Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obviously corporations need money to grow and compete internationally the more money that is stolen from them the more they are impeded in their primary mission 1+1 = 2

And from where do businesses get the money to grow and compete? Revenues. And what do taxes on profit have to do with revenues? Nothing.

And from where do businesses get the money to grow and compete? Revenues.

If there are no profits, what money is left over for investment and growth?

And what do taxes on profit have to do with revenues?

Do taxes on profit reduce investable funds?

 

[The Derp]

The Bush tax cuts in 2001 forced Ohio to cut funding in 2002?

Yes, because federal revenues dropped significantly, which meant the amount the feds sent to the states was reduced. This resulted in deficits in the states, so those states cut spending -primarily from education- which forced public schools to raise tuitions. All income tax cuts do is shift the burden onto the middle and lower classes. To fix that burden, Conservatives propose cutting taxes further, which just repeats the loop. So we spiral down a debt hole on a Public and individual basis, all so some rich person can get a tax cut they stash in banks in socialist countries like Switzerland, don't spend it in our economy like we were promised they would, and instead use it to lobby politicians here to preserve the status quo on rates or even reduce it. Or get special loopholes like for car elevators.

 

[The Derp]

If there are no profits, what money is left over for investment and growth?

So, it seems like you've never worked in a business before. Businesses pay income taxes on profits, not revenues.

Profit = (Revenues - Expenses)

Taxes are paid on profits, not revenues. So in no case will a company not have profits if its revenues are greater than its expenses and the tax rate isn't 100%, which no one is proposing. Again, this is because of math.

Do taxes on profit reduce investable funds?

Nope.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bush cut income taxes for all.

Funny you say that. What was the result of this "generous" tax cut for all? The middle and lower classes went into debt and drained their savings while the wealthy increased their savings, but didn't spend more. So what did the tax cut accomplish other than manufacturing deficits and transferring wealth to the top? Nothing.

Which excise taxes did Bush raise?

None. He just shifted that burden to the states. That strategy didn't work as those states then had to get aid in 2009 in order to balance their budgets following the Economic Collapse.

Obama raised taxes and had bigger deficits and shittier GDP growth.

Obama and Bush had the same growth rate - 1.76%. The only difference is that Bush lost net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years, and Obama created over 11,000,000 net private sector jobs. Bush handed Obama a trillion-dollar deficit which Obama reduced down to about $400B, a 60% reduction. Only two Presidents over the last 37 years have left office with a deficit lower than the one they inherited. Both those Presidents were Democrats. Republicans, on the other hand, doubled the deficit during Reagan and Bush the Elder, then erased a surplus during Bush the Dumber and produced four record deficits in 8 years.

Funny you say that.

Funny you should deny that.

What was the result of this "generous" tax cut for all?

I got to keep more of my earnings.

The middle and lower classes went into debt and drained their savings

My increased savings didn't cause me to go into debt or reduce my savings.
Just the opposite occurred, my debt was reduced and my savings increased.

Which excise taxes did Bush raise?

None.

Then why are you blaming Bush?
So which excise taxes were increased in your state?
Why did Bush's tax cuts force your state to hurt the middle class?

That strategy didn't work as those states then had to get aid in 2009

The Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 caused state budget issues in 2009?
Why not immediately?

Obama and Bush had the same growth rate - 1.76%

Obama added $9.3 trillion to the deficit and only had the same growth rate as Bush?

The only difference is that Bush lost net 460,000 private sector jobs after 8 years, and Obama created over 11,000,000 net private sector jobs.

Obama added all those jobs and his economic growth still sucked as bad as Bush's?
Wow, he must have done a bunch of bad stuff to screw up that much.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Bush tax cuts in 2001 forced Ohio to cut funding in 2002?

Yes, because federal revenues dropped significantly, which meant the amount the feds sent to the states was reduced. This resulted in deficits in the states, so those states cut spending -primarily from education- which forced public schools to raise tuitions. All income tax cuts do is shift the burden onto the middle and lower classes. To fix that burden, Conservatives propose cutting taxes further, which just repeats the loop. So we spiral down a debt hole on a Public and individual basis, all so some rich person can get a tax cut they stash in banks in socialist countries like Switzerland, don't spend it in our economy like we were promised they would, and instead use it to lobby politicians here to preserve the status quo on rates or even reduce it. Or get special loopholes like for car elevators.

Yes, because federal revenues dropped significantly, which meant the amount the feds sent to the states was reduced.

That's awful!!!
Show me how much the Feds reduced money sent to the states.

This resulted in deficits in the states, so those states cut spending -primarily from education- which forced public schools to raise tuitions.

The top Federal rate is 39.6%, compared to 28% in 1988.
With all that extra Federal revenue, the states must all be running surpluses now. Right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

so republicans are spineless and their so called principles mean nothing to them

Republicans and Democrats are politicians who logically figure it is smarter to stay in the middle where elections are decided and thus live to fight another day. Libertarians for example, are pure and stand only on principles and as a result they are very very impotent.hopefully you're beginning to understand this very very simple concept now?

like I said they care more about keeping their jobs and ringing up deficits and expanding government than they do about their so called small government principles

A politician is supposed to care about keeping his job that way he can continue to promote things that are important to him and his constituents you've already learned that libertarians stand only on principle and as a result are totally impotent. How many times do you have to learn this?

but they don't promote smaller government and balanced budgets do they?

Obviously they do if there is enough support for it. Why is this so confusing for you isn't there anybody you can ask to explain it to you?

if a politician runs on a small government platform and wins then there obviously is enough support for it

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

if a politician runs on a small government platform and wins then there obviously is enough support for it

elections are decided by flip floppers in middle. For example, last election it was safe to say, small govt- repeal Obamacare because flip floppers were on board. 3 months later Obamacare is more popular than ever leaving Republicans with a problem. Simple enough for you??

 

[Skull Pilot]

if a politician runs on a small government platform and wins then there obviously is enough support for it

elections are decided by flip floppers in middle. For example, last election it was safe to say, small govt- repeal Obamacare because flip floppers were on board. 3 months later Obamacare is more popular than ever leaving Republicans with a problem. Simple enough for you??

you really like to make excuses for politicians

 

[Wyatt earp]

You idiot you are talking ******* Kansas, what part dont you get in your head?

The part where McConnell and Brownback said that what they did in Kansas is what they want to do everywhere.

In case you didn't know Mitch Is a moron..


Again we are talking Kansas and you libsare doing the same thing in New York State

 

[Wyatt earp]

[Don't be silly Ireland dropped its tax rate to 11% and most of the worlds major corporations moved there in whole or in part. Do you want to tell Ireland that the corporations that movd there really didn't move there and that it's all a mirage of some sort?

We aren't talking about Ireland, we are talking about the Bush Tax Cuts. And how does Ireland's tax rate help businesses create jobs in the US? The answer is that it doesn't.

God damn, go ahead and raise taxes.. Then all your going to do is cry where I'd the jobs, where is the revenue idiot


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ireland's low tax rate helped create jobs in Ireland

It did? What jobs were those? The companies didn't move production to Ireland. They moved their accounting there. How many jobs did that create? None.

They kept the jobs that existed

 

[Wyatt earp]

Corporations should not be taxed at all since it interferes with their primary mission which is to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate

No, their primary mission is to make profit. They don't care about the standard of living. If they did, they wouldn't move labor to nations where foreign workers earn in a day what American workers earn in an hour.

Who is moving? According to the new liberal talking points the jobs are being automated

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

if a politician runs on a small government platform and wins then there obviously is enough support for it

elections are decided by flip floppers in middle. For example, last election it was safe to say, small govt- repeal Obamacare because flip floppers were on board. 3 months later Obamacare is more popular than ever leaving Republicans with a problem. Simple enough for you??

you really like to make excuses for politicians

Actually we live in a democracy therefore politicians can't do what there is no support to do. Do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Corporations should not be taxed at all since it interferes with their primary mission which is to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate

No, their primary mission is to make profit. They don't care about the standard of living. If they did, they wouldn't move labor to nations where foreign workers earn in a day what American workers earn in an hour.

Stupid of course the pure beauty of capitalism is that the only way you make profit is by raising the standard of living at the fastest rate possible. Try going into business with the objective of making a profit more important than the objective of pleasing your customers and see how well you do

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Corporations should not be taxed at all since it interferes with their primary mission which is to raise our standard of living at the fastest possible rate

No, their primary mission is to make profit. They don't care about the standard of living. If they did, they wouldn't move labor to nations where foreign workers earn in a day what American workers earn in an hour.

Stupid of course the pure beauty of capitalism is that the only way you make profit is by raising the standard of living at the fastest rate possible. Try going into business with the objective of making a profit more important than the objective of pleasing your customers and see how well you do

Also corporations don't move to China because they want to they moved to China because they have to to get their customers the lowest prices possible if they don't a competitor will and They go out of business. There is no more profit to be made by moving to China.

Also the corporate tax is merely passed on like any cost of doing business we have the tax only to appeal to the pure ignorance of liberals who want corporations to pay "their fair share "liberals are far too stupid do you know that they pay the corporations "fair share"

Notice that when a liberal and conservative meet the conservative always ends up running a kindergarten

 

[Skull Pilot]

if a politician runs on a small government platform and wins then there obviously is enough support for it

elections are decided by flip floppers in middle. For example, last election it was safe to say, small govt- repeal Obamacare because flip floppers were on board. 3 months later Obamacare is more popular than ever leaving Republicans with a problem. Simple enough for you??

you really like to make excuses for politicians

Actually we live in a democracy therefore politicians can't do what there is no support to do. Do you understand?

actually we live in a republic which you don't seem to understand

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

if a politician runs on a small government platform and wins then there obviously is enough support for it

elections are decided by flip floppers in middle. For example, last election it was safe to say, small govt- repeal Obamacare because flip floppers were on board. 3 months later Obamacare is more popular than ever leaving Republicans with a problem. Simple enough for you??

you really like to make excuses for politicians

Actually we live in a democracy therefore politicians can't do what there is no support to do. Do you understand?

actually we live in a republic which you don't seem to understand

for 5th time, politicians cant do what there is not enough support to do. Do you understand?

 

[Skull Pilot]

if a politician runs on a small government platform and wins then there obviously is enough support for it

elections are decided by flip floppers in middle. For example, last election it was safe to say, small govt- repeal Obamacare because flip floppers were on board. 3 months later Obamacare is more popular than ever leaving Republicans with a problem. Simple enough for you??

you really like to make excuses for politicians

Actually we live in a democracy therefore politicians can't do what there is no support to do. Do you understand?

actually we live in a republic which you don't seem to understand

for 5th time, politicians cant do what there is not enough support to do. Do you understand?

the only support needed is enough to pass a vote in congress and get a signature by the president

because as I said we live in a republic

but republicans don't want smaller government and no deficits you just can't seem to admit that to yourself

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the only support needed is enough to pass a vote in congress and get a signature by the president

unless of course you want to get reelected in which case you have to consider what the electorate wants 1+1=2

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

because as I said we live in a republic

as if someone disagreed with that??????????????????? You have created what we call a strawman. Do you understand?