Bernie Sanders introduces 'Stop BEZOS' bill

[Brain357]

So, does anyone in this thread actually support Bernie's proposal?

Not at this time, but I am getting desperate to see wages increase. Something is wrong with the market, and I’m losing faith it will be fixed.

I see. If you get desperate, all bets are off.

That is how things get done wrong. Why do you think markets are broke? Wages increases should be really healthy with such sustained low unemployment.

 

[dblack]

That is how things get done wrong. Why do you think markets are broke?

Because idiots can't resist the urge to use the government to manipulate markets.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Your extrapolation is diversion. And we already covered it. The issue isn't states having different tax rates. It's states offering different tax rates to different companies. Did you forget already?

What's the difference? If my state is drawing more companies to my state because our tax rate is lower than your state, whats the difference if they do that with individual companies?

If your state draws more companies with a lower tax rate, the cost of doing business there will increase. Land will get more expensive, it will be more expensive to lease a building... Eventually any benefits from lower taxes will be eaten up in other costs. There are many reasons why states with the lowest taxes aren't all economic juggernauts. Look at California, it is by far the largest economy. Do you think they have the lowest taxes? You really put way too much into this tax thing. Is Amazon going to put their OH distribution in CA?

If every company in the state gets the same tax rates, government is not picking winners and losers.

However if each state has different tax rates, then the governments are picking winners and losers.

Now if what you say is true (which is completely false) of all these expenses going up because businesses are moving to a certain state, then what's the problem? You should encourage states to offer abatements because it will ultimately lead to their own demise.

You see, even you don't really believe what you say.

Yes, California does attract businesses which was my earlier point: they have the weather in their favor. However many businesses have left because of their high tax rates. They moved to Texas.

If anything, the cost of doing business decreases because businesses interact with other businesses. It's my line of work. I pickup parts from one company to deliver to another company that does certain processes. It's either de-burring, paint, e-coating, machine work, assembly, just a list of things.

It's cheaper for a company to send those parts to another local company than it is to ship it several states away.

California has the biggest ecomomy, you think it’s cheap to do business there? You think real estate is chip in CA? You seem to have no understanding of markets.

You seem to have a hard time reading an entire post before responding.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This suggestion is a prime example of what I talked about earlier: taxing people into submission. The lefts hate for corporations and industry is what drives things like this. But again, it's all a dog and pony show; Sanders giving his supporters what they want. Even if Democrats had total power of the houses, they wouldn't dream of trying to make this into law because they know the effect it would have on businesses.

It's a prime example of what you're advocating for - government using the tax code to manipulate society. Bernie just has different goals in mind. This is why I say that your political ideology is no different than the Democrats. You just want to punish/reward different people.

There is a difference between using taxes to make something more attractive and taxing people for the purpose of forcing them to do what you want them to do.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[dblack]

There is a difference between using taxes to make something more attractive and taxing people for the purpose of forcing them to do what you want them to do.

Not a meaningful difference. Threatening someone with higher taxes if they don't do what you want is just as coercive as actually taxing them, and as morally defensible as holding a gun to their head. And you don't seem quite smart enough to realize that making something "more attractive" is just that. Tax incentives are mandates. They're just wrapped up with a bow to fool the dummies.

 

[Brain357]

Your extrapolation is diversion. And we already covered it. The issue isn't states having different tax rates. It's states offering different tax rates to different companies. Did you forget already?

What's the difference? If my state is drawing more companies to my state because our tax rate is lower than your state, whats the difference if they do that with individual companies?

If your state draws more companies with a lower tax rate, the cost of doing business there will increase. Land will get more expensive, it will be more expensive to lease a building... Eventually any benefits from lower taxes will be eaten up in other costs. There are many reasons why states with the lowest taxes aren't all economic juggernauts. Look at California, it is by far the largest economy. Do you think they have the lowest taxes? You really put way too much into this tax thing. Is Amazon going to put their OH distribution in CA?

If every company in the state gets the same tax rates, government is not picking winners and losers.

However if each state has different tax rates, then the governments are picking winners and losers.

Now if what you say is true (which is completely false) of all these expenses going up because businesses are moving to a certain state, then what's the problem? You should encourage states to offer abatements because it will ultimately lead to their own demise.

You see, even you don't really believe what you say.

Yes, California does attract businesses which was my earlier point: they have the weather in their favor. However many businesses have left because of their high tax rates. They moved to Texas.

If anything, the cost of doing business decreases because businesses interact with other businesses. It's my line of work. I pickup parts from one company to deliver to another company that does certain processes. It's either de-burring, paint, e-coating, machine work, assembly, just a list of things.

It's cheaper for a company to send those parts to another local company than it is to ship it several states away.

California has the biggest ecomomy, you think it’s cheap to do business there? You think real estate is chip in CA? You seem to have no understanding of markets.

You seem to have a hard time reading an entire post before responding.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Well CA is a great example of a place that got popular and then expensive to do business. You always deny reality?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is a difference between using taxes to make something more attractive and taxing people for the purpose of forcing them to do what you want them to do.

Not a meaningful difference. Threatening someone with higher taxes if they don't do what you want is just as coercive as actually taxing them, and as morally defensible as holding a gun to their head. And you don't seem quite smart enough to realize that making something "more attractive" is just that. Tax incentives are mandates. They're just wrapped up with a bow to fool the dummies.

No, tax incentives are an offer, not a mandate. A city or state makes this offer and the company in consideration has the option to accept or deny the offer. It's just like when you take a job. Nobody is forcing you to work at any certain place.

 

[dblack]

There is a difference between using taxes to make something more attractive and taxing people for the purpose of forcing them to do what you want them to do.

Not a meaningful difference. Threatening someone with higher taxes if they don't do what you want is just as coercive as actually taxing them, and as morally defensible as holding a gun to their head. And you don't seem quite smart enough to realize that making something "more attractive" is just that. Tax incentives are mandates. They're just wrapped up with a bow to fool the dummies.

No, tax incentives are an offer, not a mandate. A city or state makes this offer and the company in consideration has the option to accept or deny the offer. It's just like when you take a job. Nobody is forcing you to work at any certain place.

Ok. So let's look at how mandates work. A city or state issues a mandate, and imposes a penalty (in the form of higher taxes) for anyone who doesn't do as they're told. People have the options of playing along, or paying the higher taxes. Or moving to another state.

Help me out here. I'm not seeing the difference. I guess just term 'mandate' vs 'offer'? Seems like the same con under the verbiage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is a difference between using taxes to make something more attractive and taxing people for the purpose of forcing them to do what you want them to do.

Not a meaningful difference. Threatening someone with higher taxes if they don't do what you want is just as coercive as actually taxing them, and as morally defensible as holding a gun to their head. And you don't seem quite smart enough to realize that making something "more attractive" is just that. Tax incentives are mandates. They're just wrapped up with a bow to fool the dummies.

No, tax incentives are an offer, not a mandate. A city or state makes this offer and the company in consideration has the option to accept or deny the offer. It's just like when you take a job. Nobody is forcing you to work at any certain place.

Ok. So let's look at how mandates work. A city or state issues a mandate, and imposes a penalty (in the form of higher taxes) for anyone who doesn't do as they're told. People have the options of playing along, or paying the higher taxes. Or moving to another state.

Help me out here. I'm not seeing the difference. I guess just term 'mandate' vs 'offer'? Seems like the same con under the verbiage.

Are we talking about the same thing here? The subject was tax abatement offers to draw new businesses to an area. What does that have to do with penalizing or taxing companies if they don't do as they are told?

 

[dblack]

There is a difference between using taxes to make something more attractive and taxing people for the purpose of forcing them to do what you want them to do.

Not a meaningful difference. Threatening someone with higher taxes if they don't do what you want is just as coercive as actually taxing them, and as morally defensible as holding a gun to their head. And you don't seem quite smart enough to realize that making something "more attractive" is just that. Tax incentives are mandates. They're just wrapped up with a bow to fool the dummies.

No, tax incentives are an offer, not a mandate. A city or state makes this offer and the company in consideration has the option to accept or deny the offer. It's just like when you take a job. Nobody is forcing you to work at any certain place.

Ok. So let's look at how mandates work. A city or state issues a mandate, and imposes a penalty (in the form of higher taxes) for anyone who doesn't do as they're told. People have the options of playing along, or paying the higher taxes. Or moving to another state.

Help me out here. I'm not seeing the difference. I guess just term 'mandate' vs 'offer'? Seems like the same con under the verbiage.

Are we talking about the same thing here? The subject was tax abatement offers to draw new businesses to an area. What does that have to do with penalizing or taxing companies if they don't do as they are told?

If the company moves to your state (or does whatever is required to get the special deal), they get a tax break. If they don't, they don't. Needless to say, none of the people already in your state get the tax break. They get stuck with the bill for the taxes that the new company isn't paying. This isn't complicated. You're just kind of dumb. Sorry to be mean, but I can come to no other conclusion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is a difference between using taxes to make something more attractive and taxing people for the purpose of forcing them to do what you want them to do.

Not a meaningful difference. Threatening someone with higher taxes if they don't do what you want is just as coercive as actually taxing them, and as morally defensible as holding a gun to their head. And you don't seem quite smart enough to realize that making something "more attractive" is just that. Tax incentives are mandates. They're just wrapped up with a bow to fool the dummies.

No, tax incentives are an offer, not a mandate. A city or state makes this offer and the company in consideration has the option to accept or deny the offer. It's just like when you take a job. Nobody is forcing you to work at any certain place.

Ok. So let's look at how mandates work. A city or state issues a mandate, and imposes a penalty (in the form of higher taxes) for anyone who doesn't do as they're told. People have the options of playing along, or paying the higher taxes. Or moving to another state.

Help me out here. I'm not seeing the difference. I guess just term 'mandate' vs 'offer'? Seems like the same con under the verbiage.

Are we talking about the same thing here? The subject was tax abatement offers to draw new businesses to an area. What does that have to do with penalizing or taxing companies if they don't do as they are told?

If the company moves to your state (or does whatever is required to get the special deal), they get a tax break. If they don't, they don't. Needless to say, none of the people already in your state get the tax break. They get stuck with the bill for the taxes that the new company isn't paying. This isn't complicated. You're just kind of dumb. Sorry to be mean, but I can come to no other conclusion.

I"m dumb? I asked repeatedly: how do other people pay more taxes because somebody is moving to a state and just paying a little less? The current companies there pay the same. In fact, new businesses might actually save them from getting their taxes raised even more down the road. Sounds like you're kind of dumb by saying companies would pay more taxes if businesses moved in than they would if those businesses never moved in. That' doesn't even make any sense.

Now if a business doesn't get a tax break in my state, it's because our politicians figured there would be no benefit to the city or state by giving an abatement. Another state might think differently. They might offer a tax break to that company that we didn't want to give them.

Nobody is being penalized here.

 

[dblack]

Not a meaningful difference. Threatening someone with higher taxes if they don't do what you want is just as coercive as actually taxing them, and as morally defensible as holding a gun to their head. And you don't seem quite smart enough to realize that making something "more attractive" is just that. Tax incentives are mandates. They're just wrapped up with a bow to fool the dummies.

No, tax incentives are an offer, not a mandate. A city or state makes this offer and the company in consideration has the option to accept or deny the offer. It's just like when you take a job. Nobody is forcing you to work at any certain place.

Ok. So let's look at how mandates work. A city or state issues a mandate, and imposes a penalty (in the form of higher taxes) for anyone who doesn't do as they're told. People have the options of playing along, or paying the higher taxes. Or moving to another state.

Help me out here. I'm not seeing the difference. I guess just term 'mandate' vs 'offer'? Seems like the same con under the verbiage.

Are we talking about the same thing here? The subject was tax abatement offers to draw new businesses to an area. What does that have to do with penalizing or taxing companies if they don't do as they are told?

If the company moves to your state (or does whatever is required to get the special deal), they get a tax break. If they don't, they don't. Needless to say, none of the people already in your state get the tax break. They get stuck with the bill for the taxes that the new company isn't paying. This isn't complicated. You're just kind of dumb. Sorry to be mean, but I can come to no other conclusion.

I"m dumb? I asked repeatedly: how do other people pay more taxes because somebody is moving to a state and just paying a little less?

Because spending doesn't go down just because we reduce taxes. I know a lot of idiot Trumpsters think it does, but that's only because they're morons. The fact is, reducing taxes without reducing spending will require some means of making up the shortfall. It will either be pushed onto our children, in the form of debt, or will require tax increases. In either of these scenarios, the people who aren't getting the tax cuts will pay more.

 

[Brain357]

Not a meaningful difference. Threatening someone with higher taxes if they don't do what you want is just as coercive as actually taxing them, and as morally defensible as holding a gun to their head. And you don't seem quite smart enough to realize that making something "more attractive" is just that. Tax incentives are mandates. They're just wrapped up with a bow to fool the dummies.

No, tax incentives are an offer, not a mandate. A city or state makes this offer and the company in consideration has the option to accept or deny the offer. It's just like when you take a job. Nobody is forcing you to work at any certain place.

Ok. So let's look at how mandates work. A city or state issues a mandate, and imposes a penalty (in the form of higher taxes) for anyone who doesn't do as they're told. People have the options of playing along, or paying the higher taxes. Or moving to another state.

Help me out here. I'm not seeing the difference. I guess just term 'mandate' vs 'offer'? Seems like the same con under the verbiage.

Are we talking about the same thing here? The subject was tax abatement offers to draw new businesses to an area. What does that have to do with penalizing or taxing companies if they don't do as they are told?

If the company moves to your state (or does whatever is required to get the special deal), they get a tax break. If they don't, they don't. Needless to say, none of the people already in your state get the tax break. They get stuck with the bill for the taxes that the new company isn't paying. This isn't complicated. You're just kind of dumb. Sorry to be mean, but I can come to no other conclusion.

I"m dumb? I asked repeatedly: how do other people pay more taxes because somebody is moving to a state and just paying a little less? The current companies there pay the same. In fact, new businesses might actually save them from getting their taxes raised even more down the road. Sounds like you're kind of dumb by saying companies would pay more taxes if businesses moved in than they would if those businesses never moved in. That' doesn't even make any sense.

Now if a business doesn't get a tax break in my state, it's because our politicians figured there would be no benefit to the city or state by giving an abatement. Another state might think differently. They might offer a tax break to that company that we didn't want to give them.

Nobody is being penalized here.

What happens when amazon gets a better deal than Walmart? Should government be giving amazon an advantage?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, tax incentives are an offer, not a mandate. A city or state makes this offer and the company in consideration has the option to accept or deny the offer. It's just like when you take a job. Nobody is forcing you to work at any certain place.

Ok. So let's look at how mandates work. A city or state issues a mandate, and imposes a penalty (in the form of higher taxes) for anyone who doesn't do as they're told. People have the options of playing along, or paying the higher taxes. Or moving to another state.

Help me out here. I'm not seeing the difference. I guess just term 'mandate' vs 'offer'? Seems like the same con under the verbiage.

Are we talking about the same thing here? The subject was tax abatement offers to draw new businesses to an area. What does that have to do with penalizing or taxing companies if they don't do as they are told?

If the company moves to your state (or does whatever is required to get the special deal), they get a tax break. If they don't, they don't. Needless to say, none of the people already in your state get the tax break. They get stuck with the bill for the taxes that the new company isn't paying. This isn't complicated. You're just kind of dumb. Sorry to be mean, but I can come to no other conclusion.

I"m dumb? I asked repeatedly: how do other people pay more taxes because somebody is moving to a state and just paying a little less? The current companies there pay the same. In fact, new businesses might actually save them from getting their taxes raised even more down the road. Sounds like you're kind of dumb by saying companies would pay more taxes if businesses moved in than they would if those businesses never moved in. That' doesn't even make any sense.

Now if a business doesn't get a tax break in my state, it's because our politicians figured there would be no benefit to the city or state by giving an abatement. Another state might think differently. They might offer a tax break to that company that we didn't want to give them.

Nobody is being penalized here.

What happens when amazon gets a better deal than Walmart? Should government be giving amazon an advantage?

If they think it will be an advantage to their area, why not?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, tax incentives are an offer, not a mandate. A city or state makes this offer and the company in consideration has the option to accept or deny the offer. It's just like when you take a job. Nobody is forcing you to work at any certain place.

Ok. So let's look at how mandates work. A city or state issues a mandate, and imposes a penalty (in the form of higher taxes) for anyone who doesn't do as they're told. People have the options of playing along, or paying the higher taxes. Or moving to another state.

Help me out here. I'm not seeing the difference. I guess just term 'mandate' vs 'offer'? Seems like the same con under the verbiage.

Are we talking about the same thing here? The subject was tax abatement offers to draw new businesses to an area. What does that have to do with penalizing or taxing companies if they don't do as they are told?

If the company moves to your state (or does whatever is required to get the special deal), they get a tax break. If they don't, they don't. Needless to say, none of the people already in your state get the tax break. They get stuck with the bill for the taxes that the new company isn't paying. This isn't complicated. You're just kind of dumb. Sorry to be mean, but I can come to no other conclusion.

I"m dumb? I asked repeatedly: how do other people pay more taxes because somebody is moving to a state and just paying a little less?

Because spending doesn't go down just because we reduce taxes. I know a lot of idiot Trumpsters think it does, but that's only because they're morons. The fact is, reducing taxes without reducing spending will require some means of making up the shortfall. It will either be pushed onto our children, in the form of debt, or will require tax increases. In either of these scenarios, the people who aren't getting the tax cuts will pay more.

WTF are you talking about. It's like I'm talking to one person and you're talking to another.

Do you want to get into a discussion of tax abatements or the national debt? You're flying in all different directions here.

 

[Brain357]

Ok. So let's look at how mandates work. A city or state issues a mandate, and imposes a penalty (in the form of higher taxes) for anyone who doesn't do as they're told. People have the options of playing along, or paying the higher taxes. Or moving to another state.

Help me out here. I'm not seeing the difference. I guess just term 'mandate' vs 'offer'? Seems like the same con under the verbiage.

Are we talking about the same thing here? The subject was tax abatement offers to draw new businesses to an area. What does that have to do with penalizing or taxing companies if they don't do as they are told?

If the company moves to your state (or does whatever is required to get the special deal), they get a tax break. If they don't, they don't. Needless to say, none of the people already in your state get the tax break. They get stuck with the bill for the taxes that the new company isn't paying. This isn't complicated. You're just kind of dumb. Sorry to be mean, but I can come to no other conclusion.

I"m dumb? I asked repeatedly: how do other people pay more taxes because somebody is moving to a state and just paying a little less? The current companies there pay the same. In fact, new businesses might actually save them from getting their taxes raised even more down the road. Sounds like you're kind of dumb by saying companies would pay more taxes if businesses moved in than they would if those businesses never moved in. That' doesn't even make any sense.

Now if a business doesn't get a tax break in my state, it's because our politicians figured there would be no benefit to the city or state by giving an abatement. Another state might think differently. They might offer a tax break to that company that we didn't want to give them.

Nobody is being penalized here.

What happens when amazon gets a better deal than Walmart? Should government be giving amazon an advantage?

If they think it will be an advantage to their area, why not?

You have a lot of faith in what politicians think. More likely whoever does more lobbying or gives more campaign contributions. So now Amazon puts Walmart out of business from a government created advantage. Job losses.

 

[dblack]

Ok. So let's look at how mandates work. A city or state issues a mandate, and imposes a penalty (in the form of higher taxes) for anyone who doesn't do as they're told. People have the options of playing along, or paying the higher taxes. Or moving to another state.

Help me out here. I'm not seeing the difference. I guess just term 'mandate' vs 'offer'? Seems like the same con under the verbiage.

Are we talking about the same thing here? The subject was tax abatement offers to draw new businesses to an area. What does that have to do with penalizing or taxing companies if they don't do as they are told?

If the company moves to your state (or does whatever is required to get the special deal), they get a tax break. If they don't, they don't. Needless to say, none of the people already in your state get the tax break. They get stuck with the bill for the taxes that the new company isn't paying. This isn't complicated. You're just kind of dumb. Sorry to be mean, but I can come to no other conclusion.

I"m dumb? I asked repeatedly: how do other people pay more taxes because somebody is moving to a state and just paying a little less?

Because spending doesn't go down just because we reduce taxes. I know a lot of idiot Trumpsters think it does, but that's only because they're morons. The fact is, reducing taxes without reducing spending will require some means of making up the shortfall. It will either be pushed onto our children, in the form of debt, or will require tax increases. In either of these scenarios, the people who aren't getting the tax cuts will pay more.

WTF are you talking about. It's like I'm talking to one person and you're talking to another.

Do you want to get into a discussion of tax abatements or the national debt? You're flying in all different directions here.

Sorry if I confused you. Read up on it I guess. Look up taxes and deficit spending.

 

[Brain357]

Are we talking about the same thing here? The subject was tax abatement offers to draw new businesses to an area. What does that have to do with penalizing or taxing companies if they don't do as they are told?

If the company moves to your state (or does whatever is required to get the special deal), they get a tax break. If they don't, they don't. Needless to say, none of the people already in your state get the tax break. They get stuck with the bill for the taxes that the new company isn't paying. This isn't complicated. You're just kind of dumb. Sorry to be mean, but I can come to no other conclusion.

I"m dumb? I asked repeatedly: how do other people pay more taxes because somebody is moving to a state and just paying a little less?

Because spending doesn't go down just because we reduce taxes. I know a lot of idiot Trumpsters think it does, but that's only because they're morons. The fact is, reducing taxes without reducing spending will require some means of making up the shortfall. It will either be pushed onto our children, in the form of debt, or will require tax increases. In either of these scenarios, the people who aren't getting the tax cuts will pay more.

WTF are you talking about. It's like I'm talking to one person and you're talking to another.

Do you want to get into a discussion of tax abatements or the national debt? You're flying in all different directions here.

Sorry if I confused you. Read up on it I guess. Look up taxes and deficit spending.

Have you ever heard of a real conservative that has so much faith in government like Ray? He seems oblivious that government is usually corrupt. I can't believe anyone who claims to be a conservative would talk like that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations

In deals like Foxconn, the government is heavily influencing corporate decisions. Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers in good capitalism.

What makes you say that, Comrade? Are you privy to the board room of Apple? Did Tim Cook announce that the Wisconsin tax break influenced his decision to open the Apple controlled company there?

Nah, you're just ignorantly spewing shit, yet again.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are we talking about the same thing here? The subject was tax abatement offers to draw new businesses to an area. What does that have to do with penalizing or taxing companies if they don't do as they are told?

If the company moves to your state (or does whatever is required to get the special deal), they get a tax break. If they don't, they don't. Needless to say, none of the people already in your state get the tax break. They get stuck with the bill for the taxes that the new company isn't paying. This isn't complicated. You're just kind of dumb. Sorry to be mean, but I can come to no other conclusion.

I"m dumb? I asked repeatedly: how do other people pay more taxes because somebody is moving to a state and just paying a little less? The current companies there pay the same. In fact, new businesses might actually save them from getting their taxes raised even more down the road. Sounds like you're kind of dumb by saying companies would pay more taxes if businesses moved in than they would if those businesses never moved in. That' doesn't even make any sense.

Now if a business doesn't get a tax break in my state, it's because our politicians figured there would be no benefit to the city or state by giving an abatement. Another state might think differently. They might offer a tax break to that company that we didn't want to give them.

Nobody is being penalized here.

What happens when amazon gets a better deal than Walmart? Should government be giving amazon an advantage?

If they think it will be an advantage to their area, why not?

You have a lot of faith in what politicians think. More likely whoever does more lobbying or gives more campaign contributions. So now Amazon puts Walmart out of business from a government created advantage. Job losses.

How does Amazon put Walmart out of business when you can buy Amazon from anywhere in the country? Does Amazon have stores like Walmart does that I don't know about?