Cut Corporate Tax Rates--Remove Loopholes

[sealybobo]

I imagine you could go on all day, and continue to be wrong about 100% of it.

You rail against a system that doesn't exist in the first place (free market capitalism).

The math doesn't work out on your fuck the rich idea, considering the pay the bulk of the taxes. How much of the tax burden would you like them to shoulder? All of it?

Help me out then Bern.

FDR raised taxes on income above $3 to $4 million (todays $) a year to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. It didn’t kill the economy.

He did this to pay for fixing up America.

The Rich got a tax break the last 8 years while America fell apart. Social programs were RAPED under the GOP.

So how we gonna pay for fixing up America? Do you propose they raise OUR taxes? That's fucking insane! The economy will not work if they cost us anymore than they already have. Doesn't have to be a tax either idiot. It can be gouging us at the pumps or costing us half of our 401k's. One way or the other, WE have suffered enough.

And you can't cut spending enough to fix the problems we have.

So it's time to roll back the Reagan/Bush tax cuts. Close the loopholes.

You think America will fall apart if we do?

Look around douce bag. It's falling apart and won't stop unless we do roll back those tax breaks.

Next point that will go over your head:

Reagan cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%.

So we have a lot of room to work here Bern. They were rich when Reagan cut their taxes. So I guess they'll still be rich after we raise them.

Who's picking up the burden? We are. Or if you make that god damn neo con argument that we are not, then fine, the debt doubled under Reagan and again under Bush. So ALL OF US!!!

Your way doesn't work. That's the only thing I know.

It may work for you, but not 90% of us.

And you are done convincing people that your way does work, because you have no say. We tried your way and it failed. Now try our way and see things will get better again.

Even for you.

 

[sealybobo]

And your support of extraordinary tax rates and punishment taxes on those who actually earn.. and not any system based on equality... the true super lefty in you just does not lean, and keeps up the hypocrisy

I don't know. Seems like things were fine before Bush got in and started messing with the tax system.

I'm just arguing to roll back the tax rates to what they were in 1999 when Clinton was in office.

Why that's impossible is beyond me.

 

[sealybobo]

1) It is a benefit like pay.. an incentive given to attract the desired workers... it is a voluntary thing by the companies...
2) It is still the personal responsibility of the individual to choose this benefit, or choose the company that wishes to offer this benefit.... it is not the responsibility of the company, or the government, or anyone else... it is the responsibility of the individual who wants the healthcare service/benefit

So no.. .we should not have the government take over healthcare and "socialize" medicine

Corporations have to pay. They would prefer to get that cost off their laps.

You want to be competitive, right?

You are patriotic and want American companies to do well, right?

Then help them. Without cutting their taxes any more than you already have. And without asking their employees to take any more concessions.

 

[Bern80]

Like it was before Reagan.

Funny you guys agree with Ron Paul but then argue against him out of the other side of your mouths.

Yes because to support someone you are required to support every last one of their positions. Could you get any more asanine?

 

[Bern80]

Still no light bulbs have gone off. All I know is that Reagan & now GW Bush have rolled the tax rates too far back for the top 1% so we need to raise their taxes.

It wasn't right for Bush to cut their taxes so much. Reagan cut them enough. But they won't be happy until they pay no taxes, which in some case, they don't.

We know enough to know this is true. So when you tell me that they pay most of the taxes, I know you are being misleading. You're using fuzzy math. Voodoo economics. Or they should be paying most of the taxes.

But whether they're paying most of them or not, they aren't paying enough.

FDR fixed this country by raising the rich's taxes. It didn't break anything.

The revenue we got from that fixed up America.

We need to fix up America now.

So where should we get the money?

a. China
b. Print more money
c. Raise everyone's taxes
d. Roll back the Reagan/Bush tax cuts to what they were before Reagan

No brainer.

Listen to yourself. You are advocating that people should be able to keep smaller and smaller amounts of what they earned. There is no better proof than this very post as to how completely out to lunch you are. Unless your just some big government stooge (which is possible i guess). The idea is suppossed to be that we ALL pay as little tax as possible and that government learn how to work within an actual budget. And yet here you are screaming at the top of your lungs, knowing full well that if you government money they will find some way to find, that taxes need to go up.

There isn't anything missleading about it math wise. We have a tax revunue of x amount. The top 10-15% of income earners in this country supply 80% of x and yet you are advocating those people provide even more of it. Explain what is misleading about that.

 

[DiamondDave]

Corporations have to pay. They would prefer to get that cost off their laps.

You want to be competitive, right?

You are patriotic and want American companies to do well, right?

Then help them. Without cutting their taxes any more than you already have. And without asking their employees to take any more concessions.

I want corporations to have the freedom to do well.. of their own accord...

But that does not make it the job of the government to take over your personal responsibility for your own health, health care, medical accounts, etc...

Corporations do NOT have to provide health insurance... it is a benefit some CHOOSE to offer as incentive for their employees to choose to continue working there, and to bring in new employees... you can choose to take a job with lower pay and company paid benefits. you can choose a contract position with higher hourly rates and purchase your own insurance. you can choose to to elect to use the company health plan....

 

[Ravi]

Listen to yourself. You are advocating that people should be able to keep smaller and smaller amounts of what they earned. There is no better proof than this very post as to how completely out to lunch you are. Unless your just some big government stooge (which is possible i guess). The idea is suppossed to be that we ALL pay as little tax as possible and that government learn how to work within an actual budget. And yet here you are screaming at the top of your lungs, knowing full well that if you government money they will find some way to find, that taxes need to go up.

There isn't anything missleading about it math wise. We have a tax revunue of x amount. The top 10-15% of income earners in this country supply 80% of x and yet you are advocating those people provide even more of it. Explain what is misleading about that.

SIGH! Except, as you pointed out back on the thread, the rich are able with planning and loopholes to pay 6% which is a damn sight less than the middle class pays.

This conversation is stupid, IMO, without some real numbers and I've got a feeling there is no way to know the real numbers of who pays what. And it is in the interest of the government to keep using this issue to play both sides against the other.

 

[sealybobo]

I want corporations to have the freedom to do well.. of their own accord...

But that does not make it the job of the government to take over your personal responsibility for your own health, health care, medical accounts, etc...

Corporations do NOT have to provide health insurance... it is a benefit some CHOOSE to offer as incentive for their employees to choose to continue working there, and to bring in new employees... you can choose to take a job with lower pay and company paid benefits. you can choose a contract position with higher hourly rates and purchase your own insurance. you can choose to to elect to use the company health plan....

No, I pretty much think that corporations that have x amount of employees MUST provide healthcare. More than 10? More than 20? Not sure the number, but companies a certain size must provide healthcare to their full time employees.

Am I wrong or is DAVE wrong? I'm asking others.

And my friend, you see, this is exactly what the governments role should be. Just because you don't think so or because you don't get that, doesn't make it right. Making sure citizens don't die of cancer becaue corporations refuse to treat them? That's a role for GOVERNMENT!!!

Come Jan 20th anyways.

 

[Bern80]

Help me out then Bern.

FDR raised taxes on income above $3 to $4 million (todays $) a year to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. It didn’t kill the economy.

Please explain why the great depression continued for 8 YEARS AFTER the New Deal.

The Rich got a tax break the last 8 years while America fell apart. Social programs were RAPED under the GOP.

Because being the typical dimwit lib you are, you believe the only explanation for two things happening simultaneously is that one caused the other. America 'fell apart' because congress ON BOTH SIDES decided to make it easier for people to get credit that they couldn't pay back AND because as i said before the majority of Americans don't understand money and thus took loans that they couldn't pay back.

So how we gonna pay for fixing up America? Do you propose they raise OUR taxes? That's fucking insane! The economy will not work if they cost us anymore than they already have. Doesn't have to be a tax either idiot. It can be gouging us at the pumps or costing us half of our 401k's. One way or the other, WE have suffered enough.

How is that any better than businesses haveing less money to invest in themselves, hire people, give raises etc. in terms of 'fixing' America. Get a little fucking perspective. yeah some people may have to give up their fucking satelite dishes for a while. This problem is not going to fix itself until morons like yourself start acknowledging their contribution to the problem.

And you can't cut spending enough to fix the problems we have.

So it's time to roll back the Reagan/Bush tax cuts. Close the loopholes.

You think America will fall apart if we do?

I don't see how it can come back together with a first step of making it harder for businesses to hire.

Reagan cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%.

So we have a lot of room to work here Bern. They were rich when Reagan cut their taxes. So I guess they'll still be rich after we raise them.

Again please explain to me why you cling to this holy grail that we must give government ever increasing amounts of money.

Who's picking up the burden? We are. Or if you make that god damn neo con argument that we are not, then fine, the debt doubled under Reagan and again under Bush. So ALL OF US!!!

Under Bush your tax burden went down as well.

Your way doesn't work. That's the only thing I know.

It may work for you, but not 90% of us.

And you are done convincing people that your way does work, because you have no say. We tried your way and it failed. Now try our way and see things will get better again.

Even for you.

I guess you would have to tell me what you think my way is first. As a citizen I have as much say as you do. Oh that's right anyone who doesn' agree with sealy doesn't have vote in America. At least you admit it you piece of shit.

 

[DiamondDave]

No, I pretty much think that corporations that have x amount of employees MUST provide healthcare. More than 10? More than 20? Not sure the number, but companies a certain size must provide healthcare to their full time employees.

Am I wrong or is DAVE wrong? I'm asking others.

And my friend, you see, this is exactly what the governments role should be. Just because you don't think so or because you don't get that, doesn't make it right. Making sure citizens don't die of cancer becaue corporations refuse to treat them? That's a role for GOVERNMENT!!!

Come Jan 20th anyways.

As stated.. corporations hire contractors in without benefits... trust me.. I've been 1... you have the choice to have that kind of position or a full time perm position with different benefits... or to accept positions that do not offer benefits... or to refuse benefits

NO, idiot... the role of the government is not to provide for you.. not to take your personal responsibility for your care and well being.... just because you want redistribution, something for nothing or something at the expense of others, DOES NOT MAKE THAT RIGHT.... the role of government is to protect your freedoms to live your life by your choices, your actions, etc as long as you obey the laws of the land, set up to protect the personal freedoms of everyone... government's job is not to be your mommy, your insurance company, your allowance giver, or to tell you "awwww, poor baby" when something goes wrong.....

 

[Bern80]

SIGH! Except, as you pointed out back on the thread, the rich are able with planning and loopholes to pay 6% which is a damn sight less than the middle class pays.

What's the loophole exactly? that government can't tax money I don't really have (realized)?

This conversation is stupid, IMO, without some real numbers and I've got a feeling there is no way to know the real numbers of who pays what. And it is in the interest of the government to keep using this issue to play both sides against the other.

What you don't believe the rich are responsible for the bulk of the countries tax revenue?

 

[sealybobo]

Listen to yourself. You are advocating that people should be able to keep smaller and smaller amounts of what they earned. There is no better proof than this very post as to how completely out to lunch you are. Unless your just some big government stooge (which is possible i guess). The idea is suppossed to be that we ALL pay as little tax as possible and that government learn how to work within an actual budget. And yet here you are screaming at the top of your lungs, knowing full well that if you government money they will find some way to find, that taxes need to go up.

There isn't anything missleading about it math wise. We have a tax revunue of x amount. The top 10-15% of income earners in this country supply 80% of x and yet you are advocating those people provide even more of it. Explain what is misleading about that.

1. If I/we make more, then we will pay more of the taxes. Bushanomics gave all the tax breaks to the top and it didn't trickle down. So right there along, your economy sucks and Clinton's rocked.

2. If you send jobs overseas and let illegals flood our market, it'll delute/lower wages. When this happens, the poor/middle class pay less in taxes because we make more.

This is your fuzzy math. Under Obama, we'll make more and start contributing more. OK?

Yes, the top 1% haven't contributed enough. Had bush been fiscally responsible, they would have contributed more than enough, but he spent like a drunken sailor, along with Tom Delay, so since the rich/corporations benefitted from Bushanomics so much, I think they should also pay for it. ALL OF IT.

And I've heard many a libertarian make the argument you just made. They say, "don't advocate raising the rich's taxes, argue instead for them to lower our taxes too".

And again, America isn't every man for himself. If everyone stops paying taxes, then the country falls apart.

Unfortunately for all of us, Bush spent a lot. But didn't spend it on America. And guess what? America needs a face lift. Dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. They all need $ because Bush neglected them all for 8 years. Instead he spent the treasury on the top 1% and defense.

PS. Listen to this guy. Can you believe him? The idea is we all pay a little less and the government spends less. Boy, it sure took you a long time to figure that one out. Before you lost power in government, you were defending all the defense spending.

Anyways, you and I will never agree. Even though I'm all for less spending and lower taxes, I'm not for lowering the rich's taxes to the point that shit doesn't get paid. And the social programs you want to cut, I would never agree to.

So to me, you are not being sincere. Or I know that if you had the power, I would not like the decisions you would make. I assume you would do exactly what BUsh did.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't see how it can come back together with a first step of making it harder for businesses to hire.
Again please explain to me why you cling to this holy grail that we must give government ever increasing amounts of money.
Under Bush your tax burden went down as well.

I guess you would have to tell me what you think my way is first. As a citizen I have as much say as you do. Oh that's right anyone who doesn' agree with sealy doesn't have vote in America. At least you admit it you piece of shit.

You see Bern, corporations/companies are only going to hire as many people as they need to be profitable. You can give them a million dollars, that doesn't mean they're going to hire.

Perfect example, didn't we just give Bank of America some of the $750 billion?

Bank of America to Cut 35,000 Jobs Over 3 Years

 

[sealybobo]

As stated.. corporations hire contractors in without benefits... trust me.. I've been 1... you have the choice to have that kind of position or a full time perm position with different benefits... or to accept positions that do not offer benefits... or to refuse benefits

NO, idiot... the role of the government is not to provide for you.. not to take your personal responsibility for your care and well being.... just because you want redistribution, something for nothing or something at the expense of others, DOES NOT MAKE THAT RIGHT.... the role of government is to protect your freedoms to live your life by your choices, your actions, etc as long as you obey the laws of the land, set up to protect the personal freedoms of everyone... government's job is not to be your mommy, your insurance company, your allowance giver, or to tell you "awwww, poor baby" when something goes wrong.....

I don't know what country you live in but

 

[Skull Pilot]

You see Bern, corporations/companies are only going to hire as many people as they need to be profitable. You can give them a million dollars, that doesn't mean they're going to hire.

Perfect example, didn't we just give Bank of America some of the $750 billion?

Bank of America to Cut 35,000 Jobs Over 3 Years

you cannot equate the government wrongly bailing out a company to a tax cut.

You can equate the government bail out to the fucking government forcing us at gun point to buy worthless stocks in failing companies.

 

[sealybobo]

SIGH! Except, as you pointed out back on the thread, the rich are able with planning and loopholes to pay 6% which is a damn sight less than the middle class pays.

This conversation is stupid, IMO, without some real numbers and I've got a feeling there is no way to know the real numbers of who pays what. And it is in the interest of the government to keep using this issue to play both sides against the other.

Remember Ravi, when we make less and the rich make more, they pay more in taxes and we pay less in taxes.

Aren't the rich nice to take on the tax burden for us?

Now if they want us to pay more of our share, then they will have to pay us more, so we can contribute more.

And we'll take away their unfair tax breaks, so they'll make less, and in turn pay less in taxes.

So we'll all win!!!!

 

[Bern80]

No, I pretty much think that corporations that have x amount of employees MUST provide healthcare. More than 10? More than 20? Not sure the number, but companies a certain size must provide healthcare to their full time employees.

Am I wrong or is DAVE wrong? I'm asking others.

You are wrong. Unless you can explain (as RobISH failed to do) why it is someone elses responsibility more so than your own to provide for your needs.

And my friend, you see, this is exactly what the governments role should be. Just because you don't think so or because you don't get that, doesn't make it right. Making sure citizens don't die of cancer becaue corporations refuse to treat them? That's a role for GOVERNMENT!!!

Come Jan 20th anyways.

What about self inflicted cancer? Why should I have to pay for your lung transplant because you smoked a pack a day for 50 years?

Governments role, very broadly, should be to let me live my fucking life. There isn't a whole ton of things they need to do for me to accomplish that. Get some roads to get to work, protect the borders, police and fire coverage etc. Above and beyond that I don't have the right to expect a whole lot from them and by extension I don't have the right to expect a lot from you as pertains to me looking after me.

 

[DiamondDave]

1. If I/we make more, then we will pay more of the taxes. Bushanomics gave all the tax breaks to the top and it didn't trickle down. So right there along, your economy sucks and Clinton's rocked.

2. If you send jobs overseas and let illegals flood our market, it'll delute/lower wages. When this happens, the poor/middle class pay less in taxes because we make more.

This is your fuzzy math. Under Obama, we'll make more and start contributing more. OK?

Yes, the top 1% haven't contributed enough. Had bush been fiscally responsible, they would have contributed more than enough, but he spent like a drunken sailor, along with Tom Delay, so since the rich/corporations benefitted from Bushanomics so much, I think they should also pay for it. ALL OF IT.

And I've heard many a libertarian make the argument you just made. They say, "don't advocate raising the rich's taxes, argue instead for them to lower our taxes too".

And again, America isn't every man for himself. If everyone stops paying taxes, then the country falls apart.

Unfortunately for all of us, Bush spent a lot. But didn't spend it on America. And guess what? America needs a face lift. Dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. They all need $ because Bush neglected them all for 8 years. Instead he spent the treasury on the top 1% and defense.

PS. Listen to this guy. Can you believe him? The idea is we all pay a little less and the government spends less. Boy, it sure took you a long time to figure that one out. Before you lost power in government, you were defending all the defense spending.

Anyways, you and I will never agree. Even though I'm all for less spending and lower taxes, I'm not for lowering the rich's taxes to the point that shit doesn't get paid. And the social programs you want to cut, I would never agree to.

So to me, you are not being sincere. Or I know that if you had the power, I would not like the decisions you would make. I assume you would do exactly what BUsh did.

Again... your support of inequality.. .punishment for those who succeed... and it is fucking despicable... hell, you even indicated support of 90+% tax rates for those who earn in the top percentages!

And this is only topped by your support of others paying for your personal wants and needs, facilitated by government programs and red tape

Everyone needs to pay their FAIR share of taxes for the upkeep of the government, national defense, law enforcement, etc... equality in taxation, just as we have blind equality in treatment for all citizens in other areas... others do not exist to provide for you... everyone should pay their equal % share towards the common infrastructure, defense, etc... X% of your income goes towards this support, just as X% of my income does, and X% of Joe Schmoe's income does.... but no.. you only want equality when it benefits you, and you call for inequality when it benefits you at the expense of someone else

 

[sealybobo]

you cannot equate the government wrongly bailing out a company to a tax cut.

You can equate the government bail out to the fucking government forcing us at gun point to buy worthless stocks in failing companies.

First, stop being anti American/unpatriotic. If there is one thing I can't fucking stand after 6 years of "support the troops" is to hear you traitors talk bad about the American people or our government.

PS. It's a great example of how you can give a business a billion dollars, that doesn't mean they'll hire more people or pay people better.

The last 8 years proved that. Trickle down didn't work. Rich people who got tax breaks didn't create jobs!

So let's take those tax breaks away since they were ineffective.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't know what country you live in but

OK BooBoo let me ask you this:

You believe that because someone makes more than another, they should pay a higher price for everything.

So let's just live life your way. For example, you make about 80K per year so you say. Let's assume your neighbor makes 20K per year.

You both walk into a Circuit City going out of business sale and you both pick out the exact same TV.

You both walk up to separate registers. Your neighbor pays 100 dollars for his TV and you are charged 400 dollars. After all you make 4 times what he makes so you should pay more right?

now the government steps in and takes the additional profit made from the sale of your TV and uses it to give free TVs to everyone making less than 20K per year.

Is that a country you want to live in?

Why not just give the government everything you make. A 100% tax and let the benevolent government pay you by providing you with everything you need? After all it's the government's job to take care of you is it not?