Sensible taxation for business

[frigidweirdo]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

 

[Dale Smith]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

Why do you believe that people should be taxed for exchanging their labor for paper scrip that is Federal Reserve notes that are backed by nothing of an intrinsic value?

 

[Ringel05]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

And you honestly think, A: the major corporations are going to allow their congress critters to pass that and, B: there won't be ways around the tax code if by some strange happenstance it was enacted? Really?

 

[Doubledareme]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

How very Marxist of you. And you aren't wrong BTW.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

And you honestly think, A: the major corporations are going to allow their congress critters to pass that and, B: there won't be ways around the tax code if by some strange happenstance it was enacted? Really?

Ah, there's a big difference between what will happen, what can happen and what we think is a good idea.

No, I don't think the rich will relinquish their power any time soon.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

How very Marxist of you. And you aren't wrong BTW.

I'm no Marxist at all. I'm for encouraging capitalism, not monopolies.

 

[Doubledareme]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

And you honestly think, A: the major corporations are going to allow their congress critters to pass that and, B: there won't be ways around the tax code if by some strange happenstance it was enacted? Really?

Ah, there's a big difference between what will happen, what can happen and what we think is a good idea.

No, I don't think the rich will relinquish their power any time soon.

They won't have to relinquish power, it will simply be taken from them, one way or another.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay.

Yes, we definitely need to discourage companies from growing.....moron.

 

[Doubledareme]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

How very Marxist of you. And you aren't wrong BTW.

I'm no Marxist at all. I'm for encouraging capitalism, not monopolies.

That is Marxism, not capitalism. Learn of the fatal flaw of capitalism that we call "value". Regulated capitalism is a mixed economy. which he already have.

 

[Doubledareme]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay.

Yes, we definitely need to discourage companies from growing.....moron.

In many cases, for capitalism to survive, that's exactly what we need to do. The snake will swallow itself otherwise as it knows not what else to do.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

And you honestly think, A: the major corporations are going to allow their congress critters to pass that and, B: there won't be ways around the tax code if by some strange happenstance it was enacted? Really?

Ah, there's a big difference between what will happen, what can happen and what we think is a good idea.

No, I don't think the rich will relinquish their power any time soon.

They won't have to relinquish power, it will simply be taken from them, one way or another.

How? They've got the minds of the people controlled with advertising. Money buys anything in the US.

 

[Weatherman2020]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

And like with Obamacare when you put X limit on a business they never hire X+1.

 

[Dale Smith]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay.

Yes, we definitely need to discourage companies from growing.....moron.

In many cases, for capitalism to survive, that's exactly what we need to do. The snake will swallow itself otherwise as it knows not what else to do.

STFU, you don't have a fucking clue about how this fiat monetary system actually works and the powers behind it that have used this scrip to buy up hard assets....stop trying to pretend that you have a clue.

 

[Doubledareme]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

And you honestly think, A: the major corporations are going to allow their congress critters to pass that and, B: there won't be ways around the tax code if by some strange happenstance it was enacted? Really?

Ah, there's a big difference between what will happen, what can happen and what we think is a good idea.

No, I don't think the rich will relinquish their power any time soon.

They won't have to relinquish power, it will simply be taken from them, one way or another.

How? They've got the minds of the people controlled with advertising. Money buys anything in the US.

Money is paper. When paper is once again only for burning the rich will have food, shelter, and clothing. Say goodbye to the rich.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

How very Marxist of you. And you aren't wrong BTW.

I'm no Marxist at all. I'm for encouraging capitalism, not monopolies.

That is Marxism, not capitalism. Learn of the fatal flaw of capitalism that we call "value". Regulated capitalism is a mixed economy. which he already have.

The problem here is that in the US the larger the company the less they pay. The smaller the more they pay.

Are you saying the US is currently Communist?

 

[Doubledareme]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay.

Yes, we definitely need to discourage companies from growing.....moron.

In many cases, for capitalism to survive, that's exactly what we need to do. The snake will swallow itself otherwise as it knows not what else to do.

STFU, you don't have a fucking clue about how this fiat monetary system actually works and the powers behind it that have used this scrip to buy up hard assets....stop trying to pretend that you have a clue.

I was not born a slave, you were and still are.

 

[Dale Smith]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

And you honestly think, A: the major corporations are going to allow their congress critters to pass that and, B: there won't be ways around the tax code if by some strange happenstance it was enacted? Really?

Ah, there's a big difference between what will happen, what can happen and what we think is a good idea.

No, I don't think the rich will relinquish their power any time soon.

They won't have to relinquish power, it will simply be taken from them, one way or another.

How? They've got the minds of the people controlled with advertising. Money buys anything in the US.

Money is paper. When paper is once again only for burning the rich will have food, shelter, and clothing. Say goodbye to the rich.

Money has an intrinsic value....the fiat currency that we have, are nothing but debt notes....you are welcome......educating the unwashed masses is what I do and it is a thankless endeavor.

 

[Dale Smith]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay.

Yes, we definitely need to discourage companies from growing.....moron.

In many cases, for capitalism to survive, that's exactly what we need to do. The snake will swallow itself otherwise as it knows not what else to do.

STFU, you don't have a fucking clue about how this fiat monetary system actually works and the powers behind it that have used this scrip to buy up hard assets....stop trying to pretend that you have a clue.

I was not born a slave, you were and still are.

Wanna bet me on that and lose?????

 

[frigidweirdo]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

And you honestly think, A: the major corporations are going to allow their congress critters to pass that and, B: there won't be ways around the tax code if by some strange happenstance it was enacted? Really?

Ah, there's a big difference between what will happen, what can happen and what we think is a good idea.

No, I don't think the rich will relinquish their power any time soon.

They won't have to relinquish power, it will simply be taken from them, one way or another.

How? They've got the minds of the people controlled with advertising. Money buys anything in the US.

Money is paper. When paper is once again only for burning the rich will have food, shelter, and clothing. Say goodbye to the rich.

Going to happen any time soon?

 

[Siete]

This has nothing to do individual taxation.

My view here is that the best way of taxing companies would be on SIZE. The LARGER you are, the higher percentage of tax you pay. So, a company with a few employees would be paying a much lower rate than a corporate giant.

The reasons for this are quite a few. The first is to encourage people to start their own businesses. Smaller businesses can often be more innovative than larger corporate giants.

Smaller businesses mean that a lot of people are making good money, they're paying tax on it, and it means that the tax share gets spread around more.
Larger companies will be limited in their size and scope which then gives smaller companies more of a chance, AND larger companies would find it harder to control the government.

Why do you believe that people should be taxed for exchanging their labor for paper scrip that is Federal Reserve notes that are backed by nothing of an intrinsic value?

why are you willing to allow$1.5 Trillion$ to the national debt just so corporations can skate by their tax responsibility ?