Bernie Sanders introduces 'Stop BEZOS' bill

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bernie Sanders Asks Nation To Please Stop Mailing Him Books On Economics

Bernie Sanders Asks Nation To Please Stop Mailing Him Books On Economics

". . . “I’ve got 1,200 copies of Human Action, 1,500 copies of Basic Economics, and 4,700 copies of Economics in One Lesson,” the angered senator said. “I’m drowning here.” Sanders also showed the late-night host a small mountain of children’s books on the subject of economics from the easy-to-read Tuttle Twins series, sent to him from Americans who assumed he had somehow missed classroom discussions on the value of a dollar and supply and demand while in elementary school.


Sanders further confirmed he still hasn’t read a single one of the books, stating that they look like they’re “full of harsh facts” and that he prefers a more emotion-based approach to economics. He added that he’s “a little peeved” that our nation has so many choices for books on basic economics on the market. “Do we really need that many?”. . . . "

Maybe he needs to start out slower, like Economics For Dummies!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No because in most all cases, the city still collects taxes, just not as much as they do from other industries. WTF would a city invite a business to their area and lose money? That defeats the entire purpose.

So the two choices they have is to offer abutments and collect some taxes, or allow them to go somewhere else and get no new tax revenue. Which scenario would cost other businesses and taxpayers more?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They always lose, government is corrupt. Why are corporations more important to you than tax payers? You are foolish if you think tax deals are the main incentive. Most businesses are moving to that location regardless, free taxes are just icing on the cake.

Then you have no idea what you’re talking about. Follow the news when a major industry is debating three or four places to erect or expand their operations. Tax abatement is at the top of the list.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They are playing a game. They know where they want to go. Creating this illusion gets them the deals.

Of course, that must be it. And they are so sly that the cities or states can’t figure out their plan.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They don’t want to. Every politician now gets to claim they created jobs. You are really blind to the game?

They also have to answer the public when it comes to spending, taxation and debt. If they didn't think it would benefit the public, they sure as hell wouldn't do it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The real question is will we ever be a country where laws are applied equally? No we won't. Do we want more of that? Depends on the end results. Why should a city or state crumble into nothing because they aren't allowed to compete with better states for business?

How do you feel about Carter when he made red-lining illegal? Banks were then forced to give loans to bad investment high-crime areas. Carter seen those areas continue to spiral down. Should he have let them to go down until they hit rock bottom? And if not, is that not government picking winners and losers because people in better areas couldn't get loans?

It's not to achieve the goals of government, it's to achieve the goals of the city or state for the people. I want jobs in my area just like you want jobs in yours. Isn't it up to government to help us in that goal? Because if they don't help us, who will?

You realize this is the standard rationale of liberal statists, right?

No, what liberals do is use taxation to tax people into compliance. That’s not what we are talking about here. Here, we are taking about government lowering taxes to attract business; a very conservative thing to do.

This is not "lowering taxes to attract business". What we're talking about is specific exemptions to reward specific businesses - government picking winners and losers. This is government "management" of society in classic liberal style. And you're employing the very same excuses.

No, what we are talking about here is government trying to bring a business into their community using tax incentives. Or do you really believe that each state should have the same tax rate for businesses as ever other state?

No. They should have the same tax rates for every business in the state. Giving big out of town companies a sweetheart deal is just fucking the locals.

No, not at all.

I open up a widget factory. My city tax is 15%. You want to move here and expand your tire factory, and you get a sweetheart deal from the city at 7%. How is that fucking me? I'm still paying 15% whether you are here or not. And if I'm unhappy about that, I can find a city or state that offers lower taxes than I'm paying. If my city wants to keep me, they will lower my taxes too. If they don't want to give me that deal, than obviously they are not benefitting from my widget factory nearly as much as your tire factory.

 

[Brain357]

They always lose, government is corrupt. Why are corporations more important to you than tax payers? You are foolish if you think tax deals are the main incentive. Most businesses are moving to that location regardless, free taxes are just icing on the cake.

Then you have no idea what you’re talking about. Follow the news when a major industry is debating three or four places to erect or expand their operations. Tax abatement is at the top of the list.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They are playing a game. They know where they want to go. Creating this illusion gets them the deals.

Of course, that must be it. And they are so sly that the cities or states can’t figure out their plan.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They don’t want to. Every politician now gets to claim they created jobs. You are really blind to the game?

They also have to answer the public when it comes to spending, taxation and debt. If they didn't think it would benefit the public, they sure as hell wouldn't do it.

You don’t seem to be familiar with politicians. They do shady shit all the time. You seen the federal debt?

 

[Brain357]

They always lose, government is corrupt. Why are corporations more important to you than tax payers? You are foolish if you think tax deals are the main incentive. Most businesses are moving to that location regardless, free taxes are just icing on the cake.

Then you have no idea what you’re talking about. Follow the news when a major industry is debating three or four places to erect or expand their operations. Tax abatement is at the top of the list.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They are playing a game. They know where they want to go. Creating this illusion gets them the deals.

Of course, that must be it. And they are so sly that the cities or states can’t figure out their plan.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They don’t want to. Every politician now gets to claim they created jobs. You are really blind to the game?

They also have to answer the public when it comes to spending, taxation and debt. If they didn't think it would benefit the public, they sure as hell wouldn't do it.

For decades, politicians of both parties have touted the glories of massive tax-break deals. Whether it’s a governor announcing an auto assembly plant or a mayor breaking ground for a new mall, they invariably take credit for the jobs and claim that tax breaks did the trick.

But the costs of such deals and the programs that bankroll them have seldom been fully disclosed. The details are usually buried in different state, county, and city agencies. And of course, the costs are suffered by taxpayers over decades, long after the politicians win their re-election.

Taxpayers in Canton, Mississippi, for example, were shocked to learn that the Nissan assembly plant they thought cost $295 million in subsidies actually cost $1.3 billion. The smaller figure they remembered from a long-ago special vote by the state legislature. But $1 billion more was revealed in local records, where long-term property tax abatements were impoverishing schools, and in an obscure state program in which Nissan workers were actually paying taxes to the company.

Disclosing the Costs of Corporate Welfare

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then you have no idea what you’re talking about. Follow the news when a major industry is debating three or four places to erect or expand their operations. Tax abatement is at the top of the list.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They are playing a game. They know where they want to go. Creating this illusion gets them the deals.

Of course, that must be it. And they are so sly that the cities or states can’t figure out their plan.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They don’t want to. Every politician now gets to claim they created jobs. You are really blind to the game?

They also have to answer the public when it comes to spending, taxation and debt. If they didn't think it would benefit the public, they sure as hell wouldn't do it.

You don’t seem to be familiar with politicians. They do shady shit all the time. You seen the federal debt?

That's on the national level, and people have been voting for Republicans the last ten years partly because of it. However state and city debt have more of an impact; you see the decline of services right away and tax increases that usually follow.

 

[Brain357]

They are playing a game. They know where they want to go. Creating this illusion gets them the deals.

Of course, that must be it. And they are so sly that the cities or states can’t figure out their plan.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

They don’t want to. Every politician now gets to claim they created jobs. You are really blind to the game?

They also have to answer the public when it comes to spending, taxation and debt. If they didn't think it would benefit the public, they sure as hell wouldn't do it.

You don’t seem to be familiar with politicians. They do shady shit all the time. You seen the federal debt?

That's on the national level, and people have been voting for Republicans the last ten years partly because of it. However state and city debt have more of an impact; you see the decline of services right away and tax increases that usually follow.

You really live in a fantasy land. Seems no amount of facts will bring you to reality.

 

[bripat9643]

The employer would be entitled to an accounting of what they are paying for. That mean the IRS would have to state how much they are being charged for each program that each employee is receiving benefits from.

Furthermore, once the employer knows what each employee is costing him in terms of taxes, then he will make hiring and layoff decisions accordingly. That means poor employees with a lot of children will be the first ones on the layoff list.

They would not have to be told who each employee was.

Again, how do they know they aren't being overcharged if there is no accounting of the bill? No private company would get away with it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't allow it.

Well it would be the IRS.

You mean we should trust the IRS not to overcharge us?

Are you serous?

I haven't said I would do this, just that it is a fascinating idea up for discussion. I'd like to see markets come back to normal so that when unemployment is really low wages increase. Does seem like that will happen though.

If you want markets to come back to normal, then abolish all these social programs

 

[Brain357]

They would not have to be told who each employee was.

Again, how do they know they aren't being overcharged if there is no accounting of the bill? No private company would get away with it.

Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't allow it.

Well it would be the IRS.

You mean we should trust the IRS not to overcharge us?

Are you serous?

I haven't said I would do this, just that it is a fascinating idea up for discussion. I'd like to see markets come back to normal so that when unemployment is really low wages increase. Does seem like that will happen though.

If you want markets to come back to normal, then abolish all these social programs

Why would you abolish all, and why would that bring markets to normal?

 

[bripat9643]

I have to agree with Brain357 on this issue. When a state gives special tax treatment to a corporation, that means the rest of us have to pay more, and if one state does it, then all the other states have to do it was well or lose out on getting any of the lucrative deals. There isn't the slightest thing "capitalist" about state governments handing out special deals to big corporations.

So let's look at that theory:

A state doesn't offer any tax incentives, so a business that could generate tens of thousands of dollars in new taxes doesn't move there.

A state offers tax incentives, the business moves there, and the state now has tens of thousands of new tax dollars for their state.

Which situation would cost the other taxpayers more money?

You're ignoring the next step in the process:

If one state does it, then all the states have to do it or get left with the shitty end of the stick. So now all the states are out hundreds of billions in revenue with the rest of the taxpayers who aren't offered any of these cushy deals.holding the bag. The states collectively end up subsiding huge corporations and screwing the little guy. That's what we normally call "crony capitalism."

Well all states do do it. We lost several opportunities because another city or state beat us on tax incentives. Baltimore (for whatever reason) was doing that to us many years ago; around the time the Cleveland Browns moved there.

To reiterate, some states are just better places to be than others. Up here, the weather is miserable much of the time. If it's not the snow, it's the rain, if it's not the rain, it's the humidity. There are times when businesses have to close or their employees can't make it to work.

So these tax incentives gives us the ability to offer something to level the playing field. And let's face it, you can't stop states from taxing less. The Constitution gives states the ability to run their own governments the way they see fit providing nothing they're doing is violation the US Constitution.

Yes, just as many companies get pulled away from you as you attract. Meanwhile, the tax payer loses.

Every time one of these deals are made, that company still collects services. Other tax payers are now forced to pay for their services.

What do you mean pay for their services? If anything, their services would be cheaper because they are paying less taxes.

So if we lose just as many businesses as we gain, are you suggesting that it’s better we just lose businesses and not gain any back?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

If no city or state gave these crony corporations special tax treatment, then no city or state would lose a business due to other states dishing out the swag.

 

[dblack]

You realize this is the standard rationale of liberal statists, right?

No, what liberals do is use taxation to tax people into compliance. That’s not what we are talking about here. Here, we are taking about government lowering taxes to attract business; a very conservative thing to do.

This is not "lowering taxes to attract business". What we're talking about is specific exemptions to reward specific businesses - government picking winners and losers. This is government "management" of society in classic liberal style. And you're employing the very same excuses.

No, what we are talking about here is government trying to bring a business into their community using tax incentives. Or do you really believe that each state should have the same tax rate for businesses as ever other state?

No. They should have the same tax rates for every business in the state. Giving big out of town companies a sweetheart deal is just fucking the locals.

No, not at all.

I open up a widget factory. My city tax is 15%. You want to move here and expand your tire factory, and you get a sweetheart deal from the city at 7%. How is that fucking me? I'm still paying 15% whether you are here or not. And if I'm unhappy about that, I can find a city or state that offers lower taxes than I'm paying. If my city wants to keep me, they will lower my taxes too. If they don't want to give me that deal, than obviously they are not benefitting from my widget factory nearly as much as your tire factory.

Heh.. alright. But, really, how far would you go with this? Should every company be allowed to work out special deals with whatever government is willing to offer? Should taxes be the only laws they are exempted from following? What else is on the table, if it means drawing wealth to your state?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, what liberals do is use taxation to tax people into compliance. That’s not what we are talking about here. Here, we are taking about government lowering taxes to attract business; a very conservative thing to do.

This is not "lowering taxes to attract business". What we're talking about is specific exemptions to reward specific businesses - government picking winners and losers. This is government "management" of society in classic liberal style. And you're employing the very same excuses.

No, what we are talking about here is government trying to bring a business into their community using tax incentives. Or do you really believe that each state should have the same tax rate for businesses as ever other state?

No. They should have the same tax rates for every business in the state. Giving big out of town companies a sweetheart deal is just fucking the locals.

No, not at all.

I open up a widget factory. My city tax is 15%. You want to move here and expand your tire factory, and you get a sweetheart deal from the city at 7%. How is that fucking me? I'm still paying 15% whether you are here or not. And if I'm unhappy about that, I can find a city or state that offers lower taxes than I'm paying. If my city wants to keep me, they will lower my taxes too. If they don't want to give me that deal, than obviously they are not benefitting from my widget factory nearly as much as your tire factory.

Heh.. alright. But, really, how far would you go with this? Should every company be allowed to work out special deals with whatever government is willing to offer? Should taxes be the only laws they are exempted from following? What else is on the table, if it means drawing wealth to your state?

Every company is allowed to work out a deal with their government. That's the problem. In other words, let's say we elect representatives in our state that feel the way you and Brain do. Okay, so now other cities and states are competing for businesses that might otherwise have considered an offer from us to move here. In other words, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

So with unemployment on the rise along with poverty, how long do you think we will keep those politicians in office?

Lower taxes produce results. We need to look no further than the Trump administration to see that. We are setting all kinds of new economic records, particularly those in unemployment, minorities and women. And this just in:

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

 

[dblack]

This is not "lowering taxes to attract business". What we're talking about is specific exemptions to reward specific businesses - government picking winners and losers. This is government "management" of society in classic liberal style. And you're employing the very same excuses.

No, what we are talking about here is government trying to bring a business into their community using tax incentives. Or do you really believe that each state should have the same tax rate for businesses as ever other state?

No. They should have the same tax rates for every business in the state. Giving big out of town companies a sweetheart deal is just fucking the locals.

No, not at all.

I open up a widget factory. My city tax is 15%. You want to move here and expand your tire factory, and you get a sweetheart deal from the city at 7%. How is that fucking me? I'm still paying 15% whether you are here or not. And if I'm unhappy about that, I can find a city or state that offers lower taxes than I'm paying. If my city wants to keep me, they will lower my taxes too. If they don't want to give me that deal, than obviously they are not benefitting from my widget factory nearly as much as your tire factory.

Heh.. alright. But, really, how far would you go with this? Should every company be allowed to work out special deals with whatever government is willing to offer? Should taxes be the only laws they are exempted from following? What else is on the table, if it means drawing wealth to your state?

Every company is allowed to work out a deal with their government. That's the problem. In other words, let's say we elect representatives in our state that feel the way you and Brain do. Okay, so now other cities and states are competing for businesses that might otherwise have considered an offer from us to move here. In other words, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

So with unemployment on the rise along with poverty, how long do you think we will keep those politicians in office?

Which is why I said it needs to be handled federally. But to accomplish that, we'd need to agree that it's wrong. And don't seem willing to admit that.

Lower taxes produce results. We need to look no further than the Trump administration to see that. We are setting all kinds of new economic records, particularly those in unemployment, minorities and women. And this just in:

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

We just see the role of government very differently. I don't want a government that "gets results". I want a government that protects my rights, but otherwise stays out of the way. I want government to be the referee for society. You seem to think of it as the coach.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, what we are talking about here is government trying to bring a business into their community using tax incentives. Or do you really believe that each state should have the same tax rate for businesses as ever other state?

No. They should have the same tax rates for every business in the state. Giving big out of town companies a sweetheart deal is just fucking the locals.

No, not at all.

I open up a widget factory. My city tax is 15%. You want to move here and expand your tire factory, and you get a sweetheart deal from the city at 7%. How is that fucking me? I'm still paying 15% whether you are here or not. And if I'm unhappy about that, I can find a city or state that offers lower taxes than I'm paying. If my city wants to keep me, they will lower my taxes too. If they don't want to give me that deal, than obviously they are not benefitting from my widget factory nearly as much as your tire factory.

Heh.. alright. But, really, how far would you go with this? Should every company be allowed to work out special deals with whatever government is willing to offer? Should taxes be the only laws they are exempted from following? What else is on the table, if it means drawing wealth to your state?

Every company is allowed to work out a deal with their government. That's the problem. In other words, let's say we elect representatives in our state that feel the way you and Brain do. Okay, so now other cities and states are competing for businesses that might otherwise have considered an offer from us to move here. In other words, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

So with unemployment on the rise along with poverty, how long do you think we will keep those politicians in office?

Which is why I said it needs to be handled federally. But to accomplish that, we'd need to agree that it's wrong. And don't seem willing to admit that.

Lower taxes produce results. We need to look no further than the Trump administration to see that. We are setting all kinds of new economic records, particularly those in unemployment, minorities and women. And this just in:

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

I think you'll find this is not an issue with most Americans. And actually, it would take a constitutional amendment for the feds to control how a state spends (or collects) their own money. It's simply not in the purview of the federal government.

 

[dblack]

No. They should have the same tax rates for every business in the state. Giving big out of town companies a sweetheart deal is just fucking the locals.

No, not at all.

I open up a widget factory. My city tax is 15%. You want to move here and expand your tire factory, and you get a sweetheart deal from the city at 7%. How is that fucking me? I'm still paying 15% whether you are here or not. And if I'm unhappy about that, I can find a city or state that offers lower taxes than I'm paying. If my city wants to keep me, they will lower my taxes too. If they don't want to give me that deal, than obviously they are not benefitting from my widget factory nearly as much as your tire factory.

Heh.. alright. But, really, how far would you go with this? Should every company be allowed to work out special deals with whatever government is willing to offer? Should taxes be the only laws they are exempted from following? What else is on the table, if it means drawing wealth to your state?

Every company is allowed to work out a deal with their government. That's the problem. In other words, let's say we elect representatives in our state that feel the way you and Brain do. Okay, so now other cities and states are competing for businesses that might otherwise have considered an offer from us to move here. In other words, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

So with unemployment on the rise along with poverty, how long do you think we will keep those politicians in office?

Which is why I said it needs to be handled federally. But to accomplish that, we'd need to agree that it's wrong. And don't seem willing to admit that.

Lower taxes produce results. We need to look no further than the Trump administration to see that. We are setting all kinds of new economic records, particularly those in unemployment, minorities and women. And this just in:

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

I think you'll find this is not an issue with most Americans. And actually, it would take a constitutional amendment for the feds to control how a state spends (or collects) their own money. It's simply not in the purview of the federal government.

It's like you get it, but just can't give in. Weird.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, not at all.

I open up a widget factory. My city tax is 15%. You want to move here and expand your tire factory, and you get a sweetheart deal from the city at 7%. How is that fucking me? I'm still paying 15% whether you are here or not. And if I'm unhappy about that, I can find a city or state that offers lower taxes than I'm paying. If my city wants to keep me, they will lower my taxes too. If they don't want to give me that deal, than obviously they are not benefitting from my widget factory nearly as much as your tire factory.

Heh.. alright. But, really, how far would you go with this? Should every company be allowed to work out special deals with whatever government is willing to offer? Should taxes be the only laws they are exempted from following? What else is on the table, if it means drawing wealth to your state?

Every company is allowed to work out a deal with their government. That's the problem. In other words, let's say we elect representatives in our state that feel the way you and Brain do. Okay, so now other cities and states are competing for businesses that might otherwise have considered an offer from us to move here. In other words, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

So with unemployment on the rise along with poverty, how long do you think we will keep those politicians in office?

Which is why I said it needs to be handled federally. But to accomplish that, we'd need to agree that it's wrong. And don't seem willing to admit that.

Lower taxes produce results. We need to look no further than the Trump administration to see that. We are setting all kinds of new economic records, particularly those in unemployment, minorities and women. And this just in:

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

I think you'll find this is not an issue with most Americans. And actually, it would take a constitutional amendment for the feds to control how a state spends (or collects) their own money. It's simply not in the purview of the federal government.

It's like you get it, but just can't give in. Weird.

No, it's just I look at all sides of an issue even if it's something I may find concerning. And when it comes to taxing different people different ways, offering tax abatements is one of dozens of unequal taxation that goes on in this country.

For instance in my state, the public schools are funded locally through property tax. Well.....me nor any of my tenants ever had children in our school system, but I'm (we) paying more than many other people in my city because I have a much larger property than most people in my city.

There is nothing fair about it in my opinion. I'm paying a lions share compared to my neighbors, yet the couple two doors down that has three kids in the school system are paying less than half of what I'm paying. Is that fair? Shouldn't we be taxed based on how much we use the school system instead of what your property is worth?

 

[Brain357]

Heh.. alright. But, really, how far would you go with this? Should every company be allowed to work out special deals with whatever government is willing to offer? Should taxes be the only laws they are exempted from following? What else is on the table, if it means drawing wealth to your state?

Every company is allowed to work out a deal with their government. That's the problem. In other words, let's say we elect representatives in our state that feel the way you and Brain do. Okay, so now other cities and states are competing for businesses that might otherwise have considered an offer from us to move here. In other words, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

So with unemployment on the rise along with poverty, how long do you think we will keep those politicians in office?

Which is why I said it needs to be handled federally. But to accomplish that, we'd need to agree that it's wrong. And don't seem willing to admit that.

Lower taxes produce results. We need to look no further than the Trump administration to see that. We are setting all kinds of new economic records, particularly those in unemployment, minorities and women. And this just in:

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

I think you'll find this is not an issue with most Americans. And actually, it would take a constitutional amendment for the feds to control how a state spends (or collects) their own money. It's simply not in the purview of the federal government.

It's like you get it, but just can't give in. Weird.

No, it's just I look at all sides of an issue even if it's something I may find concerning. And when it comes to taxing different people different ways, offering tax abatements is one of dozens of unequal taxation that goes on in this country.

For instance in my state, the public schools are funded locally through property tax. Well.....me nor any of my tenants ever had children in our school system, but I'm (we) paying more than many other people in my city because I have a much larger property than most people in my city.

There is nothing fair about it in my opinion. I'm paying a lions share compared to my neighbors, yet the couple two doors down that has three kids in the school system are paying less than half of what I'm paying. Is that fair? Shouldn't we be taxed based on how much we use the school system instead of what your property is worth?

If you didn't pay for schools, they would be much worse. Bad schools bring down property values. You might not have that tenant with the kids if the schools weren't properly funded.

 

[dblack]

Heh.. alright. But, really, how far would you go with this? Should every company be allowed to work out special deals with whatever government is willing to offer? Should taxes be the only laws they are exempted from following? What else is on the table, if it means drawing wealth to your state?

Every company is allowed to work out a deal with their government. That's the problem. In other words, let's say we elect representatives in our state that feel the way you and Brain do. Okay, so now other cities and states are competing for businesses that might otherwise have considered an offer from us to move here. In other words, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

So with unemployment on the rise along with poverty, how long do you think we will keep those politicians in office?

Which is why I said it needs to be handled federally. But to accomplish that, we'd need to agree that it's wrong. And don't seem willing to admit that.

Lower taxes produce results. We need to look no further than the Trump administration to see that. We are setting all kinds of new economic records, particularly those in unemployment, minorities and women. And this just in:

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

I think you'll find this is not an issue with most Americans. And actually, it would take a constitutional amendment for the feds to control how a state spends (or collects) their own money. It's simply not in the purview of the federal government.

It's like you get it, but just can't give in. Weird.

No, it's just I look at ...

No. I'm taking about how, when you get cornered by the fact that all these taxation shenanigans are an abuse of government power, you fall back on the "everyone is doing it" defense. And I when I say, "right, that's why we need a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the practice for all states" you start shuffling your feet and mumbling. What the hell?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Every company is allowed to work out a deal with their government. That's the problem. In other words, let's say we elect representatives in our state that feel the way you and Brain do. Okay, so now other cities and states are competing for businesses that might otherwise have considered an offer from us to move here. In other words, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

So with unemployment on the rise along with poverty, how long do you think we will keep those politicians in office?

Which is why I said it needs to be handled federally. But to accomplish that, we'd need to agree that it's wrong. And don't seem willing to admit that.

Lower taxes produce results. We need to look no further than the Trump administration to see that. We are setting all kinds of new economic records, particularly those in unemployment, minorities and women. And this just in:

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

I think you'll find this is not an issue with most Americans. And actually, it would take a constitutional amendment for the feds to control how a state spends (or collects) their own money. It's simply not in the purview of the federal government.

It's like you get it, but just can't give in. Weird.

No, it's just I look at ...

No. I'm taking about how, when you get cornered by the fact that all these taxation shenanigans are an abuse of government power, you fall back on the "everyone is doing it" defense. And I when I say, "right, that's why we need a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the practice for all states" you start shuffling your feet and mumbling. What the hell?

Good luck with that Constitutional amendment thing. I can think of several amendments that would produce much better results for this country. And it's not "everyone is doing it" it's the idea they will do it no matter what you propose.

But I wish to extrapolate on this. Let's say that in my state, the corporate tax is 15%. In yours, it's 11%. Should the federal government come in and force your state to increase their corporate tax rate to 15%? and if not, why not?

LeBron Goofball James left our city. I don't miss the loud mouth that much, but our basketball team was able to afford his wages for several years. What does that have to do with government? LeBron brought in tens of millions of dollars to this city; money that would have never otherwise been generated. So should we restrict sports teams from what they are allowed to pay their players because it would equal the government benefits of having a winning team?

I can go on and on, but you get the point....I hope.

But since this is a state/ city thing, and not a federal thing, then I suggest you vote in representatives that will halt tax abatements to anybody. We here in Ohio will be more than glad to take those corporations and jobs off your hands any day of the week.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Every company is allowed to work out a deal with their government. That's the problem. In other words, let's say we elect representatives in our state that feel the way you and Brain do. Okay, so now other cities and states are competing for businesses that might otherwise have considered an offer from us to move here. In other words, there is nothing you can do to stop it.

So with unemployment on the rise along with poverty, how long do you think we will keep those politicians in office?

Which is why I said it needs to be handled federally. But to accomplish that, we'd need to agree that it's wrong. And don't seem willing to admit that.

Lower taxes produce results. We need to look no further than the Trump administration to see that. We are setting all kinds of new economic records, particularly those in unemployment, minorities and women. And this just in:

US median household income climbs to new high of $61,372

I think you'll find this is not an issue with most Americans. And actually, it would take a constitutional amendment for the feds to control how a state spends (or collects) their own money. It's simply not in the purview of the federal government.

It's like you get it, but just can't give in. Weird.

No, it's just I look at all sides of an issue even if it's something I may find concerning. And when it comes to taxing different people different ways, offering tax abatements is one of dozens of unequal taxation that goes on in this country.

For instance in my state, the public schools are funded locally through property tax. Well.....me nor any of my tenants ever had children in our school system, but I'm (we) paying more than many other people in my city because I have a much larger property than most people in my city.

There is nothing fair about it in my opinion. I'm paying a lions share compared to my neighbors, yet the couple two doors down that has three kids in the school system are paying less than half of what I'm paying. Is that fair? Shouldn't we be taxed based on how much we use the school system instead of what your property is worth?

If you didn't pay for schools, they would be much worse. Bad schools bring down property values. You might not have that tenant with the kids if the schools weren't properly funded.

Actually, two of my tenants do have kids. One is just a 2 year old, and the other has a teen and a 10 year old; both whom are home schooled.

Bad schools bring down property values? Our property values did go down, and we have brand new schools and high taxes for schools. So that theory doesn't wash. It's an urban legend.

I think not having companies and jobs in your area will bring down property values much more than schools.