What's the reason the GOP gives for needing tax cuts for billionaires and corporations?

[Blake Allyn]

We need to collect about a trillion dollars less in taxes and cut the federal budget by nearly $2 trillion.

Any thoughts on how we are going to pay off our $20 trillion debt?

No we need to collect more in taxes from the wealthy and use the revenue for programs for the poor and middle class By doing so they will be able to spend more and the economy will grow.

The debt for the time being isn't so bad for the economy.

Who specifically are the wealthy, and how much specifically should we collect from them?

Start by closing the loopholes that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to evade taxes. With that new revenue use it for single payer health care and creating a free public college system. The added revenue and less debt of these groups will allow them more spending power.

The definiton of wealthy should bend depending on the cost of living of the area one lives in. What I am referring to is the top 1% irregardless of absolute figures.

The best way to build an economy is spending directed at the middle and poor class.

 

[Blake Allyn]

Progressives believe that the government is the economy

No. The government should regulate it.

Capitalists beleive corporations are the country.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives believe that food stamps and unemployment checks stimulate the economy

 

[BrokeLoser]

No, what they do is pay workers for their value of work. Nobody opens up a business to provide living wage jobs with great benefits. People open up companies to produce a product or service for a profit. That's the end of their responsibilities.

Why don't you open up your own doughnut shop and compete against Dunkin Doughnuts and pay your workers much more? Why don't you open up your own hamburger place and pay your workers more than McDonald's?

I have no enthusiasm for food service. But to reply, you cant pay your workers healthy because you will loose the competion. Hence the importance of dramatically raising the minimum wage.

You really hate America man. Seem to serve wealth only.

BTW, virtually all companies you mention survive because of government corporate welfare.

Corporate Welfare was a demeaning and misleading term for tax breaks. Government allowing you to keep more of YOUR OWN money is not welfare in any shape or form. It's not that business "can't pay their workers more, it's that they don't need to. Nobody pays their workers more than they are worth including you or I.

To put it another way, lets say you came across some money tomorrow. Nothing too big, just hit a number or something where you now have 400K.

Your house and all expenses are paid for, so what should you do with that new money? Well.......if you were smart, you'd invest it.

So you search to find a place for your new money and narrow it down to two investments: One is a company that's well established and has been around for many years. A conservative return of about 3%. The other is the same, except their return is about 6.5%. Now which company are you going to invest in?

But later you find out something else. The company that pays 3% is a multi-national company that grosses about 6 billion a year. The company you were about to put your money in only grosses 2 million a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not.

As an investor, you could care less how much a company is worth. You only care about the return on your investment. And this is why huge companies don't pay their floor sweepers $18.00 an hour. It has nothing to do whether they can afford to or not, it has to do with company growth that attracts investors the company heavily relies on.

No, coporate welfare is when the goverment spends tax payer money to help corporations.

OIl companies are a great example. Steel industry. Pharma. Apple. Basically any tech or pharmaceutical company and oil company.

You are just a moron who who has no clue what he is talking about. Try reading a book.

You make a statement like that and call me a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about?

Corporate welfare is when government takes less from a corporation you moron. It was never governments money in the first place.

Do you think they know that corporations are only taxed on profits? If they don’t do not make a profit, we collect no taxes.

Probably not.

Definitely not...just as they can't wrap their tiny little gimme, gimme minds around pass-through income.
A free lesson for all who failed Econ....Corp profits pass through corporations to shareholders and or owners, these profits or this income falls on the personal income tax return for said shareholders and or owners leaving the corporation with a zero profit and no tax liability in many cases....TA-DA!

 

[CowboyTed]

We need to collect about a trillion dollars less in taxes and cut the federal budget by nearly $2 trillion.

Any thoughts on how we are going to pay off our $20 trillion debt?

No we need to collect more in taxes from the wealthy and use the revenue for programs for the poor and middle class By doing so they will be able to spend more and the economy will grow.

The debt for the time being isn't so bad for the economy.

I think the con here is that the GOP is giving away peoples money...

It goes to the idea that why does a stockbroker make say 10 times a fireman... Does the stockbroker offer more to a society than a fireman? The economy we have developed today and the value we set on different jobs is not usually set by the market or the good it does for society. This flies in the face of christian values.

There is a lot of people who wake up everyday and work hard for little reward not because they are lazy as the Republicans would make you believe but because the economy has been manipulated to favour certain areas. Those areas have been good at lobbying.

Look at CEO salaries worldwide:

I am sorry but this is down to lobbying.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Who are the wealthy and what is their fair share?

If it’s not able to be quantified, how can it become law?

Don’t we have to pass Congressional laws that dictate a specific tax rate for specific income levels?

So, what do liberals want to be the specific tax rates for the specific income levels?

It’s tough to know if you have succeeded if you don’t know the goal.

 

[BulletProof]

The Republicans in Congress are all rich. Why do they want tax cuts for the rich?

 

[Slyhunter]

Those with no discretionary income should pay no taxes. Those who need upwards to 100% of their income to survive should pay no taxes. Those who need less than 1% of their income to survive should pay all the taxes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think the con here is that the GOP is giving away peoples money...

It goes to the idea that why does a stockbroker make say 10 times a fireman... Does the stockbroker offer more to a society than a fireman? The economy we have developed today and the value we set on different jobs is not usually set by the market or the good it does for society. This flies in the face of christian values.

You are not paid by your "value" to society. You are paid by how much profit your work creates.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We need to collect about a trillion dollars less in taxes and cut the federal budget by nearly $2 trillion.

Any thoughts on how we are going to pay off our $20 trillion debt?

No we need to collect more in taxes from the wealthy and use the revenue for programs for the poor and middle class By doing so they will be able to spend more and the economy will grow.

The debt for the time being isn't so bad for the economy.

Who specifically are the wealthy, and how much specifically should we collect from them?

Start by closing the loopholes that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to evade taxes. With that new revenue use it for single payer health care and creating a free public college system. The added revenue and less debt of these groups will allow them more spending power.

The definiton of wealthy should bend depending on the cost of living of the area one lives in. What I am referring to is the top 1% irregardless of absolute figures.

The best way to build an economy is spending directed at the middle and poor class.

There is only one result from taxing the rich even more, and that is them leaving the country and taking their jobs with them as we have experienced so much of in the past.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Apparently no liberals have ever attempted balance their personal budget.

I guess they just spend themselves deeper and deeper into debt and then blame themselves for not earning more.

Certainly, a spending cut would never be considered. If a liberal earns $5000/month, they will spend $10,000 per month and just increase their debt.

Maybe their frugal neighbors should pay off their debt.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Come on, Libs...you can do it.

What tax bill do you want Congress to pass? What specific federal income tax rates should be applied to specific income levels?

 

[Blake Allyn]

We need to collect about a trillion dollars less in taxes and cut the federal budget by nearly $2 trillion.

Any thoughts on how we are going to pay off our $20 trillion debt?

No we need to collect more in taxes from the wealthy and use the revenue for programs for the poor and middle class By doing so they will be able to spend more and the economy will grow.

The debt for the time being isn't so bad for the economy.

Who specifically are the wealthy, and how much specifically should we collect from them?

Start by closing the loopholes that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to evade taxes. With that new revenue use it for single payer health care and creating a free public college system. The added revenue and less debt of these groups will allow them more spending power.

The definiton of wealthy should bend depending on the cost of living of the area one lives in. What I am referring to is the top 1% irregardless of absolute figures.

The best way to build an economy is spending directed at the middle and poor class.

There is only one result from taxing the rich even more, and that is them leaving the country and taking their jobs with them as we have experienced so much of in the past.

I am just advocating them paying without the loopholes. It has been shown that they have already stashed profits overseas even with current tax rates, and that aas of now, they are doing better than ever and almost all are already cutting jobs.

Corp profits doesn't equal more jobs sir.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, what they do is pay workers for their value of work. Nobody opens up a business to provide living wage jobs with great benefits. People open up companies to produce a product or service for a profit. That's the end of their responsibilities.

Why don't you open up your own doughnut shop and compete against Dunkin Doughnuts and pay your workers much more? Why don't you open up your own hamburger place and pay your workers more than McDonald's?

I have no enthusiasm for food service. But to reply, you cant pay your workers healthy because you will loose the competion. Hence the importance of dramatically raising the minimum wage.

You really hate America man. Seem to serve wealth only.

BTW, virtually all companies you mention survive because of government corporate welfare.

Corporate Welfare was a demeaning and misleading term for tax breaks. Government allowing you to keep more of YOUR OWN money is not welfare in any shape or form. It's not that business "can't pay their workers more, it's that they don't need to. Nobody pays their workers more than they are worth including you or I.

To put it another way, lets say you came across some money tomorrow. Nothing too big, just hit a number or something where you now have 400K.

Your house and all expenses are paid for, so what should you do with that new money? Well.......if you were smart, you'd invest it.

So you search to find a place for your new money and narrow it down to two investments: One is a company that's well established and has been around for many years. A conservative return of about 3%. The other is the same, except their return is about 6.5%. Now which company are you going to invest in?

But later you find out something else. The company that pays 3% is a multi-national company that grosses about 6 billion a year. The company you were about to put your money in only grosses 2 million a year. Does that change your mind any? Of course not.

As an investor, you could care less how much a company is worth. You only care about the return on your investment. And this is why huge companies don't pay their floor sweepers $18.00 an hour. It has nothing to do whether they can afford to or not, it has to do with company growth that attracts investors the company heavily relies on.

No, coporate welfare is when the goverment spends tax payer money to help corporations.

OIl companies are a great example. Steel industry. Pharma. Apple. Basically any tech or pharmaceutical company and oil company.

You are just a moron who who has no clue what he is talking about. Try reading a book.

You make a statement like that and call me a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about?

Corporate welfare is when government takes less from a corporation you moron. It was never governments money in the first place.

Nope not true at all. Corporate welfare is when you take tax payer money to help corporations. Welfare is when you take taxpayer money to help the poor.

Simple.

Want examples?

There are very few instances where the government gives money to corporations; most of that are conducted by Democrats and industry that supports their agenda like environmental issues.

Outside of that, corporate welfare is taking less in taxes. The only companies that get subsidies are those in serious financial trouble or those that promote liberal ideology.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We need to collect about a trillion dollars less in taxes and cut the federal budget by nearly $2 trillion.

Any thoughts on how we are going to pay off our $20 trillion debt?

No we need to collect more in taxes from the wealthy and use the revenue for programs for the poor and middle class By doing so they will be able to spend more and the economy will grow.

The debt for the time being isn't so bad for the economy.

Who specifically are the wealthy, and how much specifically should we collect from them?

Start by closing the loopholes that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to evade taxes. With that new revenue use it for single payer health care and creating a free public college system. The added revenue and less debt of these groups will allow them more spending power.

The definiton of wealthy should bend depending on the cost of living of the area one lives in. What I am referring to is the top 1% irregardless of absolute figures.

The best way to build an economy is spending directed at the middle and poor class.

There is only one result from taxing the rich even more, and that is them leaving the country and taking their jobs with them as we have experienced so much of in the past.

I am just advocating them paying without the loopholes. It has been shown that they have already stashed profits overseas even with current tax rates, and that aas of now, they are doing better than ever and almost all are already cutting jobs.

Corp profits doesn't equal more jobs sir.

Again, nobody hides American money made here overseas. Multinational companies that make money overseas keep their money overseas to avoid American taxation. Why should a company that makes products in Vietnam pay Vietnam taxes and American taxes on top of that? What if a multinational company has ten outlets all over the world? Should they be paying taxes to all those other countries for products they produce in one country like Brazil?

 

[ColonelAngus]

No we need to collect more in taxes from the wealthy and use the revenue for programs for the poor and middle class By doing so they will be able to spend more and the economy will grow.

The debt for the time being isn't so bad for the economy.

Who specifically are the wealthy, and how much specifically should we collect from them?

Start by closing the loopholes that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to evade taxes. With that new revenue use it for single payer health care and creating a free public college system. The added revenue and less debt of these groups will allow them more spending power.

The definiton of wealthy should bend depending on the cost of living of the area one lives in. What I am referring to is the top 1% irregardless of absolute figures.

The best way to build an economy is spending directed at the middle and poor class.

There is only one result from taxing the rich even more, and that is them leaving the country and taking their jobs with them as we have experienced so much of in the past.

I am just advocating them paying without the loopholes. It has been shown that they have already stashed profits overseas even with current tax rates, and that aas of now, they are doing better than ever and almost all are already cutting jobs.

Corp profits doesn't equal more jobs sir.

Again, nobody hides American money made here overseas. Multinational companies that make money overseas keep their money overseas to avoid American taxation. Why should a company that makes products in Vietnam pay Vietnam taxes and American taxes on top of that? What if a multinational company has ten outlets all over the world? Should they be paying taxes to all those other countries for products they produce in one country like Brazil?

You mean lower corporate tax rates might lead to more corporate profits being recognized in the USA?

Wow....so 20% of $1 is more than 35% of $0?

So you would earn 20 cents on each incremental dollar that comes back to the USA?

Is 20 cents more than 0 cents? This might be some common core math that I do not understand.

What a concept!

 

[Blake Allyn]

No we need to collect more in taxes from the wealthy and use the revenue for programs for the poor and middle class By doing so they will be able to spend more and the economy will grow.

The debt for the time being isn't so bad for the economy.

Who specifically are the wealthy, and how much specifically should we collect from them?

Start by closing the loopholes that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to evade taxes. With that new revenue use it for single payer health care and creating a free public college system. The added revenue and less debt of these groups will allow them more spending power.

The definiton of wealthy should bend depending on the cost of living of the area one lives in. What I am referring to is the top 1% irregardless of absolute figures.

The best way to build an economy is spending directed at the middle and poor class.

There is only one result from taxing the rich even more, and that is them leaving the country and taking their jobs with them as we have experienced so much of in the past.

I am just advocating them paying without the loopholes. It has been shown that they have already stashed profits overseas even with current tax rates, and that aas of now, they are doing better than ever and almost all are already cutting jobs.

Corp profits doesn't equal more jobs sir.

Again, nobody hides American money made here overseas. Multinational companies that make money overseas keep their money overseas to avoid American taxation. Why should a company that makes products in Vietnam pay Vietnam taxes and American taxes on top of that? What if a multinational company has ten outlets all over the world? Should they be paying taxes to all those other countries for products they produce in one country like Brazil?

No, if you read anything you would know they use accounting tricks to pretend their profits were accrued overseas when they were acctually in the US.

For example, buying a POBOX in the Cayman Islands, or Nike trademarking their swoosh sign in a country where 5 people live.

Actually your answer, since I know its incorrect, shows me you actually agree you just are missing facts.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who specifically are the wealthy, and how much specifically should we collect from them?

Start by closing the loopholes that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to evade taxes. With that new revenue use it for single payer health care and creating a free public college system. The added revenue and less debt of these groups will allow them more spending power.

The definiton of wealthy should bend depending on the cost of living of the area one lives in. What I am referring to is the top 1% irregardless of absolute figures.

The best way to build an economy is spending directed at the middle and poor class.

There is only one result from taxing the rich even more, and that is them leaving the country and taking their jobs with them as we have experienced so much of in the past.

I am just advocating them paying without the loopholes. It has been shown that they have already stashed profits overseas even with current tax rates, and that aas of now, they are doing better than ever and almost all are already cutting jobs.

Corp profits doesn't equal more jobs sir.

Again, nobody hides American money made here overseas. Multinational companies that make money overseas keep their money overseas to avoid American taxation. Why should a company that makes products in Vietnam pay Vietnam taxes and American taxes on top of that? What if a multinational company has ten outlets all over the world? Should they be paying taxes to all those other countries for products they produce in one country like Brazil?

No, if you read anything you would know they use accounting tricks to pretend their profits were accrued overseas when they were acctually in the US.

For example, buying a POBOX in the Cayman Islands, or Nike trademarking their swoosh sign in a country where 5 people live.

Actually your answer, since I know its incorrect, shows me you actually agree you just are missing facts.

If any company is producing products here and not paying taxes, that's tax fraud and punishable by various fines.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Who specifically are the wealthy, and how much specifically should we collect from them?

Start by closing the loopholes that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to evade taxes. With that new revenue use it for single payer health care and creating a free public college system. The added revenue and less debt of these groups will allow them more spending power.

The definiton of wealthy should bend depending on the cost of living of the area one lives in. What I am referring to is the top 1% irregardless of absolute figures.

The best way to build an economy is spending directed at the middle and poor class.

There is only one result from taxing the rich even more, and that is them leaving the country and taking their jobs with them as we have experienced so much of in the past.

I am just advocating them paying without the loopholes. It has been shown that they have already stashed profits overseas even with current tax rates, and that aas of now, they are doing better than ever and almost all are already cutting jobs.

Corp profits doesn't equal more jobs sir.

Again, nobody hides American money made here overseas. Multinational companies that make money overseas keep their money overseas to avoid American taxation. Why should a company that makes products in Vietnam pay Vietnam taxes and American taxes on top of that? What if a multinational company has ten outlets all over the world? Should they be paying taxes to all those other countries for products they produce in one country like Brazil?

No, if you read anything you would know they use accounting tricks to pretend their profits were accrued overseas when they were acctually in the US.

For example, buying a POBOX in the Cayman Islands, or Nike trademarking their swoosh sign in a country where 5 people live.

Actually your answer, since I know its incorrect, shows me you actually agree you just are missing facts.

Who are “The Rich”and what is their “fair share” of federal income taxes?


Hillary: It's Time for Wealthiest Americans to Pay Your Fair Share in Taxes - Breitbart

 

[Blake Allyn]

Start by closing the loopholes that allow wealthy individuals and corporations to evade taxes. With that new revenue use it for single payer health care and creating a free public college system. The added revenue and less debt of these groups will allow them more spending power.

The definiton of wealthy should bend depending on the cost of living of the area one lives in. What I am referring to is the top 1% irregardless of absolute figures.

The best way to build an economy is spending directed at the middle and poor class.

There is only one result from taxing the rich even more, and that is them leaving the country and taking their jobs with them as we have experienced so much of in the past.

I am just advocating them paying without the loopholes. It has been shown that they have already stashed profits overseas even with current tax rates, and that aas of now, they are doing better than ever and almost all are already cutting jobs.

Corp profits doesn't equal more jobs sir.

Again, nobody hides American money made here overseas. Multinational companies that make money overseas keep their money overseas to avoid American taxation. Why should a company that makes products in Vietnam pay Vietnam taxes and American taxes on top of that? What if a multinational company has ten outlets all over the world? Should they be paying taxes to all those other countries for products they produce in one country like Brazil?

No, if you read anything you would know they use accounting tricks to pretend their profits were accrued overseas when they were acctually in the US.

For example, buying a POBOX in the Cayman Islands, or Nike trademarking their swoosh sign in a country where 5 people live.

Actually your answer, since I know its incorrect, shows me you actually agree you just are missing facts.

Who are “The Rich”and what is their “fair share” of federal income taxes?


Hillary: It's Time for Wealthiest Americans to Pay Your Fair Share in Taxes - Breitbart

I answered your question. Tax rates should go back to what they were in the 50s and 60s, and most successful time. I pasted the information above.

Through, as I mentioned, what constitutes wealthy should be somewhat dependent on cost of living of the area.

BTW, Hillary can go **** herself with that remark.