OK, I'll admit it, our friends on the left are correct; there IS a catch to the Trump tax cuts

[francoHFW]

Well, if the govt takes more from the rich, it means smaller businesses will be more competitive, which means some blue collar workers might get the chance to successfully start their own business. It'll also mean that recessions won't be as strong which means there's more of a chance you'll not end up unemployed for years at a time.

. How does the government taking more from the rich help small businesses start up or survive today ?? Are we using government to pick winners and losers when it decides to shift wealth over to whatever or over to small businesses, and as soon as it does so, and in so many cases these day's, don't such businesses end up failing within 3 years tops ? Then what ?? Oh I know, and then it (the government) decides to fund and promote every kind of other bullcrap known to modern man, but these things end up being huge failures just as well.

Just like the states where state government can come up with multiple schemes or ideas to raise revenue for roads, bridges and there repairs for example, but just check back with those states years later, and the roads and bridges are still failing, and there is never enough money to do the jobs....... So the bullcrap tax schemes continue without any fiscal responsibility to be found anywhere in sight.

I have seen budgets added to or funded for road jobs, but the road crews are then directed to paving back roads way out in the rural & way out of sight, while in the meantime the main roads, and the heavily traveled roads are left in disrepair in order to make claims on and on that more money is needed, and more money is needed.

It never ends, and important progress is minimal at best. Pathetic !!

The biggest way big business wins is each different part of the US competing against every other part. The EU has basically banned this. It's said you can choose a tax rate system and you have to stick to it, otherwise big business will simply play divide and conquer.

Companies like Amazon will literally go around the country and say "who's willing to give us money for setting up shop here?" and they do. The jobs would stay in the US no matter what, however the money goes to Amazon when it shouldn't.

Imagine this.

You run a small business with a profit of $100,000 a year.

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

So your $100,000 drops because you have to drop prices down to the lowest level you can realistically afford to stay in business. This still isn't enough. Half your customers go shop at the large company. This means you're making no profit at all. The city is making less in taxers because you're paying half taxes you were paying before or less, and the other company isn't paying taxes at all.

Along the way other companies fail and yours will too. Meaning the larger company has taken all the customers by the end of the five year period, then renegotiates a nice sweet deal because they can't afford to see this company leave any more because it provides too many jobs.

How does this benefit anyone other than the rich?

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

Wait one minute.....are you saying lower taxes allow businesses to lower their prices?

Don't tell the liberals....

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business but don't see why the big tax cuts go to the rich and giant corporations that are bloated beyond all recognition by lack of taxes.

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business

That's so good to hear.
When was the last time Dems gave the middle class and small business a tax cut?

Obama gave the middle class a payroll tax cut in 2009 just as high a percentage as Trump's tax cuts and nothing for the bloated lying cheating GOP rich...

 

[bgrouse]

I don't need to ask you to do that, I already see you're wrong. The loss of real estate tax deductions are for personal real estate, not for business real estate. You shouldn't discuss things you don't understand.

no sir, you are the one that does not understand

it's been widely reported and acknowledged, even by news outlets that tend to lean left, that this tax bill increases the overall federal tax burden for many of the wealthiest landowners

the little guy gets a break

the super wealthy with expensive property that live off of passive income wind up paying more

sorry this upsets you...

It's right in the tax bill, you idiot.

SEC. 11042. LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL, ETC. TAXES.

(a) In General.—Subsection (b) of section 164 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(B) the aggregate amount of taxes taken into account under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) and paragraph (5) of this subsection for any taxable year shall not exceed $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).

If you click on the link of section 164, it leads you to this:

(1) Personal property taxes
The term "personal property tax" means an ad valorem tax which is imposed on an annual basis in respect of personal property.

(2) State or local taxes
A State or local tax includes only a tax imposed by a State, a possession of the United States, or a political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or by the District of Columbia.

(3) Foreign taxes
A foreign tax includes only a tax imposed by the authority of a foreign country.

(5) General sales taxes

As you can see, the only section being limited to $10,000 that has to do with property taxes is explicitly listed as PERSONAL property taxes and has nothing to do with land investors who do it as a business, especially through business entities.

it also affects vacation (or second) homes; which you only have to use 14 days a year

eliminating state & local taxes as a deductions, especially property taxes increases the tax burden for the really wealthy, the loss of property tax deductions will raise their overall tax burden

calling me an idiot doesn't change this

yes, you are correct that it does not include investment properties; and I did get that part wrong

good catch, I have to give you that one

By my rough calculations, a person making $10,000,000 a year in taxable income will save a little under $300,000 in tax under the new tax rules from the brackets. Sorry, I just don't see too many rich people losing out because of real estate taxes.

Sorry GROUSE, it ain't that easy.

I didn't say it was. I only calculated the savings from the tax brackets.

By my rough calculations, a person making $10,000,000 a year in taxable income will save a little under $300,000 in tax under the new tax rules from the brackets.

if they made $10mil they would have paid state income tax 13.3% in CA for that income ($1.33mil) only $10K is deductible.

...if they live in CA or work there. I was arguing against the other poster's claim that commercial real estate owners would get hit by the new tax rules due to real estate tax deduction changes. That's simply not true, but I never said it was impossible for some rich people in particular circumstances to lose out due to the law changes.

If they made that much they live in big house, big tax bill...... $100K also now not deductible.

Mortgage interest capped at $750K not much house in CA. They lose there also

Don't make me work this hard on 7" tablet!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. How does the government taking more from the rich help small businesses start up or survive today ?? Are we using government to pick winners and losers when it decides to shift wealth over to whatever or over to small businesses, and as soon as it does so, and in so many cases these day's, don't such businesses end up failing within 3 years tops ? Then what ?? Oh I know, and then it (the government) decides to fund and promote every kind of other bullcrap known to modern man, but these things end up being huge failures just as well.

Just like the states where state government can come up with multiple schemes or ideas to raise revenue for roads, bridges and there repairs for example, but just check back with those states years later, and the roads and bridges are still failing, and there is never enough money to do the jobs....... So the bullcrap tax schemes continue without any fiscal responsibility to be found anywhere in sight.

I have seen budgets added to or funded for road jobs, but the road crews are then directed to paving back roads way out in the rural & way out of sight, while in the meantime the main roads, and the heavily traveled roads are left in disrepair in order to make claims on and on that more money is needed, and more money is needed.

It never ends, and important progress is minimal at best. Pathetic !!

The biggest way big business wins is each different part of the US competing against every other part. The EU has basically banned this. It's said you can choose a tax rate system and you have to stick to it, otherwise big business will simply play divide and conquer.

Companies like Amazon will literally go around the country and say "who's willing to give us money for setting up shop here?" and they do. The jobs would stay in the US no matter what, however the money goes to Amazon when it shouldn't.

Imagine this.

You run a small business with a profit of $100,000 a year.

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

So your $100,000 drops because you have to drop prices down to the lowest level you can realistically afford to stay in business. This still isn't enough. Half your customers go shop at the large company. This means you're making no profit at all. The city is making less in taxers because you're paying half taxes you were paying before or less, and the other company isn't paying taxes at all.

Along the way other companies fail and yours will too. Meaning the larger company has taken all the customers by the end of the five year period, then renegotiates a nice sweet deal because they can't afford to see this company leave any more because it provides too many jobs.

How does this benefit anyone other than the rich?

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

Wait one minute.....are you saying lower taxes allow businesses to lower their prices?

Don't tell the liberals....

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business but don't see why the big tax cuts go to the rich and giant corporations that are bloated beyond all recognition by lack of taxes.

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business

That's so good to hear.
When was the last time Dems gave the middle class and small business a tax cut?

Obama gave the middle class a payroll tax cut in 2009 just as high a percentage as Trump's tax cuts and nothing for the bloated lying cheating GOP rich...

Obama gave the middle class a payroll tax cut in 2009 just as high a percentage as Trump's tax cuts

His temporary cut is just as high as Trump's? Prove it.

 

[francoHFW]

The biggest way big business wins is each different part of the US competing against every other part. The EU has basically banned this. It's said you can choose a tax rate system and you have to stick to it, otherwise big business will simply play divide and conquer.

Companies like Amazon will literally go around the country and say "who's willing to give us money for setting up shop here?" and they do. The jobs would stay in the US no matter what, however the money goes to Amazon when it shouldn't.

Imagine this.

You run a small business with a profit of $100,000 a year.

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

So your $100,000 drops because you have to drop prices down to the lowest level you can realistically afford to stay in business. This still isn't enough. Half your customers go shop at the large company. This means you're making no profit at all. The city is making less in taxers because you're paying half taxes you were paying before or less, and the other company isn't paying taxes at all.

Along the way other companies fail and yours will too. Meaning the larger company has taken all the customers by the end of the five year period, then renegotiates a nice sweet deal because they can't afford to see this company leave any more because it provides too many jobs.

How does this benefit anyone other than the rich?

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

Wait one minute.....are you saying lower taxes allow businesses to lower their prices?

Don't tell the liberals....

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business but don't see why the big tax cuts go to the rich and giant corporations that are bloated beyond all recognition by lack of taxes.

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business

That's so good to hear.
When was the last time Dems gave the middle class and small business a tax cut?

Obama gave the middle class a payroll tax cut in 2009 just as high a percentage as Trump's tax cuts and nothing for the bloated lying cheating GOP rich...

Obama gave the middle class a payroll tax cut in 2009 just as high a percentage as Trump's tax cuts

His temporary cut is just as high as Trump's? Prove it.

His cut was 2% right same as trumps. of course under Trump's the rich get 4%...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

Wait one minute.....are you saying lower taxes allow businesses to lower their prices?

Don't tell the liberals....

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business but don't see why the big tax cuts go to the rich and giant corporations that are bloated beyond all recognition by lack of taxes.

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business

That's so good to hear.
When was the last time Dems gave the middle class and small business a tax cut?

Obama gave the middle class a payroll tax cut in 2009 just as high a percentage as Trump's tax cuts and nothing for the bloated lying cheating GOP rich...

Obama gave the middle class a payroll tax cut in 2009 just as high a percentage as Trump's tax cuts

His temporary cut is just as high as Trump's? Prove it.

His cut was 2% right same as trumps. of course under Trump's the rich get 4%...

His cut was 2% right same as trumps.

His cut was temporary....and reduced your SS benefit.

 

[GWV5903]

You would be taxed once on it when you earn it.

I'll say it another way for you and I'll assume you've never had to pay taxes in regards to this. It only deserves to be taxed once. I earned it and if it's $10 or $10,000,000 it should be taxed the same, don't tell me it's a progressive tax. The Federal Government runs our budgets like a drunk sailor in a whore house, I'm sick and tired of feeding the drunk sailor.

Your kid would be taxed once when he receives it.

No kidding, that's the issue, no need to be redundant, but you deserve it, it's called stealing...

Neither one person would be taxed "multiply times" on the inheritance.

The money would be, again you probably haven't paid it...

Now you're moving the goal posts. You initially said "The Federal Government, State or Local has no business taxing an individual multiply times." Now you don't want the money to be taxed multiple times? So you think the government can only tax new dollar bills it prints? Should they write down the serial number of every dollar they tax? Holy crap you're an idiot!

So you drop down to the insults when you can’t find a way out, this is why you’ll never deal with this issue, your jealousy is bright green...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It has nothing to do with government.

Larger businesses can out price smaller businesses because they buy products in larger quantities. The more you buy, the cheaper you can get it.

Jim at Jim's hardware store sells about 30 screwdrivers a week. Home Depot sells 30,000 screwdrivers a week because they buy in quantity, ship those screwdrivers to their warehouses, and then distributes them to all their outlets. Therefore you can buy your screwdriver at Jim's for $8.50, or get the same tool at Home Depot for $6.50.

Yes, they can do that. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with the government.

For ****'s sake Ray, your ability to ignore the blatantly obvious is excruciating.

If a large company gets massive tax breaks and the smaller companies don't, which is EXACTLY what is happening in the US, then their ability to lower prices and be more competitive is there.

Don't you agree? Or is your partisan nonsense going to blur your vision again?

Look....... I work for a small company of less than a dozen employees including myself. I talk with my employer all the time about business. He told me he had all kinds of tax breaks for the first seven years he had his business. There is no giving tax breaks to larger businesses than smaller businesses. If anything, just the opposite. Our company competes with the big boys every single day, and we are doing just fine.

Since I work with industry every single day, I'm quite aware of the advantages larger businesses have over smaller ones. It has nothing to do with government.

As a musician, I remember the days of big music stores. They were locally owned and built up to their size. But along came places like Guitar Centers and put them out of business. Why? Because Guitar Centers open up their outlets with over a million dollars in musical instruments. No local dealer could compete with them. Think of that. Over a million dollars of musical instruments under one roof! Because of their ability to purchase high quality instruments in quantity, they were able to out price every single local store in the Cleveland area and I'm sure across most of the country.

No giving tax breaks to larger businesses? Where the hell have you been for the last, I don't know, 30 years?

Billions in tax breaks offered to Amazon for second headquarters

"
Billions in tax breaks offered to Amazon for second headquarters"

Didn't happen huh? Your boss didn't tell you about it, so you don't know about it, so it simply didn't happen.

Are you talking about local tax breaks or federal? I was talking about federal. There are no controls over what a state or city offers in tax breaks. It's all fair game and fair competition. In fact, our neighboring suburb just got an Amazon contract. There is another one about 20 miles from here as well.

Tax abatements are used to attract businesses. And who is competing with Amazon anyway? It doesn't matter if there is an Amazon next door to you or 500 miles away. Any internet business is killing small and large brick and mortar stores alike.

Oh, oh, oh, right, I forgot you were talking only about federal because.... well because you didn't ******* mention that. How silly of me to forget.

I'm talking about TAXES here Ray. I know you did it last time with the whole "rich people pay loads of INCOME TAX (and let's ignore all the other taxes)."

We're talking about ALL TAXES that a company has to pay. Why? Because that's the ONLY THING that makes sense when discussing how businesses are doing.

Excuse me. I just assumed you were talking about federal taxes since that is the theme of this thread.

As for local taxes, there is nothing anybody can do about that because small businesses don't bring in the tax revenue that large businesses bring in. We are a nation of states--not a nation of the federal government. Therefore states are free to do as they wish without interference or control by the feds.

If your state is giving breaks to big businesses to lure them in, then vote those representatives out. Tell them you don't want new businesses in your state. Tell them that you want the state to try and survive on mom and pop shop taxes and not companies that hire thousands of citizens for jobs.

Our state will be glad to take any new businesses you don't want. In fact we will welcome them with open arms. We will give them tax abatements, pave old roads, make new roads if need be. So send those businesses our way and you can remain in your one horse town.

 

[beagle9]

Depends what fair is. Care to define it?

Why you think it's fair that rich pay higher taxes than you do?

And yes, all the laws should effect everyone equally. If I get tax break, rich should get the tax break too.

Oh ? The disparity between rich and middle class isn't enough for you now?? Growing larger the past 30 or so years and STILL you're not satisfied?? Trump Corker etc etc etc laughing all the way to the bank and the middle gets crumbs ? And we should bow down and kiss trumps ring?

So if the government takes more from the rich, how does that help me or any other blue collar worker?

Well, if the govt takes more from the rich, it means smaller businesses will be more competitive, which means some blue collar workers might get the chance to successfully start their own business. It'll also mean that recessions won't be as strong which means there's more of a chance you'll not end up unemployed for years at a time.

. How does the government taking more from the rich help small businesses start up or survive today ?? Are we using government to pick winners and losers when it decides to shift wealth over to whatever or over to small businesses, and as soon as it does so, and in so many cases these day's, don't such businesses end up failing within 3 years tops ? Then what ?? Oh I know, and then it (the government) decides to fund and promote every kind of other bullcrap known to modern man, but these things end up being huge failures just as well.

Just like the states where state government can come up with multiple schemes or ideas to raise revenue for roads, bridges and there repairs for example, but just check back with those states years later, and the roads and bridges are still failing, and there is never enough money to do the jobs....... So the bullcrap tax schemes continue without any fiscal responsibility to be found anywhere in sight.

I have seen budgets added to or funded for road jobs, but the road crews are then directed to paving back roads way out in the rural & way out of sight, while in the meantime the main roads, and the heavily traveled roads are left in disrepair in order to make claims on and on that more money is needed, and more money is needed.

It never ends, and important progress is minimal at best. Pathetic !!

The biggest way big business wins is each different part of the US competing against every other part. The EU has basically banned this. It's said you can choose a tax rate system and you have to stick to it, otherwise big business will simply play divide and conquer.

Companies like Amazon will literally go around the country and say "who's willing to give us money for setting up shop here?" and they do. The jobs would stay in the US no matter what, however the money goes to Amazon when it shouldn't.

Imagine this.

You run a small business with a profit of $100,000 a year.

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

So your $100,000 drops because you have to drop prices down to the lowest level you can realistically afford to stay in business. This still isn't enough. Half your customers go shop at the large company. This means you're making no profit at all. The city is making less in taxers because you're paying half taxes you were paying before or less, and the other company isn't paying taxes at all.

Along the way other companies fail and yours will too. Meaning the larger company has taken all the customers by the end of the five year period, then renegotiates a nice sweet deal because they can't afford to see this company leave any more because it provides too many jobs.

How does this benefit anyone other than the rich?

. Got it, but I thought everyone was for all of this changing of the business landscapes, and for all of this modernization & automization of the manufacturing world, and the business world so on and so forth ??

The thing is that we as a nation, as a people, must always look ahead and at the bigger picture involved, and we must try to keep a healthy balance in it all. If the technology of some things are to soon, then to just carelessly implement such things without thought of can be a bad thing... Then the results could be catastrophic as we have seen for many.

In order to keep a healthy balance and to keep society tuning along without to much fall out, then we must do trials on technology in smaller doses, then analyze the data, understand the meaning of it all on a more broad scale, consider the fall out, and either green light it or red light it yet all depending on the nation's current set up, population, education etc.

Nothing wrong with moving ahead, but to do it responsibly, and without as much backlash as possible.

For example - There are some industries that could still be working American's by the thousands, but due to the changes in industry standards, and the choosing of methods and technologies in which they attempt to get something done faster, and cheaper but not safer or better in a quality way, has since caused massive lay offs, rivers poisoned, fish contamination, ground water contamination, structural realignments, downsizing, and just general greed to erupt as a result of it all.

The disrespect gained is also a part of it all as well in the fall out, where as if you find that you can begin to treat the masses in a very disrespectful way, then the gap widens even more and more between workers and Company, reps and constituents so on and so forth.

Management begins to take on the attitude that the workers are idiot's, and because they were idiot's in managements minds, then that made the managers safe in their jobs is what they think. I have actually witnessed management (as an employee left the room), call that employee a complete dumb ace. Not because the employee couldn't do the task at hand or even because the employee may have refused to do his or her job in which didn't happen, but rather it was because they were honest employees who weren't down with being a corrupt person like the manager or management team was. Sad situation. The manager was so dumb, that they forgot who was standing in the room when did what they did. LOL.

 

[beagle9]

. How does the government taking more from the rich help small businesses start up or survive today ?? Are we using government to pick winners and losers when it decides to shift wealth over to whatever or over to small businesses, and as soon as it does so, and in so many cases these day's, don't such businesses end up failing within 3 years tops ? Then what ?? Oh I know, and then it (the government) decides to fund and promote every kind of other bullcrap known to modern man, but these things end up being huge failures just as well.

Just like the states where state government can come up with multiple schemes or ideas to raise revenue for roads, bridges and there repairs for example, but just check back with those states years later, and the roads and bridges are still failing, and there is never enough money to do the jobs....... So the bullcrap tax schemes continue without any fiscal responsibility to be found anywhere in sight.

I have seen budgets added to or funded for road jobs, but the road crews are then directed to paving back roads way out in the rural & way out of sight, while in the meantime the main roads, and the heavily traveled roads are left in disrepair in order to make claims on and on that more money is needed, and more money is needed.

It never ends, and important progress is minimal at best. Pathetic !!

The biggest way big business wins is each different part of the US competing against every other part. The EU has basically banned this. It's said you can choose a tax rate system and you have to stick to it, otherwise big business will simply play divide and conquer.

Companies like Amazon will literally go around the country and say "who's willing to give us money for setting up shop here?" and they do. The jobs would stay in the US no matter what, however the money goes to Amazon when it shouldn't.

Imagine this.

You run a small business with a profit of $100,000 a year.

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

So your $100,000 drops because you have to drop prices down to the lowest level you can realistically afford to stay in business. This still isn't enough. Half your customers go shop at the large company. This means you're making no profit at all. The city is making less in taxers because you're paying half taxes you were paying before or less, and the other company isn't paying taxes at all.

Along the way other companies fail and yours will too. Meaning the larger company has taken all the customers by the end of the five year period, then renegotiates a nice sweet deal because they can't afford to see this company leave any more because it provides too many jobs.

How does this benefit anyone other than the rich?

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

Wait one minute.....are you saying lower taxes allow businesses to lower their prices?

Don't tell the liberals....

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business but don't see why the big tax cuts go to the rich and giant corporations that are bloated beyond all recognition by lack of taxes.

Liberals are highly in favor of helping the middle class and small business

That's so good to hear.
When was the last time Dems gave the middle class and small business a tax cut?

Obama gave the middle class a payroll tax cut in 2009 just as high a percentage as Trump's tax cuts and nothing for the bloated lying cheating GOP rich...

. Ok, so what was the result of that payroll tax cut ?? Did the citizens run out and start a business, create a college fund for their kids, hire a landscaper, get some repairs done on the house, buy a better car or what ? How many jobs did it create ? Did it just go POOF ?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, they can do that. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with the government.

For ****'s sake Ray, your ability to ignore the blatantly obvious is excruciating.

If a large company gets massive tax breaks and the smaller companies don't, which is EXACTLY what is happening in the US, then their ability to lower prices and be more competitive is there.

Don't you agree? Or is your partisan nonsense going to blur your vision again?

Look....... I work for a small company of less than a dozen employees including myself. I talk with my employer all the time about business. He told me he had all kinds of tax breaks for the first seven years he had his business. There is no giving tax breaks to larger businesses than smaller businesses. If anything, just the opposite. Our company competes with the big boys every single day, and we are doing just fine.

Since I work with industry every single day, I'm quite aware of the advantages larger businesses have over smaller ones. It has nothing to do with government.

As a musician, I remember the days of big music stores. They were locally owned and built up to their size. But along came places like Guitar Centers and put them out of business. Why? Because Guitar Centers open up their outlets with over a million dollars in musical instruments. No local dealer could compete with them. Think of that. Over a million dollars of musical instruments under one roof! Because of their ability to purchase high quality instruments in quantity, they were able to out price every single local store in the Cleveland area and I'm sure across most of the country.

No giving tax breaks to larger businesses? Where the hell have you been for the last, I don't know, 30 years?

Billions in tax breaks offered to Amazon for second headquarters

"
Billions in tax breaks offered to Amazon for second headquarters"

Didn't happen huh? Your boss didn't tell you about it, so you don't know about it, so it simply didn't happen.

Are you talking about local tax breaks or federal? I was talking about federal. There are no controls over what a state or city offers in tax breaks. It's all fair game and fair competition. In fact, our neighboring suburb just got an Amazon contract. There is another one about 20 miles from here as well.

Tax abatements are used to attract businesses. And who is competing with Amazon anyway? It doesn't matter if there is an Amazon next door to you or 500 miles away. Any internet business is killing small and large brick and mortar stores alike.

Oh, oh, oh, right, I forgot you were talking only about federal because.... well because you didn't ******* mention that. How silly of me to forget.

I'm talking about TAXES here Ray. I know you did it last time with the whole "rich people pay loads of INCOME TAX (and let's ignore all the other taxes)."

We're talking about ALL TAXES that a company has to pay. Why? Because that's the ONLY THING that makes sense when discussing how businesses are doing.

Excuse me. I just assumed you were talking about federal taxes since that is the theme of this thread.

As for local taxes, there is nothing anybody can do about that because small businesses don't bring in the tax revenue that large businesses bring in. We are a nation of states--not a nation of the federal government. Therefore states are free to do as they wish without interference or control by the feds.

If your state is giving breaks to big businesses to lure them in, then vote those representatives out. Tell them you don't want new businesses in your state. Tell them that you want the state to try and survive on mom and pop shop taxes and not companies that hire thousands of citizens for jobs.

Our state will be glad to take any new businesses you don't want. In fact we will welcome them with open arms. We will give them tax abatements, pave old roads, make new roads if need be. So send those businesses our way and you can remain in your one horse town.

No, small businesses don't bring in the tax that large businesses bring in. But that's not the point. The point is that if you have 10 small companies, they'll bring in more tax than one large corporation, even when the 10 combined have the same income as the one large corporation.

The large corporations are playing the system and screwing everyone over. It's pretty clear and it's pretty simple.

The EU has banned such a thing from happening because they know just how bad it is.

The problem is Ray, if the representatives are not bringing the jobs in, then people won't vote them in. This is the problem, the system encourages corruption. Until the system changes, then the corruption will go on.

Do you understand why I support a change in the system.

You said yourself "choice is freedom" and the political system doesn't offer choice. You have reps and dems. If the reps and dems don't pay the bribes, then what? Why should bribery and corruption be LEGITIMIZED?

That's the whole point, one state will be happy to bribe a company if another state isn't willing to bribe that company.

So you get Amazon, or Google or whoever else in your state, you don't earn money from them but you get jobs. The jobs look good for the state govt and the politicians and their careers go higher BY SPENDING YOUR MONEY so rich people don't pay taxes.

What would be ideal would be that a state or city can set taxes at a certain rate and everyone pays those taxes fairly. This is what the EU has done, and it's neutralized the power of large corporations, like Google, to buy the govt. This is exactly what happened in Ireland, it's it benefits the EU. The US is just a ******* whore selling its ass to the highest bidder.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh ? The disparity between rich and middle class isn't enough for you now?? Growing larger the past 30 or so years and STILL you're not satisfied?? Trump Corker etc etc etc laughing all the way to the bank and the middle gets crumbs ? And we should bow down and kiss trumps ring?

So if the government takes more from the rich, how does that help me or any other blue collar worker?

Well, if the govt takes more from the rich, it means smaller businesses will be more competitive, which means some blue collar workers might get the chance to successfully start their own business. It'll also mean that recessions won't be as strong which means there's more of a chance you'll not end up unemployed for years at a time.

. How does the government taking more from the rich help small businesses start up or survive today ?? Are we using government to pick winners and losers when it decides to shift wealth over to whatever or over to small businesses, and as soon as it does so, and in so many cases these day's, don't such businesses end up failing within 3 years tops ? Then what ?? Oh I know, and then it (the government) decides to fund and promote every kind of other bullcrap known to modern man, but these things end up being huge failures just as well.

Just like the states where state government can come up with multiple schemes or ideas to raise revenue for roads, bridges and there repairs for example, but just check back with those states years later, and the roads and bridges are still failing, and there is never enough money to do the jobs....... So the bullcrap tax schemes continue without any fiscal responsibility to be found anywhere in sight.

I have seen budgets added to or funded for road jobs, but the road crews are then directed to paving back roads way out in the rural & way out of sight, while in the meantime the main roads, and the heavily traveled roads are left in disrepair in order to make claims on and on that more money is needed, and more money is needed.

It never ends, and important progress is minimal at best. Pathetic !!

The biggest way big business wins is each different part of the US competing against every other part. The EU has basically banned this. It's said you can choose a tax rate system and you have to stick to it, otherwise big business will simply play divide and conquer.

Companies like Amazon will literally go around the country and say "who's willing to give us money for setting up shop here?" and they do. The jobs would stay in the US no matter what, however the money goes to Amazon when it shouldn't.

Imagine this.

You run a small business with a profit of $100,000 a year.

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

So your $100,000 drops because you have to drop prices down to the lowest level you can realistically afford to stay in business. This still isn't enough. Half your customers go shop at the large company. This means you're making no profit at all. The city is making less in taxers because you're paying half taxes you were paying before or less, and the other company isn't paying taxes at all.

Along the way other companies fail and yours will too. Meaning the larger company has taken all the customers by the end of the five year period, then renegotiates a nice sweet deal because they can't afford to see this company leave any more because it provides too many jobs.

How does this benefit anyone other than the rich?

. Got it, but I thought everyone was for all of this changing of the business landscapes, and for all of this modernization & automization of the manufacturing world, and the business world so on and so forth ??

The thing is that we as a nation, as a people, must always look ahead and at the bigger picture involved, and we must try to keep a healthy balance in it all. If the technology of some things are to soon, then to just carelessly implement such things without thought of can be a bad thing... Then the results could be catastrophic as we have seen for many.

In order to keep a healthy balance and to keep society tuning along without to much fall out, then we must do trials on technology in smaller doses, then analyze the data, understand the meaning of it all on a more broad scale, consider the fall out, and either green light it or red light it yet all depending on the nation's current set up, population, education etc.

Nothing wrong with moving ahead, but to do it responsibly, and without as much backlash as possible.

For example - There are some industries that could still be working American's by the thousands, but due to the changes in industry standards, and the choosing of methods and technologies in which they attempt to get something done faster, and cheaper but not safer or better in a quality way, has since caused massive lay offs, rivers poisoned, fish contamination, ground water contamination, structural realignments, downsizing, and just general greed to erupt as a result of it all.

The disrespect gained is also a part of it all as well in the fall out, where as if you find that you can begin to treat the masses in a very disrespectful way, then the gap widens even more and more between workers and Company, reps and constituents so on and so forth.

Management begins to take on the attitude that the workers are idiot's, and because they were idiot's in managements minds, then that made the managers safe in their jobs is what they think. I have actually witnessed management (as an employee left the room), call that employee a complete dumb ace. Not because the employee couldn't do the task at hand or even because the employee may have refused to do his or her job in which didn't happen, but rather it was because they were honest employees who weren't down with being a corrupt person like the manager or management team was. Sad situation. The manager was so dumb, that they forgot who was standing in the room when did what they did. LOL.

Moving ahead isn't a problem. Moving ahead while not training the people to do those jobs of the future, now there's a problem.

 

[eddiew37]

Depends what fair is. Care to define it?

Why you think it's fair that rich pay higher taxes than you do?

And yes, all the laws should effect everyone equally. If I get tax break, rich should get the tax break too.

Oh ? The disparity between rich and middle class isn't enough for you now?? Growing larger the past 30 or so years and STILL you're not satisfied?? Trump Corker etc etc etc laughing all the way to the bank and the middle gets crumbs ? And we should bow down and kiss trumps ring?

So if the government takes more from the rich, how does that help me or any other blue collar worker?

Well, if the govt takes more from the rich, it means smaller businesses will be more competitive, which means some blue collar workers might get the chance to successfully start their own business. It'll also mean that recessions won't be as strong which means there's more of a chance you'll not end up unemployed for years at a time.

. How does the government taking more from the rich help small businesses start up or survive today ?? Are we using government to pick winners and losers when it decides to shift wealth over to whatever or over to small businesses, and as soon as it does so, and in so many cases these day's, don't such businesses end up failing within 3 years tops ? Then what ?? Oh I know, and then it (the government) decides to fund and promote every kind of other bullcrap known to modern man, but these things end up being huge failures just as well.

Just like the states where state government can come up with multiple schemes or ideas to raise revenue for roads, bridges and there repairs for example, but just check back with those states years later, and the roads and bridges are still failing, and there is never enough money to do the jobs....... So the bullcrap tax schemes continue without any fiscal responsibility to be found anywhere in sight.

I have seen budgets added to or funded for road jobs, but the road crews are then directed to paving back roads way out in the rural & way out of sight, while in the meantime the main roads, and the heavily traveled roads are left in disrepair in order to make claims on and on that more money is needed, and more money is needed.

It never ends, and important progress is minimal at best. Pathetic !!

The biggest way big business wins is each different part of the US competing against every other part. The EU has basically banned this. It's said you can choose a tax rate system and you have to stick to it, otherwise big business will simply play divide and conquer.

Companies like Amazon will literally go around the country and say "who's willing to give us money for setting up shop here?" and they do. The jobs would stay in the US no matter what, however the money goes to Amazon when it shouldn't.

Imagine this.

You run a small business with a profit of $100,000 a year.

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

So your $100,000 drops because you have to drop prices down to the lowest level you can realistically afford to stay in business. This still isn't enough. Half your customers go shop at the large company. This means you're making no profit at all. The city is making less in taxers because you're paying half taxes you were paying before or less, and the other company isn't paying taxes at all.

Along the way other companies fail and yours will too. Meaning the larger company has taken all the customers by the end of the five year period, then renegotiates a nice sweet deal because they can't afford to see this company leave any more because it provides too many jobs.

How does this benefit anyone other than the rich?

Take WALMART for example They come to town businesses close

 

[Ame®icano]

If your father hands you $10,000 in cash, would you report it to the government as income? I didn't think so.

What kind of American are you that thinks the government is more deserving of ones wealth after he or she dies than the family? You ask what the kids did to earn that money, and I ask you what government did to earn that money?

What exchanges happen within the family are family matters--not government matters. Perhaps you want government sitting at your dinner table, and when you pass the biscuits to your daughter, government is there to take their few biscuits first before they pass the plate to your daughter. It's ridiculous.

People work hard to try and make their children's life better than theirs. They didn't go to work every day, take risks, only to hand their hard work over to government.

And learn how to read. The definition is usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. I even highlighted the important part of the definition.

Do you know what usually means? It means it's usually from capital or labor, but can be from other things. The bottom line is income is income. Inheritance is income that is currently excused from taxation. If I were a rich deadbeat, of course I'd report it. The risk is too great and I'd still be a millionaire deadbeat afterwards, just with a few less million. I didn't have to work for any of it anyway. You can whine all you want to protect your rich deadbeat heroes, but you're basically a clown grasping at straws, especially with your "Do you understand the term INCOME TAX? It means tax on income." crap and your inability to read and comprehend a basic English sentence.

Governments will always control the money that THEY create and enforce. If you think it's none of their business, then the rich should be barred from using the government for enforcing their property rights. So if someone kills them to steal their money, the government should just ignore them. After all, you say it's none of the government's business. That wasn't Trump's tune when he was getting bankruptcy protection from the government!

I’m getting tired of your lies, you have proof that those that inherit money as deadbeats? Of course you don’t, it is because you are dishonest and are just trolling along.

Unless you have proof positive, you are nothing but a bigot who is jealous and envious of what others have. You opinion is worthless.

Let me get this straight. You want me to prove that some of the people who inherit money are deadbeats?

Yep, prove it, I know people that have inherited money and worked just as hard as their parents, so put up or shut up, because you are acting like a loser that is bitter over their lot in life.

Take Trump for example. He got a big inheritance and still filed for bankruptcy protection. He's a deadbeat borrower. Won't pay his bills.

If you only knew how idiotic you sound.

Can you explain what's connection between his inheritance and bankruptcies?

 

[Ame®icano]

State and local taxes and fees are higher than they would be without the Republicans cutting federal aid to the states so they can give the rich a tax break. Everywhere.

Who should, in your own opinion, get the tax breaks and why?

 

[Papageorgio]

Do you know what usually means? It means it's usually from capital or labor, but can be from other things. The bottom line is income is income. Inheritance is income that is currently excused from taxation. If I were a rich deadbeat, of course I'd report it. The risk is too great and I'd still be a millionaire deadbeat afterwards, just with a few less million. I didn't have to work for any of it anyway. You can whine all you want to protect your rich deadbeat heroes, but you're basically a clown grasping at straws, especially with your "Do you understand the term INCOME TAX? It means tax on income." crap and your inability to read and comprehend a basic English sentence.

Governments will always control the money that THEY create and enforce. If you think it's none of their business, then the rich should be barred from using the government for enforcing their property rights. So if someone kills them to steal their money, the government should just ignore them. After all, you say it's none of the government's business. That wasn't Trump's tune when he was getting bankruptcy protection from the government!

I’m getting tired of your lies, you have proof that those that inherit money as deadbeats? Of course you don’t, it is because you are dishonest and are just trolling along.

Unless you have proof positive, you are nothing but a bigot who is jealous and envious of what others have. You opinion is worthless.

Let me get this straight. You want me to prove that some of the people who inherit money are deadbeats?

Yep, prove it, I know people that have inherited money and worked just as hard as their parents, so put up or shut up, because you are acting like a loser that is bitter over their lot in life.

Take Trump for example. He got a big inheritance and still filed for bankruptcy protection. He's a deadbeat borrower. Won't pay his bills.

If you only knew how idiotic you sound.

Can you explain what's connection between his inheritance and bankruptcies?

You really don't expect an honest answer from him, do you? The stuff that the left makes up is quite funny.

 

[Ame®icano]

Sure, every penny he got was inherited from his father! That is except for the part taken by the federal government and the state of NY. That is what you are claiming, and you would be WRONG!

I said Trump got rich via inheritance / getting money from his parents.

Your delusions, on the other hand, are your delusions and your delusions alone.

That is a bald-faced lie, and you know it, or else you would not be arguing so hard to justify your lie!

Quit pussyfooting and dodging, you cowardly turd! Put up or shut up.

What's a lie?

Trump didn't inherit or otherwise receive any considerable amount of money from his parents? Is that what you're saying? This requires a "yes" or "no" answer.

You first. Answer the question.

He got a loan. He has other brothers and sisters you know. They would have shared in their inheritance. How many of them became billionaires?

And he paid way too much for his loans and had to go bankrupt. Then he became a reality TV star so I guess you dupes think you know him or something LOL...

You keep screaming that he bankrupted. Several of his businesses did, rest of them thrived. Enough to make him successful businessmen overall. You do know what bankruptcy protection means, do ya?

Is GM successful business? They bankrupted after being infused with taxpayers cash, they eliminated unprofitable company brands and survived. Is Chrysler successful business? The same story as with GM, except have one more bankruptcy and they got bought out three times.

 

[beagle9]

Oh ? The disparity between rich and middle class isn't enough for you now?? Growing larger the past 30 or so years and STILL you're not satisfied?? Trump Corker etc etc etc laughing all the way to the bank and the middle gets crumbs ? And we should bow down and kiss trumps ring?

So if the government takes more from the rich, how does that help me or any other blue collar worker?

Well, if the govt takes more from the rich, it means smaller businesses will be more competitive, which means some blue collar workers might get the chance to successfully start their own business. It'll also mean that recessions won't be as strong which means there's more of a chance you'll not end up unemployed for years at a time.

. How does the government taking more from the rich help small businesses start up or survive today ?? Are we using government to pick winners and losers when it decides to shift wealth over to whatever or over to small businesses, and as soon as it does so, and in so many cases these day's, don't such businesses end up failing within 3 years tops ? Then what ?? Oh I know, and then it (the government) decides to fund and promote every kind of other bullcrap known to modern man, but these things end up being huge failures just as well.

Just like the states where state government can come up with multiple schemes or ideas to raise revenue for roads, bridges and there repairs for example, but just check back with those states years later, and the roads and bridges are still failing, and there is never enough money to do the jobs....... So the bullcrap tax schemes continue without any fiscal responsibility to be found anywhere in sight.

I have seen budgets added to or funded for road jobs, but the road crews are then directed to paving back roads way out in the rural & way out of sight, while in the meantime the main roads, and the heavily traveled roads are left in disrepair in order to make claims on and on that more money is needed, and more money is needed.

It never ends, and important progress is minimal at best. Pathetic !!

The biggest way big business wins is each different part of the US competing against every other part. The EU has basically banned this. It's said you can choose a tax rate system and you have to stick to it, otherwise big business will simply play divide and conquer.

Companies like Amazon will literally go around the country and say "who's willing to give us money for setting up shop here?" and they do. The jobs would stay in the US no matter what, however the money goes to Amazon when it shouldn't.

Imagine this.

You run a small business with a profit of $100,000 a year.

Then big business arrives in town, and you have competition. But the big business arrives without having to pay tax for five years. Their prices are lower than yours because they're not paying tax.

So your $100,000 drops because you have to drop prices down to the lowest level you can realistically afford to stay in business. This still isn't enough. Half your customers go shop at the large company. This means you're making no profit at all. The city is making less in taxers because you're paying half taxes you were paying before or less, and the other company isn't paying taxes at all.

Along the way other companies fail and yours will too. Meaning the larger company has taken all the customers by the end of the five year period, then renegotiates a nice sweet deal because they can't afford to see this company leave any more because it provides too many jobs.

How does this benefit anyone other than the rich?

Take WALMART for example They come to town businesses close

. True, but then businesses open up around the huge Walmart traffic in hopes to catch the ones who don't want the hustle and bustle of the crowd, the aggravating parking situation, the inept service given by under paid clerks, and in some cases to avert the cheap products offered. Corporate row can be self defeating at times.. lol

 

[Ame®icano]

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

He's not wrong. You are.

The problem is how to explain to leftist something that is self explanatory, when leftist wants it to mean something else.

Commas are not there because gain or recurrent benefit is usually measured in money.

Usually. But not necessary. They can be measured in other values that derives from capital or labor.

If I were you, I would sit someplace in the corner where nobody can see me, and pull my ears over my face to hide shame from being THAT stupid.

But that's me. Knowing leftists, you are gonna continue posting here and prove to us over and over why you should go and sit in the corner with your ears pulled over your face.

 

[Ame®icano]

If your father hands you $10,000 in cash, would you report it to the government as income? I didn't think so.

What kind of American are you that thinks the government is more deserving of ones wealth after he or she dies than the family? You ask what the kids did to earn that money, and I ask you what government did to earn that money?

What exchanges happen within the family are family matters--not government matters. Perhaps you want government sitting at your dinner table, and when you pass the biscuits to your daughter, government is there to take their few biscuits first before they pass the plate to your daughter. It's ridiculous.

People work hard to try and make their children's life better than theirs. They didn't go to work every day, take risks, only to hand their hard work over to government.

And learn how to read. The definition is usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. I even highlighted the important part of the definition.

Do you know what usually means? It means it's usually from capital or labor, but can be from other things. The bottom line is income is income. Inheritance is income that is currently excused from taxation. If I were a rich deadbeat, of course I'd report it. The risk is too great and I'd still be a millionaire deadbeat afterwards, just with a few less million. I didn't have to work for any of it anyway. You can whine all you want to protect your rich deadbeat heroes, but you're basically a clown grasping at straws, especially with your "Do you understand the term INCOME TAX? It means tax on income." crap and your inability to read and comprehend a basic English sentence.

Governments will always control the money that THEY create and enforce. If you think it's none of their business, then the rich should be barred from using the government for enforcing their property rights. So if someone kills them to steal their money, the government should just ignore them. After all, you say it's none of the government's business. That wasn't Trump's tune when he was getting bankruptcy protection from the government!

Yes, it says usually measured in money--not usually measured from capital or labor. It's always measured in capital and labor. Usually measured in money means it could be from stock options given to a CEO or perhaps in profit sharing.

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

The government doesn't create money--it only creates the notes that represent wealth. Wealth is created by the individual which gives currency it's value. Without people giving those notes value, they are nothing more than worthless pieces of paper.

The government is what controls the money supply and enforces property rights. Without that, you'd see any wealth associated with the money go down the toilet.

So now somebody dies in your family and leaves you with a 300K house. Should government force you to give them 100K in order to keep that house?

It should be taxed, yes.

Thank you for admitting that Comrade. All property should belong to the government.

You're an illiterate moron, which is why you keep attributing comments I never made to me. For example, here you imply that I said all (100%) of property should belong to the government, when all I said was it should be taxed (in response to a 33% tax question).

In a way, that's your goal, as proposed in Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. You want now only 33%, but it's never enough, since rich are getting richer, right?

Let's see number one: "Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose." Isn't that what you lefties are living for? You can read rest of them on the link above. I'm not sure is Democrat platform written to mimic Communist Manifesto or National Socialist Platform of 1932.