Charts Tables

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

A simplistic answer that does not address tax expenditure theft. It's just as stupid a simplistic answer as the Left's "tax the rich more".

See posts 350 and 355.

/----/ So if you bring home $1,500 a week after taxes and spend $1,700 a week, after a year you'll be $10,400 in debt plus interest in that debt. Well if cutting your spending isn't the answer because it's too simplistic what is the complex answer to your debt problem?

 

[g5000]

/----/ Cut the bloated budget and erase the debt completely

A simplistic answer that does not address tax expenditure theft. It's just as stupid a simplistic answer as the Left's "tax the rich more".

See posts 350 and 355.

/----/ So if you bring home $1,500 a week after taxes and spend $1,700 a week, after a year you'll be $10,400 in debt plus interest in that debt. Well if cutting your spending isn't the answer because it's too simplistic what is the complex answer to your debt problem?

What has not penetrated your head is that tax expenditures ARE spending.

My answer?

I've only spent the past 24 pages of this topic explaining!

Repeal them. Ban them. Eliminate them. Get rid of them. Outlaw them. Banish them.

Then we can not only balance the budget, we can lower tax rates for EVERYONE. And that's before cutting even a single dime of other spending. We would have a surplus just by eliminating tax expenditures.


Clear now?