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

[Ray From Cleveland]

And what about income from an activity not engaged in for profit? Is that not income?

I guess that would depend. Any examples?

Well, there's more to taxes than "adding, dividing, and calculations" so I'm not surprised you sound clueless. Alimony received is in the "income" section (line 11 to be precise), so could you explain to me whether that's from labor or capital?

Not really, but it is money somebody is paying you for support. You are living off of that money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Republicans refused to extend it as they refused everything he wanted to do, and there was no reduction in the SS benefit. Congress can steal from the retirement fund and it can steal from other monies.

Republicans refused to extend it

Obama didn't make it permanent? Why does he hate the middle class?

 

[bgrouse]

And what about income from an activity not engaged in for profit? Is that not income?

I guess that would depend. Any examples?

You said gambling winnings are income (either from capital or from labor) because "you took an action to financially benefit." Those are your words. Well what if the activity you're engaged in is NOT for profit?

Well, there's more to taxes than "adding, dividing, and calculations" so I'm not surprised you sound clueless. Alimony received is in the "income" section (line 11 to be precise), so could you explain to me whether that's from labor or capital?

Not really, but it is money somebody is paying you for support. You are living off of that money.

Then you have quite a conundrum there. On one hand you are arguing that inheritance income is not income on the grounds that it is not derived from capital or labor. On the other hand you are saying alimony is NOT derived from capital or labor, so could you explain to me why it's in the "income" section of the individual income tax return form 1040? Obviously it sounds like your interpretation of the definition of income is totally wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You said gambling winnings are income (either from capital or from labor) because "you took an action to financially benefit." Those are your words. Well what if the activity you're engaged in is NOT for profit?

I can't think of any examples of that, but be my guest!

Then you have quite a conundrum there. On one hand you are arguing that inheritance income is not income on the grounds that it is not derived from capital or labor. On the other hand you are saying alimony is NOT derived from capital or labor, so could you explain to me why it's in the "income" section of the individual income tax return form 1040? Obviously it sounds like your interpretation of the definition of income is totally wrong.

It probably wouldn't be considered taxable if not for the payer of alimony being able to write it off as a deduction. It's kind of like child support. Only one of you can claim a child as a dependent even though you're both supporting that child.

 

[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?

Take WALMART for example They come to town businesses close

A perfect example of a company which gets given lots of money to enrich themselves.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Actually just the opposite. We had a new mall open up around ten years ago. Walmart was the main character. Walmart is what's known in business as the Anchor Store. The land contracts of the smaller businesses in the mall were constructed around the anchor store. As Beagle9 noted, Walmart brings customers to those smaller stores.

The mall opened up and in a few years, Walmart found a way out of the contract because they wanted to build a Super Walmart about ten miles up the road. When they left, the new mall fell apart. Those smaller businesses lost their customers. They had to close up and were legally allowed to do so because their contract was null and void if the anchor store closed up or left.

If you want to look it up, the mall is called City View located in Garfield Heights, Ohio. With the exception of a grocery store and some small shops on the edge of the mall, the place is deserted, and it's a great location with easy parking and lots of room. It's a real shame.

Actually I think what you've just said supports what I said.

Walmart arrived in the new mall. All the businesses that thrived were the ones around the Walmart because people were going to Walmart. I don't know your area, but I'm betting a lot of stores elsewhere closed down or at the very least they struggled or moved to the mall.

Then Walmart disappears and everything falls apart because Walmart had taken too large a slice of the pie.

The New Way That Walmart Is Ruining America's Small Towns

"
The New Way That Walmart Is Ruining America's Small Towns"

"When a Walmart comes to town, the local economic framework is immediately thrown into turmoil. Many small and regional businesses get trampled by the low prices made possible by the massive economies of scale of the giant retailer. It’s nearly impossible to compete."

Wal-Mart: It Came, It Conquered, Now It's Packing Up and Leaving

"The Town’n Country grocery in Oriental, North Carolina, a local fixture for 44 years, closed its doors in October after a Wal-Mart store opened for business. Now, three months later -- and less than two years after Wal-Mart arrived -- the retail giant is pulling up stakes, leaving the community with no grocery store and no pharmacy."

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

For one, we are not Europe and I hope never to be. The United States is just that--United States. This means our country was supposed to be like a bunch of little countries called states that run their own governments. Only on federal matters were we to join forces to solve national problems.

As time went on, it didn't work out that way unfortunately. People kept giving the federal government more and more power, and I don't want to see them have any more.

So states compete against each other for businesses the way it should be. Locals are more in control of their state government than they are the federal government, so each state can decide how it will conduct themselves in business matters.

If my representatives are not bringing jobs to my state by whatever means, it's time to get rid of them and hire representatives that will bring in new business. If you think your state does better with ten mom and pop shops over huge industry, then be my guest and offer them lower taxes than we offer our mom and pop stores. We'll stick with the conglomerates and see who does better.

And that my friend is choice.

Yes, it WAS supposed to be like lots of smaller countries coming together. It hasn't been like that for a long time though. That's the problem. You have a government for one thing, but are something completely different. It doesn't work.

Look, if each state were really a small country, and there were boundaries and things like that, then it'd work. But it's not. Each state has open borders. This means if a large business moves and relocates somewhere else, people leave one town, and set up in the new town. Only the large business isn't paying much in taxes.

I really don't get why you like large corporations ******* America, controlling government, and playing the system. Nothing positive happens for society. Yet you're all for it. It makes no sense. Don't you want your own country to be positive?

As for choice being fucked over by large corporations, it's like a slave having the choice between being a slave and trying to commit suicide.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

For one, we are not Europe and I hope never to be. The United States is just that--United States. This means our country was supposed to be like a bunch of little countries called states that run their own governments. Only on federal matters were we to join forces to solve national problems.

As time went on, it didn't work out that way unfortunately. People kept giving the federal government more and more power, and I don't want to see them have any more.

So states compete against each other for businesses the way it should be. Locals are more in control of their state government than they are the federal government, so each state can decide how it will conduct themselves in business matters.

If my representatives are not bringing jobs to my state by whatever means, it's time to get rid of them and hire representatives that will bring in new business. If you think your state does better with ten mom and pop shops over huge industry, then be my guest and offer them lower taxes than we offer our mom and pop stores. We'll stick with the conglomerates and see who does better.

And that my friend is choice.

Yes, it WAS supposed to be like lots of smaller countries coming together. It hasn't been like that for a long time though. That's the problem. You have a government for one thing, but are something completely different. It doesn't work.

Look, if each state were really a small country, and there were boundaries and things like that, then it'd work. But it's not. Each state has open borders. This means if a large business moves and relocates somewhere else, people leave one town, and set up in the new town. Only the large business isn't paying much in taxes.

I really don't get why you like large corporations ******* America, controlling government, and playing the system. Nothing positive happens for society. Yet you're all for it. It makes no sense. Don't you want your own country to be positive?

As for choice being fucked over by large corporations, it's like a slave having the choice between being a slave and trying to commit suicide.

To be honest I don't see it as anybody ******* anybody else.

Companies want to do business in areas where they can make the most profit. So they simply put out the offer and let states or cities present their best offer. What's wrong with that?

It's like going out and buying a new car, except there is some sort of law that says all dealerships must have the same price on the car you're going to buy. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If they want your business, they have to make the best offer. Oh, but if one dealership keeps making the best offers, they get all the business! Yeah, so what's your point?

 

[beagle9]

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.

For one, we are not Europe and I hope never to be. The United States is just that--United States. This means our country was supposed to be like a bunch of little countries called states that run their own governments. Only on federal matters were we to join forces to solve national problems.

As time went on, it didn't work out that way unfortunately. People kept giving the federal government more and more power, and I don't want to see them have any more.

So states compete against each other for businesses the way it should be. Locals are more in control of their state government than they are the federal government, so each state can decide how it will conduct themselves in business matters.

If my representatives are not bringing jobs to my state by whatever means, it's time to get rid of them and hire representatives that will bring in new business. If you think your state does better with ten mom and pop shops over huge industry, then be my guest and offer them lower taxes than we offer our mom and pop stores. We'll stick with the conglomerates and see who does better.

And that my friend is choice.

Yes, it WAS supposed to be like lots of smaller countries coming together. It hasn't been like that for a long time though. That's the problem. You have a government for one thing, but are something completely different. It doesn't work.

Look, if each state were really a small country, and there were boundaries and things like that, then it'd work. But it's not. Each state has open borders. This means if a large business moves and relocates somewhere else, people leave one town, and set up in the new town. Only the large business isn't paying much in taxes.

I really don't get why you like large corporations ******* America, controlling government, and playing the system. Nothing positive happens for society. Yet you're all for it. It makes no sense. Don't you want your own country to be positive?

As for choice being fucked over by large corporations, it's like a slave having the choice between being a slave and trying to commit suicide.

. A good example is what my grandfather always said about the county Fair. He hated it because it had been corporatized where as before it got that way, it was a fair that was put on by the community. This way all proceeds went back into the community in some form or another.

Once corporatized the majority of the proceeds or profits was taken from the community, and taken somewhere else. This is what corporations have done all across this nation, and in some cases the money has left the shores of this nation to be taken over seas. So basically what the cities and towns became was feed troffs for these corporations that bleed the towns people dry, pay off the local governments, and remove the money taking it to other states or countries to be circulated there.

Then we end up with government dependency from Hell afterwards.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

For one, we are not Europe and I hope never to be. The United States is just that--United States. This means our country was supposed to be like a bunch of little countries called states that run their own governments. Only on federal matters were we to join forces to solve national problems.

As time went on, it didn't work out that way unfortunately. People kept giving the federal government more and more power, and I don't want to see them have any more.

So states compete against each other for businesses the way it should be. Locals are more in control of their state government than they are the federal government, so each state can decide how it will conduct themselves in business matters.

If my representatives are not bringing jobs to my state by whatever means, it's time to get rid of them and hire representatives that will bring in new business. If you think your state does better with ten mom and pop shops over huge industry, then be my guest and offer them lower taxes than we offer our mom and pop stores. We'll stick with the conglomerates and see who does better.

And that my friend is choice.

Yes, it WAS supposed to be like lots of smaller countries coming together. It hasn't been like that for a long time though. That's the problem. You have a government for one thing, but are something completely different. It doesn't work.

Look, if each state were really a small country, and there were boundaries and things like that, then it'd work. But it's not. Each state has open borders. This means if a large business moves and relocates somewhere else, people leave one town, and set up in the new town. Only the large business isn't paying much in taxes.

I really don't get why you like large corporations ******* America, controlling government, and playing the system. Nothing positive happens for society. Yet you're all for it. It makes no sense. Don't you want your own country to be positive?

As for choice being fucked over by large corporations, it's like a slave having the choice between being a slave and trying to commit suicide.

To be honest I don't see it as anybody ******* anybody else.

Companies want to do business in areas where they can make the most profit. So they simply put out the offer and let states or cities present their best offer. What's wrong with that?

It's like going out and buying a new car, except there is some sort of law that says all dealerships must have the same price on the car you're going to buy. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If they want your business, they have to make the best offer. Oh, but if one dealership keeps making the best offers, they get all the business! Yeah, so what's your point?

What's wrong with that? I've already stated what's wrong with that 100 times Ray.

1) it increases the tax burden on individuals and smaller businesses
2) it gives larger companies an unfair competitive advantage
3) it forces smaller companies to close down
4) it gives larger corporations too much power over government which is supposed to represent the people, not big business

No, it's not like buy a car Ray. It's like going out and buying a car where on company pays no tax and everyone else pays 30% tax and you go buy the car from the first company because the car costs 25% less.

 

[eddiew37]

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.

For one, we are not Europe and I hope never to be. The United States is just that--United States. This means our country was supposed to be like a bunch of little countries called states that run their own governments. Only on federal matters were we to join forces to solve national problems.

As time went on, it didn't work out that way unfortunately. People kept giving the federal government more and more power, and I don't want to see them have any more.

So states compete against each other for businesses the way it should be. Locals are more in control of their state government than they are the federal government, so each state can decide how it will conduct themselves in business matters.

If my representatives are not bringing jobs to my state by whatever means, it's time to get rid of them and hire representatives that will bring in new business. If you think your state does better with ten mom and pop shops over huge industry, then be my guest and offer them lower taxes than we offer our mom and pop stores. We'll stick with the conglomerates and see who does better.

And that my friend is choice.

Yes, it WAS supposed to be like lots of smaller countries coming together. It hasn't been like that for a long time though. That's the problem. You have a government for one thing, but are something completely different. It doesn't work.

Look, if each state were really a small country, and there were boundaries and things like that, then it'd work. But it's not. Each state has open borders. This means if a large business moves and relocates somewhere else, people leave one town, and set up in the new town. Only the large business isn't paying much in taxes.

I really don't get why you like large corporations ******* America, controlling government, and playing the system. Nothing positive happens for society. Yet you're all for it. It makes no sense. Don't you want your own country to be positive?

As for choice being fucked over by large corporations, it's like a slave having the choice between being a slave and trying to commit suicide.

To be honest I don't see it as anybody ******* anybody else.

Companies want to do business in areas where they can make the most profit. So they simply put out the offer and let states or cities present their best offer. What's wrong with that?

It's like going out and buying a new car, except there is some sort of law that says all dealerships must have the same price on the car you're going to buy. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If they want your business, they have to make the best offer. Oh, but if one dealership keeps making the best offers, they get all the business! Yeah, so what's your point?

You know what a loss leader is ??Walmart uses them until all competition is gone

 

[eddiew37]

Every other country has a progressive tax system, here we don't anymore. Federal income taxes are much smaller now and the only Progressive one.

Why should I care how other countries are taxing their people?

Every other country is turning into socialist, leaning communist state. Americans don't need that.

You do know that in spite of our economic surge there are quite a few countries ahead of us Japan for one

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Liar prove he filled for personal bankruptcy..

 

[OKTexas]

Simple fix, stop the ability to give the block grants as was originally intended. That's not a constitutional federal function..

Maybe you don't know, but turning welfare into block grants was something you Conservatives did with welfare reform in the 1990's. So you're the ones who made it possible for you to raid welfare to pay for tax cuts. Prior to that welfare reform you all wanted, welfare was distributed directly from the feds to the recipient, states weren't middle men taking their own cut to make their budgets balance. Turning welfare back to what it was pre-1996 would mean every single red state would have to raise taxes to cover the budget shortfalls.

You're mistakenly under the impression that I would object to that. There's no reason for money to be laundered through federal bureaucracies just to send a portion of it back to the States. Unconstitutional welfare bullshit account for 70% of federal spending and a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that's not sustainable.


.

You might want to think about taxing the rich more like their fair share and investing in America so we don't have so many people on welfare. And thanks for the corrupt GOP World depression of 2008. Great job. And the stupidest Wars ever...

Maybe you should actually read the Constitution you swore to protect, investments by the federal government in States and individuals aren't within federal powers. I would give you the quotes of the founders, but I won't waste my time on you.


.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

For one, we are not Europe and I hope never to be. The United States is just that--United States. This means our country was supposed to be like a bunch of little countries called states that run their own governments. Only on federal matters were we to join forces to solve national problems.

As time went on, it didn't work out that way unfortunately. People kept giving the federal government more and more power, and I don't want to see them have any more.

So states compete against each other for businesses the way it should be. Locals are more in control of their state government than they are the federal government, so each state can decide how it will conduct themselves in business matters.

If my representatives are not bringing jobs to my state by whatever means, it's time to get rid of them and hire representatives that will bring in new business. If you think your state does better with ten mom and pop shops over huge industry, then be my guest and offer them lower taxes than we offer our mom and pop stores. We'll stick with the conglomerates and see who does better.

And that my friend is choice.

Yes, it WAS supposed to be like lots of smaller countries coming together. It hasn't been like that for a long time though. That's the problem. You have a government for one thing, but are something completely different. It doesn't work.

Look, if each state were really a small country, and there were boundaries and things like that, then it'd work. But it's not. Each state has open borders. This means if a large business moves and relocates somewhere else, people leave one town, and set up in the new town. Only the large business isn't paying much in taxes.

I really don't get why you like large corporations ******* America, controlling government, and playing the system. Nothing positive happens for society. Yet you're all for it. It makes no sense. Don't you want your own country to be positive?

As for choice being fucked over by large corporations, it's like a slave having the choice between being a slave and trying to commit suicide.

To be honest I don't see it as anybody ******* anybody else.

Companies want to do business in areas where they can make the most profit. So they simply put out the offer and let states or cities present their best offer. What's wrong with that?

It's like going out and buying a new car, except there is some sort of law that says all dealerships must have the same price on the car you're going to buy. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If they want your business, they have to make the best offer. Oh, but if one dealership keeps making the best offers, they get all the business! Yeah, so what's your point?

What's wrong with that? I've already stated what's wrong with that 100 times Ray.

1) it increases the tax burden on individuals and smaller businesses
2) it gives larger companies an unfair competitive advantage
3) it forces smaller companies to close down
4) it gives larger corporations too much power over government which is supposed to represent the people, not big business

No, it's not like buy a car Ray. It's like going out and buying a car where on company pays no tax and everyone else pays 30% tax and you go buy the car from the first company because the car costs 25% less.

You have no proof about anything you say. Why do you think prices are solely based on how much taxes are? When we talk about minimum wage, you leftists are constantly telling us how that itty-bitty increase in minimum wage won't increase prices that much. Then here YOU are saying that prices and competition is all based on taxation.

1. If a company moves into town with an abatement, WTF does that increase taxes on anybody else?
3. Prove it forces other companies to close down.
4. How does it give companies anymore power than it had before the tax abatement?

These are all ridiculous assertions.

 

[OKTexas]

The poor don't pay income taxes how can they get cuts?


.

Those should get at least 300% cut. No, scratch that, make it 500%.

Yeah, 500% of zero is still zero. Lefties can't grasp that concept. LMAO


.

There are plenty of other taxes besides federal income taxes, brainwashed dupe of the greedy idiot rich. The richest pay 28% of their income in all taxes, the poorest pay 18%. Everyone who earns money real money pays between 24 and 28 percent in all taxes. That is a flat tax and means that the richest end up with all the new wealth and the country and the non-rich go to hell as they have for the last 35 years, dupe.

Yeah, 18% of 20K is $3,600, 28% of 100K is $28,000, I think $3,600 is a small price to pay to insure a future income, health care and the benefits of local government. Of course it won't actually cover the costs, but you already know that, it's the other guys that are making up the difference.


.

Giving all the wealth to the richest is a small price to pay for Misery. you have to love those rich people, if you're an brainwashed functional idiot.

Pure projection, damn you're a freak.


.

 

[OKTexas]

You're mistakenly under the impression that I would object to that. There's no reason for money to be laundered through federal bureaucracies just to send a portion of it back to the States. Unconstitutional welfare bullshit account for 70% of federal spending and a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that's not sustainable.

So you think Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are unconstitutional? Why do you think that?

Feel free to quote the Article, Section and Clause that authorize them and I'll be happy to prove you wrong. Hint, if you come up with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 you're already a loser.


.

I think I'll go with the Supreme Court decisions and basically just consider you a brainwashed functional moron.

I think I'll go with the folks that actually wrote the document and the public understanding at the time over nine unelected lawyers.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Feel free to quote the Article, Section and Clause that authorize them and I'll be happy to prove you wrong. Hint, if you come up with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 you're already a loser..

General Welfare clause.

The end.

You lost.

No such animal exist dumb ass. That phrase is part of the taxing and spending clause and is limited by the remainder of the Article. I guess comprehension isn't your strong suit.


.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Actually just the opposite. We had a new mall open up around ten years ago. Walmart was the main character. Walmart is what's known in business as the Anchor Store. The land contracts of the smaller businesses in the mall were constructed around the anchor store. As Beagle9 noted, Walmart brings customers to those smaller stores.

The mall opened up and in a few years, Walmart found a way out of the contract because they wanted to build a Super Walmart about ten miles up the road. When they left, the new mall fell apart. Those smaller businesses lost their customers. They had to close up and were legally allowed to do so because their contract was null and void if the anchor store closed up or left.

If you want to look it up, the mall is called City View located in Garfield Heights, Ohio. With the exception of a grocery store and some small shops on the edge of the mall, the place is deserted, and it's a great location with easy parking and lots of room. It's a real shame.

Actually I think what you've just said supports what I said.

Walmart arrived in the new mall. All the businesses that thrived were the ones around the Walmart because people were going to Walmart. I don't know your area, but I'm betting a lot of stores elsewhere closed down or at the very least they struggled or moved to the mall.

Then Walmart disappears and everything falls apart because Walmart had taken too large a slice of the pie.

The New Way That Walmart Is Ruining America's Small Towns

"
The New Way That Walmart Is Ruining America's Small Towns"

"When a Walmart comes to town, the local economic framework is immediately thrown into turmoil. Many small and regional businesses get trampled by the low prices made possible by the massive economies of scale of the giant retailer. It’s nearly impossible to compete."

Wal-Mart: It Came, It Conquered, Now It's Packing Up and Leaving

"The Town’n Country grocery in Oriental, North Carolina, a local fixture for 44 years, closed its doors in October after a Wal-Mart store opened for business. Now, three months later -- and less than two years after Wal-Mart arrived -- the retail giant is pulling up stakes, leaving the community with no grocery store and no pharmacy."

Your link is silly. What they are saying is Walmart moved in, closed down one other business, then they moved out leaving the area with nothing. So that begs the question: If Walmart closed down a store and took all the business, why did Walmart move out too?

Apparently this is an area where no business can survive for one reason or another including Walmart. Maybe it's low volume of customers, maybe it's nearby competition, maybe it's shoplifting and theft, who knows. But Walmart closed down stores all across the country.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

For one, we are not Europe and I hope never to be. The United States is just that--United States. This means our country was supposed to be like a bunch of little countries called states that run their own governments. Only on federal matters were we to join forces to solve national problems.

As time went on, it didn't work out that way unfortunately. People kept giving the federal government more and more power, and I don't want to see them have any more.

So states compete against each other for businesses the way it should be. Locals are more in control of their state government than they are the federal government, so each state can decide how it will conduct themselves in business matters.

If my representatives are not bringing jobs to my state by whatever means, it's time to get rid of them and hire representatives that will bring in new business. If you think your state does better with ten mom and pop shops over huge industry, then be my guest and offer them lower taxes than we offer our mom and pop stores. We'll stick with the conglomerates and see who does better.

And that my friend is choice.

Yes, it WAS supposed to be like lots of smaller countries coming together. It hasn't been like that for a long time though. That's the problem. You have a government for one thing, but are something completely different. It doesn't work.

Look, if each state were really a small country, and there were boundaries and things like that, then it'd work. But it's not. Each state has open borders. This means if a large business moves and relocates somewhere else, people leave one town, and set up in the new town. Only the large business isn't paying much in taxes.

I really don't get why you like large corporations ******* America, controlling government, and playing the system. Nothing positive happens for society. Yet you're all for it. It makes no sense. Don't you want your own country to be positive?

As for choice being fucked over by large corporations, it's like a slave having the choice between being a slave and trying to commit suicide.

To be honest I don't see it as anybody ******* anybody else.

Companies want to do business in areas where they can make the most profit. So they simply put out the offer and let states or cities present their best offer. What's wrong with that?

It's like going out and buying a new car, except there is some sort of law that says all dealerships must have the same price on the car you're going to buy. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. If they want your business, they have to make the best offer. Oh, but if one dealership keeps making the best offers, they get all the business! Yeah, so what's your point?

What's wrong with that? I've already stated what's wrong with that 100 times Ray.

1) it increases the tax burden on individuals and smaller businesses
2) it gives larger companies an unfair competitive advantage
3) it forces smaller companies to close down
4) it gives larger corporations too much power over government which is supposed to represent the people, not big business

No, it's not like buy a car Ray. It's like going out and buying a car where on company pays no tax and everyone else pays 30% tax and you go buy the car from the first company because the car costs 25% less.

You have no proof about anything you say. Why do you think prices are solely based on how much taxes are? When we talk about minimum wage, you leftists are constantly telling us how that itty-bitty increase in minimum wage won't increase prices that much. Then here YOU are saying that prices and competition is all based on taxation.

1. If a company moves into town with an abatement, WTF does that increase taxes on anybody else?
3. Prove it forces other companies to close down.
4. How does it give companies anymore power than it had before the tax abatement?

These are all ridiculous assertions.

I didn't say prices were based solely on what taxes are.

However if a company pays 30% less in taxes, they could, if they chose, drop their prices by 30%, or 25%.

Either way, lower taxes makes a company more competitive. If one company pays more than another company, then it's less competitive.

Walmart turns up with these large tax gifts and puts everyone else out of business. Without the tax gift they probably wouldn't turn up at all.

Well, I'm not the sort of leftist who says that minimum wage won't increase prices. I know it'll increase prices. In fact I've seen it first hand. So you can debate with me what I've said, rather what other people have said. I'm not them.

1) Say for example Walmart moves into town. Walmart doesn't pay taxes for 2 years, say. In those 2 years the govt still needs to find tax money from somewhere. Where's it coming from? It's not coming from Walmart. They'll just increase the taxes on other businesses or individuals. It's basic math.

2) I did prove it forces other companies to close down, I showed two links.

Radiating Death: How Walmart Displaces Nearby Small Businesses

"
Radiating Death: How Walmart Displaces Nearby Small Businesses"

"In 2006, months before a Walmart store was opened in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago's West side, researchers counted 306 businesses in the surrounding area. Two years after the Walmart opened, 82 of those businesses had closed."

In 2 years of Walmart being there, about 25% of stores closed down. That was in 2006 when the economy was doing well, before the crash.

"That some businesses, particularly small businesses, would close after a large retailer moves into the neighborhood is to be expected. But, as the researchers found, the pattern and severity of those closures was far from typical. The closer a business was to the new Walmart store, the more likely it was to close."

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

"This study, the first on the impact of a WalMart in a large city, draws on three annual surveys of enterprises within a four-mile radius of a new Chicago WalMart. It shows that the probability of going out of business was significantly higher for establishments close to that store. This probability fell off at a rate of 6% per mile in all directions."

What happened when Walmart left

"Much has been written about what happens when the corporate giant opens up in an area, with numerous studies recording how it sucks the energy out of a locality, overpowering the competition through sheer scale and forcing the closure of mom-and-pop stores for up to 20 miles around."

https://ag-econ.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/novdec05.pdf

"Wal-Mart’s ability to sell goods more cheaply means that it represents a profound threat to the viability of other nearby retail establishments."

I could go on all day Ray.

Walmart has things efficient. But their efficiency isn't the only thing that allows them to keep prices down.

Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study

"
Walmart benefits from billions in government subsidies: Study"

"Walmart is the beneficiary of billions of dollars per year in federal subsidies, according to a new report [PDF] from the non-partisan, progressive group Americans for Tax Fairness."

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/files/Walmart-on-Tax-Day-Americans-for-Tax-Fairness-1.pdf

"
On tax day, when millions of American taxpayers and small businesses pay their fair share to support critical public services and the economy, they will also get stuck with a multi-billion dollar tax bill to cover the massive subsidies and tax breaks that benefit the country’s largest employer and richest family."

You can't compete with a company being given billions of dollars from the govt. It's impossible.