Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 10:04:03 GMT -5
Because the highest wage earners will pay less in taxes (dropping from %35-%40 of their total income, to only %25 of what they spend [which isn't going to be %100 of their income...]), and people below them who may have been paying %15 (around $40k and less) will now be paying %25 on their expenditures which is most likely going to consume their entire income.
See? Simple. Fucking. Math.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 14, 2015 10:10:36 GMT -5
"And by the way, the crap you're spewing about the retail business is baloney. There was a time when people could actually make a living off of working in retail;"
Oh yeah, when was that? When my Mom got out of a factory job, she went to work for a big box in our home town, a tax dodge created by Cousin and Fern company, and the name of which I can't remember. "Something"-mart, but it wasn't Walmart. They created this dodge to make it wholly owned within Ohio, which enabled them at the time to totally avoid the Federal minimum wage.
The wages, and this was the late 60's or early 70's, were crap, the working conditions were crap, and I'm not sure there was a Walmart in Ohio yet at the time. Retail has, as far as my lifetime is concerned, good only for the owner of such a business, while the employees had to be housewives and such that had a significant other working in a good job, so they could simply have "something to do." The real money in my hometown, in which many women actually worked, were the factories. We were a factory town and we were a railroad center that supplied the factories and hauled off their products - crankshafts (Atlas Crankshaft), spark plugs (Autolite Spark Plugs), tires (Roppe Rubber), jet engine components (ExCello Corporation), wire (Seneca Wire Company), and lots of other factories. That's where the real money was, the retailers probably got more $$$ than they do now, because of the presence of the factories providing an influx of money to the community, but the industrial activity was the real gold.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Dec 14, 2015 10:12:10 GMT -5
Are you using that evil Islamic algebra, sip?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 10:13:41 GMT -5
And there was your problem right there... Yeesh, here you are, pointing out the exact bullshit that a company shouldn't be able to get away with and how awful it was, yet you don't see the giant wall of irony you're running into at the same time...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 10:14:21 GMT -5
Are you using that evil Islamic algebra, sip? Only kind of algebra there is.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 14, 2015 10:45:29 GMT -5
Because the highest wage earners will pay less in taxes (dropping from %35-%40 of their total income, to only %25 of what they spend [which isn't going to be %100 of their income...]), and people below them who may have been paying %15 (around $40k and less) will now be paying %25 on their expenditures which is most likely going to consume their entire income. See? Simple. Fucking. Math. You're simply wrong, and are showing your hatred of "the rich." It doesn't count for you at all that the poor are released from paying any income taxes, you want to keep the status quo, so you can "stick it" to the rich while the poor slob that has a $10K / yr job sees $1,530 go to Washington in payroll taxes as a result of his efforts. $765 goes directly from his paycheck, another $765 goes from "the company's share" to DC, but of course the companies get that by lowering the poor slob's wages enough to make that up. The poor slob gets screwed by income taxes, but that doesn't seem to bother you a bit. Simple fucking math is that the guy you're whining about that makes $40K, with a family of 4, where the poverty level is about $24K the last time I looked, pays Fair Tax only $16K of spending on new items for sale, because the Fair Tax prebate pays the Fair Tax on the family's 1st $24K of spending. Except, under the Fair Tax, there's a whale of a lot of stuff he's not paying taxes on. He's not paying taxes on the used car he buys, nor the payments he makes on a loan for it. He's not paying taxes on anything used he buys, so if he uses Ebay a lot, he's missing paying a lot of Fair Tax. He's not paying Fair Tax on the state or local income taxes (yes, my home town has a local income tax) and he's not paying Fair Tax on sales taxes added at the cash register, only on the actual price of the retail item for sale. So, 23% Fair Tax rate on the $16K he is paying is $3,680, except the used car he bought cost him $0 Fair Tax, and the $200 / month that he's paying for it reduces his tax burden by $2400, making him eligible to only pay taxes for $13,600. Except, again, that his state's 5% sales tax on the new items he does buy, if he indeed did buy new stuff for the entire remainder of his paycheck, would lower his tax burden by $648, leaving only $12,952 to pay Fair Tax on. Fair Tax on $12,952 is $2,979. So, his Fair Tax is less than his former $3,060 payroll tax burden, and that is only the payroll tax burden that he sees taken out of his check. The OTHER $3.060 that the employer has been sending to DC on his behalf goes away too, the company becomes more profitable, and even if the employer doesn't pass this $$$ on to the employee, the company will become a more secure place to work because it is less likely to go out of business. The bottom line is that the guy making $40K is, without even considering whether he is paying actual individual income taxes, is paying less income taxes because under the Fair Tax, the payroll taxes are abolished too. How can this be? It is because the rich spend a LOT. They buy Rolls Royces and Ferrarris, while we're buying Chevys and Toyotas. They buy yachts, while we buy canoes and the occasional speedboat. They buy mansions, while we buy $90K used (non-Fair-Taxed) houses. Etc. The rich, under the Fair Tax, will pay MORE than they were paying before, both because of the tax dodges that are available to them (they realize a $10M increase in net worth in capital gains stock holdings, and want to buy a yacht. Do they cash in the stock and buy it, thus suffering the capital gains tax? Nope, they borrow against the value of the stock, and use the proceeds from the loan to buy the yacht, completely un-income-taxed - that's the sort of shennanigans that the rich use now, and which WOULD NOT WORK UNDER THE FAIR TAX) and because of their egregious spending. The only difference is that the US Gov't is not directly stealing from them, they are simply taxing those things for sale at retail, and the rich guy (and everyone else) can either decide to pay the tax when buying the item, or not pay the tax by not buying the item. Lessee if this translates. If so, it also shows the reduction in price from things purchased with a loan due to the interest rates going down because the banks will be relieved of the income tax expenses that they incur while doing business:
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 14, 2015 11:06:47 GMT -5
And there was your problem right there... Yeesh, here you are, pointing out the exact bullshit that a company shouldn't be able to get away with and how awful it was, yet you don't see the giant wall of irony you're running into at the same time... I like the minimum wage law, it should be much higher, but would not be much needed if we passed the Fair Tax, because there would be such an economic boom that all but the most menial jobs would have good, living wages attached to them. That's what happens in a labor shortage, and the economic boom would generate a labor shortage. We'd not only get back the 60,000 factories / 5 million jobs we lost since the year 2000, we'd get back all those that we used to have that started going overseas in the late 60's, such as the New England textile industry that left for Italy, the consumer electronics industry that went to Japan in the 70's, the Automotive industry that was almost totally bankrupted by Asian competition from the 80's to present, and so forth. The USA would be _THE_ place to manufacture, and we'd be allowing the illegal aliens in legally just to be able to run the additional factories. And then THEY would be paying taxes, and we would pay off the National Debt of $20 trillion and enjoy prosperity not seen before in this country.
|
|
|
Post by MF on Dec 14, 2015 14:18:51 GMT -5
Min. Wage,,,,,,
I worked for A&P in high school...bagging groceries and stocking shelves. They PAID ME $3.60/hr.. Min wage was $1.65/hr..
You see who is no longer in business...
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Dec 14, 2015 14:27:39 GMT -5
Neither is Enron.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 14, 2015 14:28:31 GMT -5
Min. Wage,,,,,,
I worked for A&P in high school...bagging groceries and stocking shelves. They PAID ME $3.60/hr.. Min wage was $1.65/hr..
You see who is no longer in business... According to several news clips I've seen, Walmart pays above minimum wage too. They seem to be doing fine. "The company said 500,000 full-time and part-time associates, more than a third of its work force at Walmart (WMT) U.S. stores and Sam's Clubs, will receive pay raises in April to at least $9 an hour. That will be $1.75 above the federal minimum wage. By next February 1, their pay will go to at least $10 an hour.Feb 19, 2015" - Google search.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 14:57:45 GMT -5
Yes. Because awful shit-holes like Wal-Mart started to undercut them with cheap products/labor. Now, after a couple decades of People of Wal-Mart, people are realizing just how awful places like that are and that's why Wally World is starting to wane while more respectable retailers are on the rise. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-14/wal-mart-tumbles-after-predicting-drop-in-fiscal-2017-earningsSee what they're doing? They're trying to retool their business model to one that pays workers better and scales back to more modest retail centers. They made themselves too big to succeed, and the Waltons laughed all the way to the bank while people hastily bought up whatever cheap Chinese crap they could buy in bulk. Like, I really, really don't know why some of you are having a hard time understanding this. This is the kind of business that Adam Smith didn't want to come from capitalism, it is all the worst aspects of it rolled into one mega-corporation that has significantly hampered the US economy. Is it just because it's me trying to tell you this? What if a rich guy told you the same thing?It really, truly, is Econ 101...
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 14, 2015 15:26:08 GMT -5
Yes, it does make a difference when a rich guy says it.
What I'm reading from this guy is Henry Ford wisdom. HF decided to pay his workers well, so that they could buy a car from him. That is what Walmart is up to, and it _is_ about time they woke up. I'm glad for the change, and dismayed at the decline of the company, since it is the Nation's largest employer. I don't think it is something to rejoice about. But you don't generally see corporations following this kind of wisdom, so hooray for Walmart. Now maybe some of the other cut-raters like the fast food industry will catch on. Naw, prolly not.
Still, with an economic boom, instead of the current administration's 3% GDP growth, there would be more competition for labor that would force the price up. But when you're saddled with an inept political machine like we have now, you have to be innovative, and pay the better as a matter of corporate self-preservation.
Also, Amazon is taking them apart, too, but I bought a kitchen scale from Walmart a couple days ago simply because it was Walmart and not Amazon, and I wanted to support local business (if it employs local people, its a local business and I don't care about the Waltons in Arkansas or wherever they are...) It was only $14.99, and I see I could have gotten a similar one from Amazon at $12.99, but I was able to take it out of the box, read the manual, and see that it was _probably_ what I was looking for, something that would measure to the 1/10th ounce.
I guess I missed the point of the OP, as it appears to be condemning Walmart for doing what everyone else is doing, and that's trading with the Chinese. Trump wants to nuke NAFTA _and_ any similar treaties between us and Asia, and that's another reason I would like to see him do well. Cruz is surging, and I wouldn't be unhappy with him either, but I think The Donald really does know how to "Make America Great Again." After launching about 500 companies, and having only 4 of 'em go bankrupt, I'd say he's got the business and finance experience to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 15, 2015 2:18:09 GMT -5
OK, that said, it is still worth noting that Walmart is _still_ acting in the best interest of the stockholders by maximizing profit by ensuring that there are sufficiently-monied people to do business with in the USA. They're still acting just as they should, it just took them a while to realize that they were shooting themselves in the foot by paying the minimum wage.
|
|
|
Post by pastafari on Dec 15, 2015 21:30:10 GMT -5
Who said anything about "more"? That they benefit from it at all means they should pay for it, just like everyone else.
Funny, they exist when they're making a profit. They exist when they're passing their fair share debt on to the consumer. They exist for every other thing you say they do. But somehow they don't exist when it's time to pay up for the things they take advantage of? Fuck that noise.
And that is where it gets immoral. We know that company X pays $20 for raw materials and sells their product for $100. We know that of that $100 made, $20 of it goes to pay for the labor, $20 of it goes back into purchasing more raw materials, and $60 goes into the company's investment accounts as profit (or some other ratio, the specifics are not the point here). We can institute regulation that that company must pay a certain percentage of their profit in taxes AND not allow them to raise their prices without legitimate cause (increased material cost, etc.). You say that they HAVE to charge $120 for the exact same product so they can pay the taxes and maintain that same $60 to the investment accounts. I think that's bullshit. We can stop them from passing their debt down stream and protect the consumer from that kind of abuse.
What? How can a company go out of business if it doesn't exist?
It may be that way now, but it doesn't have to be. However, if it stays that way, then you should be in favor of raising the minimum wage so that the PEOPLE will have more money to pay for products, which is how you say they pay taxes.
If Colonel Sanders won't pay the lady behind the counter, Uncle Sam has to. -Bill Maher
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 15, 2015 21:37:27 GMT -5
"It may be that way now, but it doesn't have to be. However, if it stays that way, then you should be in favor of raising the minimum wage so that the PEOPLE will have more money to pay for products, which is how you say they pay taxes. "
As I keep repeatedly saying, I _am_ in favor of raising the minimum wage. It should be $15 / hr, with a $8 carve-out for those under 18 who necessarily have little experience.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 15, 2015 21:51:23 GMT -5
"And that is where it gets immoral. We know that company X pays $20 for raw materials and sells their product for $100. We know that of that $100 made, $20 of it goes to pay for the labor, $20 of it goes back into purchasing more raw materials, and $60 goes into the company's investment accounts as profit (or some other ratio, the specifics are not the point here). We can institute regulation that that company must pay a certain percentage of their profit in taxes AND not allow them to raise their prices without legitimate cause (increased material cost, etc.). You say that they HAVE to charge $120 for the exact same product so they can pay the taxes and maintain that same $60 to the investment accounts. I think that's bullshit. We can stop them from passing their debt down stream and protect the consumer from that kind of abuse."
Totally wrong. 60% profits? You're daft. Its generally single digits. I believe I remember reading that the oil companies were around 3% profit margin, but they make billions because they move incredible amounts of product.
And you think it just sits there, and gets bigger and bigger and bigger forever? Don't think so - the car companies almost went out of business in 2007 during the crash, only Ford had a slush-fund that didn't require a bail-out. Again, 60,000 factories and 5 million jobs are no more, since year 2000. They're that way because the income taxes sucked the life out of them, while not taxing the manufacturing of their competitive products done in foreign lands a bit.
Profits are for distributing to stockholders, paying employees, and expanding the company. Any time you tax a company, you reduce one of these things, and it hurts SOME HUMAN BEING, and "the company." Don't expand the company? Then someone is sitting home on unemployment who is _not_ hired by the new factory that is _not_ built.
Just tax PEOPLE, forget about companies, and things will be much better overall. The industries are simply our tools to prosperity. Taxing our means to prosperity harms prosperity.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 15, 2015 22:03:22 GMT -5
"Who said anything about "more"? That they benefit from it at all means they should pay for it, just like everyone else."
When speaking of a company, then who is "they" who benefit? Do they, the companies, send their kids to college and pay tuition? Nope. Do "they", the companies, buy food and cars and consumer goods? No they don't. Do "they" the companies, get their cancers and cataracts cured? No they don't. Only human beings are actually part of society, and companies are just tools humans use to make everyone's lives better. If you're looking for some "payback" from companies, don't look with a tax man, look at the marvelous things that the companies provide us - automatic washers and dryers, televisions, fantastic medical equipment and disease-fighting drugs, the computers that we're doing this on, there's practically no end to the marvels. But taxing companies threatens all that, and diverts the benefits that companies provide from us to the gov't, that largely wastes it, on things like using billions of dollars to create the healthcare.gov website, which a company like Amazon could likely have built for about 10% of that amount. Gov't isn't the place to be putting our treasure, it is something to be kept as small and cheap as possible.
|
|
|
Post by pastafari on Dec 15, 2015 22:14:20 GMT -5
If I were to avail myself of those things without paying for them, what would you call me? You'd call me a thief. Why can't you see that that goes both ways? Maybe you should start thinking of those nice paved roads as a good/service provided by the government that needs to be paid for, just like an automatic washer and dryer. If a company is entity enough to make money in a comfortable environment provided by the government, then it's entity enough to pay for it.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 15, 2015 22:43:22 GMT -5
If I were to avail myself of those things without paying for them, what would you call me? You'd call me a thief. Why can't you see that that goes both ways? Maybe you should start thinking of those nice paved roads as a good/service provided by the government that needs to be paid for, just like an automatic washer and dryer. If a company is entity enough to make money in a comfortable environment provided by the government, then it's entity enough to pay for it. And I'm perfectly willing to pay my taxes for those roads and bridges and so forth, as well as paying for the washers, dryers, TV's, and medical stuff to the businesses that provide them. I just find it greatly counterproductive to try to get the money for things by injuring _OUR_ businesses (not Toyota in Japan, nor Merceedes in Germany, just OUR companies) by stealing money from them in the form of income taxes. And aside from the simple moral argument of "it seems fair to me" with which I don't agree, what PRACTICAL good comes from stealing from _OUR_ businesses?
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 15, 2015 22:45:10 GMT -5
"Maybe you should start thinking of those nice paved roads as a good/service provided by the government that needs to be paid for"
BTW, we had paved roads, hospitals, libraries, and all the other public works BEFORE 1913 when the income tax was passed. We didn't tax EITHER our businesses or our people by stealing from them.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 17, 2015 12:18:21 GMT -5
If I were to avail myself of those things without paying for them, what would you call me? You'd call me a thief. Why can't you see that that goes both ways? Maybe you should start thinking of those nice paved roads as a good/service provided by the government that needs to be paid for, just like an automatic washer and dryer. If a company is entity enough to make money in a comfortable environment provided by the government, then it's entity enough to pay for it. And I'm perfectly willing to pay my taxes for those roads and bridges and so forth, as well as paying for the washers, dryers, TV's, and medical stuff to the businesses that provide them. I just find it greatly counterproductive to try to get the money for things by injuring _OUR_ businesses (not Toyota in Japan, nor Merceedes in Germany, just OUR companies) by stealing money from them in the form of income taxes. And aside from the simple moral argument of "it seems fair to me" with which I don't agree, what PRACTICAL good comes from stealing from _OUR_ businesses? About that last little line: I really wasn't expecting an answer to any of it 'cuz we were finally getting down to the bare metal where liberalism once again doesn't make sense, but I'm really curious if anyone has any sort of idea beyond "Its intuitively correct" for doing this. What benefits are there? Can you name any? I can write paragraphs about the adverse effects of taxing businesses, but what are the supposed benefits?
|
|
|
Post by pastafari on Dec 18, 2015 10:50:56 GMT -5
If I were to avail myself of those things without paying for them, what would you call me? You'd call me a thief. Why can't you see that that goes both ways? Maybe you should start thinking of those nice paved roads as a good/service provided by the government that needs to be paid for, just like an automatic washer and dryer. If a company is entity enough to make money in a comfortable environment provided by the government, then it's entity enough to pay for it. And I'm perfectly willing to pay my taxes for those roads and bridges and so forth, as well as paying for the washers, dryers, TV's, and medical stuff to the businesses that provide them. I just find it greatly counterproductive to try to get the money for things by injuring _OUR_ businesses (not Toyota in Japan, nor Merceedes in Germany, just OUR companies) by stealing money from them in the form of income taxes. And aside from the simple moral argument of "it seems fair to me" with which I don't agree, what PRACTICAL good comes from stealing from _OUR_ businesses? Why do you call it stealing when entity A is expected to pay for the things they use, but not when entity B is expected to pay for the things they use? Where is your consistency? Where is your sense of responsibility? If you use a thing, you pay for it. And it's not that we're injuring our businesses ("ours"? Like, "the people's"?), but rather that they have injured themselves for so long by not preparing themselves to pay their fair share, that now it is perceived as some sort of external harm by you, who are not consistent with your ideas*. Had they factored in paying their fair share, like everyone else does, they wouldn't call it "injury", they'd call it "normal, expected business expense" and they'd be just as willing to pay for what they get as you are. *you may recognize this, it's the same as Christian Persecution Syndrome, where they have abused the laws so long that overdue enforcement actually feels like a loss of rights, instead of just a correction back to them.
|
|
|
Post by pastafari on Dec 18, 2015 10:56:18 GMT -5
Once you get your head corrected and understand that "using a thing without paying for it is theft" and apply that consistently, you'll see that it is the businesses that are stealing from the country, not the other way around. By not paying for the things they use, they are reducing funds that could be used to benefit the people. With the money that businesses steal from our country we could be increasing the quality of education. We could be expanding NASA's budget (oh, we did do that? Sweet.). We could be housing the homeless. We could be doing good things for the people. Remember them?
|
|
|
Post by MF on Dec 18, 2015 11:47:05 GMT -5
And I'm perfectly willing to pay my taxes for those roads and bridges and so forth, as well as paying for the washers, dryers, TV's, and medical stuff to the businesses that provide them. I just find it greatly counterproductive to try to get the money for things by injuring _OUR_ businesses (not Toyota in Japan, nor Merceedes in Germany, just OUR companies) by stealing money from them in the form of income taxes. And aside from the simple moral argument of "it seems fair to me" with which I don't agree, what PRACTICAL good comes from stealing from _OUR_ businesses? Why do you call it stealing when entity A is expected to pay for the things they use, but not when entity B is expected to pay for the things they use? Where is your consistency? Where is your sense of responsibility? If you use a thing, you pay for it. And it's not that we're injuring our businesses ("ours"? Like, "the people's"?), but rather that they have injured themselves for so long by not preparing themselves to pay their fair share, that now it is perceived as some sort of external harm by you, who are not consistent with your ideas*. Had they factored in paying their fair share, like everyone else does, they wouldn't call it "injury", they'd call it "normal, expected business expense" and they'd be just as willing to pay for what they get as you are. *you may recognize this, it's the same as Christian Persecution Syndrome, where they have abused the laws so long that overdue enforcement actually feels like a loss of rights, instead of just a correction back to them. I am pretty sure you know the answer, but I will throw this out to deflate a few egos moaning against what you have said,,,, So the big businesses don't ever pay for what they get ? Stealing ? REALLY LOL,,LOL,,LOL,, Sooooooooooooo..why is it that most all localities offer huge tax breaks and other incentives to lure the big businesses that you say are stealing to their area ?? Now go ahead and take those blinders off to answer....
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Dec 18, 2015 11:53:52 GMT -5
Did you comprehend pasta's posts? Of course not. Privilege dies hard, and laws about tax breaks, etc are part of the ongoing privilege problem - as pasta pointed out to the less-than-obtuse crowd.
Why is it so hard for you to understand the concept that one should pay for the services provided to them? If you got a service and paid nothing for it, that would be either theft or charity.
PS You are not rich, so you are stupid and have no idea what you are writing - your comments might as well be from monkeys at keyboards.
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Dec 18, 2015 14:53:09 GMT -5
monkeys at keyboards.
Have you even seen his profile pic???
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 18, 2015 20:57:50 GMT -5
Once you get your head corrected and understand that "using a thing without paying for it is theft" and apply that consistently, you'll see that it is the businesses that are stealing from the country, That is only true if we are asking them to pay for it. I’m saying we shouldn’t ask them to pay for it, because they aren’t real targets to be asked – we should only be taxing people, not legal fictions like corporations. The crux of the question is _why_ are we asking them to pay taxes? What practical good does it do to tax businesses, and is it enough to offset the vast negative consequences of doing it? We only get about 9% of the Federal revenue from corporate taxes. That is because there are so few corporations left that they don’t amount to much any more, the ones we used to get more $$$ from have either been driven out of business by the high income tax expense, or they fled the country to avoid the high business tax expense. They almost have to do this, since we tax the Ford, Chevy, Chrysler plant in the USA, but we don’t tax the Ford, Chevy, and Chrysler plants in Mexico or Canada. That’s obviously unfair to the companies manufacturing in the USA. Why do this? 9% doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in the big picture, and could easily be made up by taxing the people who are going to be paying about 11% - 18% less for a US-manufactured Ford, Chevy, or Chrysler. Also, those same people will be paid more by Ford, Chevy, and Chrysler, and all the other businesses manufacturing in the USA that are freed from paying income tax, as well as having their stock investments doing better because the companies could pay bigger dividends if they weren’t sending 35% of their profits to Washington as income tax. The bottom line is that if we quit taxing corporations in the USA, we’ll barely miss that 9%, and get it back from everyone else that will have more money to pay it anyway. Not with 9% of the Federal revenue coming from corporate income taxes, we couldn’nt. It’s a drop in the bucket, really. Not with 9% of the Federal revenue, we couldn’t. We could get far more by taxing a _prosperous_ population, and that’s what we would get if we stopped taxing business. “If you want less of something, tax it” Reagan is said to have said, and others said it before anyway. Well, we’ve got a lot less manufacturing in the USA, because we’ve heavily taxed it. So, the US citizens suffer unemployment while the jobs are filled by Chinese in China, Mexicans in Mexico, etc. Wrong answer. Restore prosperity, and the homeless will get a good job, and house themselves. Then _they_ can be taxed along with the rest of us, and the really, really few homeless left we could easily house with a small expenditure from each working person. Yep. We could be doing much, much better things for the people if we restored prosperity and made good jobs available again.
|
|
|
Post by bobathon on Dec 19, 2015 6:13:21 GMT -5
Rally, you can't see the forest for the trees. Have we always got only 9% of tax revenue from corporate taxes? Is that the only value we should get that way?
As a salesman, would you make some customers pay for the goods and services used by others? Subsidized profits. In you libertarian world, corporations should start with uneducated citizenry and no roads, no emergency services, etc. can corporations afford to FULLY educate employees and hure their own fire dept, etc? No, of course not, we take a COLLECTIVE approach. "You didn't build that" is spot fucking on. You didn't build it, but want it for free - the Merkin Moocher Mentality.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 19, 2015 8:05:42 GMT -5
I recall reading we used to get 30% of our revenue from corporate taxes, but that's before the corps wised up and moved their operations overseas, while others didn't wise up and went down in bankruptcy because the income taxes made their operations in the USA unprofitable.
Make the customers pay? Sure, the _PEOPLE_ involved in the businesses should pay their taxes. The corporation is not a person, and should not be the object of a tax hunt. Doing that is counterproductive to prosperity.
|
|
|
Post by rally2xs on Dec 19, 2015 8:18:07 GMT -5
Rally, you can't see the forest for the trees. Have we always got only 9% of tax revenue from corporate taxes? Is that the only value we should get that way? As a salesman, would you make some customers pay for the goods and services used by others? Subsidized profits. In you libertarian world, corporations should start with uneducated citizenry and no roads, no emergency services, etc. can corporations afford to FULLY educate employees and hure their own fire dept, etc? No, of course not, we take a COLLECTIVE approach. "You didn't build that" is spot fucking on. You didn't build it, but want it for free - the Merkin Moocher Mentality. OBTW, that was yet another, "because it feels right to me" argument, whereas it didn't address, at all, the benefits of taxing corporations. What are they? I can go on for many paragraphs about the harm caused by taxing corporations, but you didn't say a thing about why it is better to force corporations to covertly collect taxes from their customers, employees, and stockholders, rather than just taxing those customers, employees and stockholders directly. Are you such a liberal that you can only make decisions on your "feelings" and not on what is actually beneficial and what is actually harmful?
|
|