Federalization of the States

[RKMBrown]

Name one US corporation that does not pay the corporate tax rate.

Name even one who does.

"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit."

The corporate tax rate for ZERO PROFIT is 0%. In summary, corporations do not pay taxes on revenue, they pay taxes on profit.

If I buy a car for 10k and sell it for 9k, my revenue is 9k, my cost is 10k. My profit is negative 1k. I lost money. Libs would have the car dealership pay corporate taxes on the 9k. Libs don't understand how businesses work. Libs think profits are evil. Then they ***** about corporations not paying taxes when they don't have profit. Libs.. what ya gonna do?

You still haven't named a corporation that payed anything like the corporate tax rate on profits.

Not sure what your dysfunction is. What do you think the corporate tax rate is for zero profit?

My dysfunction evidently goes hand in hand with your superficial explanations.

Do you understand the term "taxable income?" Do you understand that the amount of taxable income a company has is applied to the tax table I included above? Do you understand that if you have no taxable income fifteen percent of zero is zero tax, which is the corporate tax rate when you have no taxable income?

 

[RKMBrown]

I guess it pays to have corporate lobbyists writing our laws.

26 top American corporations paid no federal income tax from ’08 to ’12 – report — RT USA

Why should corporations pay federal income tax when they have NO TAXABLE INCOME?

Why ask why?

I thought it was obvious. I even provided a detailed example explaining the difference between revenue and taxable income.

I'll repeat.

If you own a car dealership and you buy a used car for 10grand, then sell it for 9grand. Your lost a thousand dollars. Your revenue is 9thousand dollars, but your cost of goods was ten thousand dollars. Taxable income is zero, or more specifically negative one thousand dollars. The corporate tax rate for zero is 15% of zero which is zero.

 

[Discombobulated]

Name one US corporation that does not pay the corporate tax rate.

Name even one who does.

"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit."

The corporate tax rate for ZERO PROFIT is 0%. In summary, corporations do not pay taxes on revenue, they pay taxes on profit.

If I buy a car for 10k and sell it for 9k, my revenue is 9k, my cost is 10k. My profit is negative 1k. I lost money. Libs would have the car dealership pay corporate taxes on the 9k. Libs don't understand how businesses work. Libs think profits are evil. Then they ***** about corporations not paying taxes when they don't have profit. Libs.. what ya gonna do?

You still haven't named a corporation that payed anything like the corporate tax rate on profits.

Not sure what your dysfunction is. What do you think the corporate tax rate is for zero profit?

My dysfunction evidently goes hand in hand with your superficial explanations.

Do you understand the term "taxable income?" Do you understand that the amount of taxable income a company has is applied to the tax table I included above? Do you understand that if you have no taxable income fifteen percent of zero is zero tax, which is the corporate tax rate when you have no taxable income?

Which has what to do with corporations paying no income tax and receiving subsidies besides?

 

[RKMBrown]

Name one US corporation that does not pay the corporate tax rate.

Name even one who does.

"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit."

The corporate tax rate for ZERO PROFIT is 0%. In summary, corporations do not pay taxes on revenue, they pay taxes on profit.

If I buy a car for 10k and sell it for 9k, my revenue is 9k, my cost is 10k. My profit is negative 1k. I lost money. Libs would have the car dealership pay corporate taxes on the 9k. Libs don't understand how businesses work. Libs think profits are evil. Then they ***** about corporations not paying taxes when they don't have profit. Libs.. what ya gonna do?

You still haven't named a corporation that payed anything like the corporate tax rate on profits.

Not sure what your dysfunction is. What do you think the corporate tax rate is for zero profit?

My dysfunction evidently goes hand in hand with your superficial explanations.

Do you understand the term "taxable income?" Do you understand that the amount of taxable income a company has is applied to the tax table I included above? Do you understand that if you have no taxable income fifteen percent of zero is zero tax, which is the corporate tax rate when you have no taxable income?

Which has what to do with corporations paying no income tax and receiving subsidies besides?

If they paid zero income tax, it's because they had no taxable income. Not sure what part of zero taxable income is confusing you.

 

[Disir]

Every military base, every defense contractor, every dollar for education and medical.............gone............like that.

Make sure you have your paperwork in order at the border!

Of course, by the USFG, but no doubt the Republic of Texas would, as a sovereign nation, replace some or all of them. It is still a net win of 50 billion a year for Texas.

It seems you're having difficulty with the concept of net. Of course Texas as a whole would lose USFG funding, though not necessarily USFG contracts to produce weapons, or certainly not necessarily all of them. However, this would more than be made up by the elimination of USFG taxes. The difference, as I've pointed out, is 50 billion a year. Even if Texas decides to replace every single USFG program currently in place with one of their own, the state would still be 50 billion a year richer. It's unlikely that Texas would repeat all of the mistakes of the USFG, so that's even more savings.

So, larger population than many successful countries, GDP that would put it in the top 30 in the world, natural resources, and access to the oceans. Texas would make a great country. Not a superpower like the US or China, of course, but who wants that sort of expense and headache anyway?

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

The cost of living in Texas is very low. Texas has a TON of immigrants. Our teens work part time because job are a plenty here. These are the reasons there is a lot of minimum wage jobs. Course the democrats want to end those jobs, no surprise.

I'm not a Dem. I don't know of any Dems that want to end jobs.

Raising minimum wage results in less jobs. Raising minimum wage is a party plank of the democrats.

Raising minimum benefits results in less jobs. ACA forced many corporations to lay employees off. ACA was driven by the democrats.

Welfare, Disability, federally funded extensions to Unemployment Insurance, federally mandated early retirement systems like federal pensions and SS, enable people to not work and/or only have to work for 30-35years. People live a lot longer than that these days. Not working ends jobs when those people succumb to the offer to quit. Not having to work and still being able to survive just fine, is a fundamental party plank of the democrats.

Enjoy that in Texas.

Texas is doing great thanks. Oh and none of my teen age kids ever had to work for minimum wage here, they all started out at around 9/hr for A/C jobs and 12-15/hr for non A/C labor work, this when they were in high school.

I know how Texas is doing. Thanks. I still have family there. Thanks.

So, we can pretend that has no problems and none of this presents an issue. Watching that implode will be even more fun.

We're on the same page. Texas secessionist movements have been around for a very long time. Every once in awhile elected officials tip their hats for votes to them.

 

[CitizenSeven]

See, that's just it, nobody wants to be ruled from a distant capitol.

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

Of course net is relevant. Like I pointed out multiple times, even if the Republic of Texas recreates every single existing federal program, contracts, welfare, etc, and pays for it by copying the same IRS structure, the state as a whole would still have a net surplus of 50 billion dollars. That is the difference between what Texas pays to the federal government minus what it gets back. Thus, Texas could recreate everything and still have a 50 billion surplus. You have to remember, most federal departments and functions have state-level counterparts already, so it's not like Texas would have to form a new government from whole cloth. It might be a little rocky as it ramps up, but the savings would be real and significant.

Of course, Texas wouldn't recreate everything, so it would have an even larger surplus. At a bare minimum, if Texas adopted all the mistakes of the USFG, the average tax break would be nearly 2,000 dollars a year. I would be shocked if it weren't closer to double that due to not making the same mistakes as the USFG. Since Texas currently enjoys a net internal migration, more Usians would need papers to get into Texas than Texas would need to get in the U.S, and that's not even taking into account how much more attractive Texas would be with lower taxation and an even greater economic boom than it is currently undergoing.

 

[Discombobulated]

It's a good thing corporations have so many regular folks to speak up for them.....because corporations don't have nearly enough money, power, and influence already.

Meet The ALEC Staffers Who Help Corporations Write Our Laws |

 

[Disir]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

 

[Disir]

See, that's just it, nobody wants to be ruled from a distant capitol.

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

Of course net is relevant. Like I pointed out multiple times, even if the Republic of Texas recreates every single existing federal program, contracts, welfare, etc, and pays for it by copying the same IRS structure, the state as a whole would still have a net surplus of 50 billion dollars. That is the difference between what Texas pays to the federal government minus what it gets back. Thus, Texas could recreate everything and still have a 50 billion surplus. You have to remember, most federal departments and functions have state-level counterparts already, so it's not like Texas would have to form a new government from whole cloth. It might be a little rocky as it ramps up, but the savings would be real and significant.

Of course, Texas wouldn't recreate everything, so it would have an even larger surplus. At a bare minimum, if Texas adopted all the mistakes of the USFG, the average tax break would be nearly 2,000 dollars a year. I would be shocked if it weren't closer to double that due to not making the same mistakes as the USFG. Since Texas currently enjoys a net internal migration, more Usians would need papers to get into Texas than Texas would need to get in the U.S, and that's not even taking into account how much more attractive Texas would be with lower taxation and an even greater economic boom than it is currently undergoing.

Let's see it in action. I'll wait.

 

[Disir]

It seems that your having difficulty that Texas is home to the most minimum wage workers.
More than 450,000 Texas workers make minimum wage, the most of any state. Texas, like most states, sets its minimum at the same level as the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 an hour.
Minimum wage boost could help Texans — or hurt | Dallas Morning News

Don't look at Oklahoma.
Oklahoma Tribal Maps

Replacing those USFG contracts is going to be mighty tough.

You will win a civil war and an occupied Texas.

Popcorn eating fun for the whole family.

So? Are you saying minimum wage workers are incapable of self rule? I disagree with that notion. Texas is also the second largest state in population, 26 million, so it's going to be at or near the top in number of anything. That 450k number is only 2% of the population, or about 3.5% of the workforce. The bottom 3.5% get minimum wage. I'm surprised the percentage is that low.

You still are not understanding the concept of net. Even if the Republic of Texas government decides to pick up (I.e. contract the current contractors to make systems for Texas), and pays the exact same amount the USFG is currently paying, Texas as a whole would still be 50 billion dollars a year richer than currently.
You can buy a whole mess of popcorn with that.

It isn't a question of not understanding it. I flat out do not think net is relevant.

Texas cannot subsidize those workers alone. You have piss poor social services now and you will have to rebuild that.

Your entire plan is contingent upon other states. I maintain my stance that 1/3 of your economy will collapse with the removal of federal cash, bases and those contracts. You fail to grasp that once you become your own kingdom that there is no friendship with the federal government. Temporary alliances but you would be sovereign. You make your own treaties and trade with other nations? Until you open your border to nation-states that are not on the US list of temporary useful nation-states and then you are a risk. Make sure that you have your paperwork at the border.

And when you do operate without taking into consideration all of those little details, you will create groups of people that will be disenfranchised enough that they are open to rebellion and a good old fashioned coup d' etat. As a sovereign nation you will not be immune to that.

utter nonsense...you're well indoctrinated, though.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said, "I didn't think about that and I don't want anyone else to think about that either."

You make ridiculous declarations and assumptions that you can't prove or are unrealistic and then pose them as facts.

According to your theory, The united states doesn't exist because if we separated from england we wouldn't be able to survive and they'd never talk to us again and we wouldn't have an infrastructure and there would be no jobs ....blah...blah...
In fact, according to your theory, NO nations exist because they couldn't survive without their original leadership...Silly..

Why do you oppose people struggling for freedom and independence from oppression?

Remember;
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Were the colonists "patriots" or "traitors"?

Are you oppressed?

 

[Discombobulated]

Name one US corporation that does not pay the corporate tax rate.

Name even one who does.

"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit."

The corporate tax rate for ZERO PROFIT is 0%. In summary, corporations do not pay taxes on revenue, they pay taxes on profit.

If I buy a car for 10k and sell it for 9k, my revenue is 9k, my cost is 10k. My profit is negative 1k. I lost money. Libs would have the car dealership pay corporate taxes on the 9k. Libs don't understand how businesses work. Libs think profits are evil. Then they ***** about corporations not paying taxes when they don't have profit. Libs.. what ya gonna do?

You still haven't named a corporation that payed anything like the corporate tax rate on profits.

Not sure what your dysfunction is. What do you think the corporate tax rate is for zero profit?

My dysfunction evidently goes hand in hand with your superficial explanations.

Do you understand the term "taxable income?" Do you understand that the amount of taxable income a company has is applied to the tax table I included above? Do you understand that if you have no taxable income fifteen percent of zero is zero tax, which is the corporate tax rate when you have no taxable income?

Which has what to do with corporations paying no income tax and receiving subsidies besides?

If they paid zero income tax, it's because they had no taxable income. Not sure what part of zero taxable income is confusing you.

You mean no taxable income after taking advantage of every loophole that corporate lobbyists can provide.

 

[Ernie S.]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

 

[RKMBrown]

Name one US corporation that does not pay the corporate tax rate.

Name even one who does.

"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit."

The corporate tax rate for ZERO PROFIT is 0%. In summary, corporations do not pay taxes on revenue, they pay taxes on profit.

If I buy a car for 10k and sell it for 9k, my revenue is 9k, my cost is 10k. My profit is negative 1k. I lost money. Libs would have the car dealership pay corporate taxes on the 9k. Libs don't understand how businesses work. Libs think profits are evil. Then they ***** about corporations not paying taxes when they don't have profit. Libs.. what ya gonna do?

You still haven't named a corporation that payed anything like the corporate tax rate on profits.

Not sure what your dysfunction is. What do you think the corporate tax rate is for zero profit?

My dysfunction evidently goes hand in hand with your superficial explanations.

Do you understand the term "taxable income?" Do you understand that the amount of taxable income a company has is applied to the tax table I included above? Do you understand that if you have no taxable income fifteen percent of zero is zero tax, which is the corporate tax rate when you have no taxable income?

Which has what to do with corporations paying no income tax and receiving subsidies besides?

If they paid zero income tax, it's because they had no taxable income. Not sure what part of zero taxable income is confusing you.

You mean no taxable income after taking advantage of every loophole that corporate lobbyists can provide.

So do you or do you not think corporations should pay taxes on revenue even if they lost money? Or are you saying we should have no "other" types of exemptions whatsoever in our tax systems, for example no personal exemptions, no home mortgage interest deduction, no state income, sales, and property tax exemptions, etc.?

Why should a corporation pay a tax that they don't have to pay? Is it your practice to donate money to the federal government?

 

[Discombobulated]

Name one US corporation that does not pay the corporate tax rate.

Name even one who does.

"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit."

The corporate tax rate for ZERO PROFIT is 0%. In summary, corporations do not pay taxes on revenue, they pay taxes on profit.

If I buy a car for 10k and sell it for 9k, my revenue is 9k, my cost is 10k. My profit is negative 1k. I lost money. Libs would have the car dealership pay corporate taxes on the 9k. Libs don't understand how businesses work. Libs think profits are evil. Then they ***** about corporations not paying taxes when they don't have profit. Libs.. what ya gonna do?

You still haven't named a corporation that payed anything like the corporate tax rate on profits.

Not sure what your dysfunction is. What do you think the corporate tax rate is for zero profit?

My dysfunction evidently goes hand in hand with your superficial explanations.

Do you understand the term "taxable income?" Do you understand that the amount of taxable income a company has is applied to the tax table I included above? Do you understand that if you have no taxable income fifteen percent of zero is zero tax, which is the corporate tax rate when you have no taxable income?

Which has what to do with corporations paying no income tax and receiving subsidies besides?

If they paid zero income tax, it's because they had no taxable income. Not sure what part of zero taxable income is confusing you.

You mean no taxable income after taking advantage of every loophole that corporate lobbyists can provide.

So you corporations should pay taxes on revenue even if they lost money? Or are you saying we should have no "other" types of exemptions whatsoever in our tax systems, for example no personal exemptions, no home mortgage interest deduction, no state income, sales, and property tax exemptions, etc.?

Why should a corporation pay a tax that they don't have to pay? Is it your practice to donate money to the federal government?

No, I'm saying corporations don't pay their fair share of the tax burden. The average individual taxpayer pays a far higher real tax rate. I'm sure that works out well for the primary share holders.

 

[RKMBrown]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

Nah... the north would start a civil war, blame the south, and use their financial position to hire millions of conscripts to kill southerners.

 

[Ernie S.]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

Nah... the north would start a civil war, blame the south, and use their financial position to hire millions of conscripts to kill southerners.

Where would they get the money after supporting all of the nonproducers that flocked north for freebies?

Soros only has so much and China would have all their money invested in the South.

 

[RKMBrown]

Name one US corporation that does not pay the corporate tax rate.

Name even one who does.

"Merck, the second largest pharmaceutical company in the U.S., actually had a negative effective tax rate of 7.5% during the second quarter, which means it got a tax credit."

The corporate tax rate for ZERO PROFIT is 0%. In summary, corporations do not pay taxes on revenue, they pay taxes on profit.

If I buy a car for 10k and sell it for 9k, my revenue is 9k, my cost is 10k. My profit is negative 1k. I lost money. Libs would have the car dealership pay corporate taxes on the 9k. Libs don't understand how businesses work. Libs think profits are evil. Then they ***** about corporations not paying taxes when they don't have profit. Libs.. what ya gonna do?

You still haven't named a corporation that payed anything like the corporate tax rate on profits.

Not sure what your dysfunction is. What do you think the corporate tax rate is for zero profit?

My dysfunction evidently goes hand in hand with your superficial explanations.

Do you understand the term "taxable income?" Do you understand that the amount of taxable income a company has is applied to the tax table I included above? Do you understand that if you have no taxable income fifteen percent of zero is zero tax, which is the corporate tax rate when you have no taxable income?

Which has what to do with corporations paying no income tax and receiving subsidies besides?

If they paid zero income tax, it's because they had no taxable income. Not sure what part of zero taxable income is confusing you.

You mean no taxable income after taking advantage of every loophole that corporate lobbyists can provide.

So you corporations should pay taxes on revenue even if they lost money? Or are you saying we should have no "other" types of exemptions whatsoever in our tax systems, for example no personal exemptions, no home mortgage interest deduction, no state income, sales, and property tax exemptions, etc.?

Why should a corporation pay a tax that they don't have to pay? Is it your practice to donate money to the federal government?

No, I'm saying corporations don't pay their fair share of the tax burden. The average individual taxpayer pays a far higher real tax rate. I'm sure that works out well for the primary share holders.

Define fair share, and define real tax rate. I don't know what those terms mean. Corporations are not people themselves, they are groups of people. The individuals in said groups pay taxes as individual tax payers. Thus you just said groups of individuals are not paying their fair share of taxes as individuals are paying. Thus your position is nonsensical. You appear to be saying that people involved with corporations should have to pay their individual income taxes twice, once as a part of a group then again as an individual.

The average individual tax payer is paying ZERO in FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. So I have no idea why you think zero is greater than zero. Your concept of zero is confusing me. It must have something to do with this fairness thing you are talking about.

 

[Discombobulated]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

Nah... the north would start a civil war, blame the south, and use their financial position to hire millions of conscripts to kill southerners.

Not much on Civil War history either are you. The conscription rate was 12% for Confederate troops, 6% for Federal troops.

 

[RKMBrown]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

Nah... the north would start a civil war, blame the south, and use their financial position to hire millions of conscripts to kill southerners.

Where would they get the money after supporting all of the nonproducers that flocked north for freebies?

Soros only has so much and China would have all their money invested in the South.

The same place they are getting it from today. Thin air.

 

[RKMBrown]

The whole thing is pointless. You would not have those defense contracts when it was done and over with. For as much trash that is talked by the state governments in regard to the federal government, Texas, and the people living there, are in fact highly dependent on the federal government.

They are dependent on a federal government, but not necessarily this one. Do you actually think that a republic of southern states wouldn't have defense contracts?

Different objectives.

And different methods of accomplishing them.

What if a new republic of southern states declared that they would remain in strict compliance of the US Constitution and eliminate all forms of welfare except for a very short time under very rigid circumstances.
No obamacare, no free school lunches, no minimum wage laws...
They gave people dependent on those programs bus rides north and people of like mind bus rides south.
The producers would flock to Dallas and Mobile and the moochers to Detroit and Boston.

The North's economy would collapse overnight.

Nah... the north would start a civil war, blame the south, and use their financial position to hire millions of conscripts to kill southerners.

Not much on Civil War history either are you. The conscription rate was 12% for Confederate troops, 6% for Federal troops.

Did I say something about the north using a time machine to go back and re-fight our first civil war? I don't see that in my text. Can you point out where I said anything about the last civil war? Yes the north used mostly foreigners to fight the war against the south in the first civil war. You'll note drafts are not new to this country. Take a look at WWI and II.