Why does the left believe a corporate tax break "steals" money from the taxpayers?

[bendog]

Everyone who works for that company also pays taxes. Taxes are paid on everything that corporation buys. Lowered corporate taxes actually means more taxes collected overall.

Democrats have successfully convinced the poor that they pay more in taxes than corporations even though the poor actually pay no taxes at all. It's a slight of imagination. They believe, therefore it is.

The working poor pay property taxes (included in rent), withholding, SS taxes, gas taxes, and sales taxes. The only tax they don't pay is income tax. It is a fiction and a falsehood to say the poor don't pay taxes.

When the government is paying for their food and their rent, it's true that they aren't paying taxes.

How much of their earned income goes to substance, Todd? Do you actually know, or are you just parroting a line of shit. I think the latter.

How much of their earned income goes to substance

People who have their rent and food bought by government usually don't have much earned income.

Ah, so your final answer is all to their housing food clothing etc is paid for by the govt. Are you sure you don't want to use a lifeline here?

 

[Dragonlady]

As a percentage of their overall income the poor pay much higher taxes than the rich, even if you include their "free stuff" as income at face value.

The rich also get "free stuff", like tax free dividends, on the theory that the corporation has already paid income tax on the earnings, so goes tax free to the shareholders. They can also deduct mortgage interest paid on their taxes, a deduction not available to the poor.

The working poor are now unable to save money because it takes every dollar they can earn as well as every dollar of assistance they can get, to keep a roof over their heads.

My father worked in a small non-union, manufacturing plant, the type of job that no longer exists in Canada or the US. My parents raised 6 kids on his wages. They purchased a house on a large lot, and planted the backyard with fruit trees, and a large kitchen garden. They raised chickens. We didn't own a car until all my brothers and sisters had grown up and left home.

My parents were able to save enough money to purchase a restaurant, and went into business.

Until Reagan changed the tax code, the working poor had savings. Now they have income supplements.

The middle class is now losing ground. At the same time that the working poor were being sucked dry, the top 5% were getting a whole lot richer. "Trickle down" was a total myth, but "Trickle up" is still going strong.

Now Trump is proposing a huge tax cut to corporations and top income earners. And Republicans are now blaming the costs of these social programs for the loss of equity by the middle class.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everyone who works for that company also pays taxes. Taxes are paid on everything that corporation buys. Lowered corporate taxes actually means more taxes collected overall.

Democrats have successfully convinced the poor that they pay more in taxes than corporations even though the poor actually pay no taxes at all. It's a slight of imagination. They believe, therefore it is.

The working poor pay property taxes (included in rent), withholding, SS taxes, gas taxes, and sales taxes. The only tax they don't pay is income tax. It is a fiction and a falsehood to say the poor don't pay taxes.

When the government is paying for their food and their rent, it's true that they aren't paying taxes.

How much of their earned income goes to substance, Todd? Do you actually know, or are you just parroting a line of shit. I think the latter.

How much of their earned income goes to substance

People who have their rent and food bought by government usually don't have much earned income.

Ah, so your final answer is all to their housing food clothing etc is paid for by the govt. Are you sure you don't want to use a lifeline here?

No people have all their rent and food paid for by government? Are you sure?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As a percentage of their overall income the poor pay much higher taxes than the rich, even if you include their "free stuff" as income at face value.

The rich also get "free stuff", like tax free dividends, on the theory that the corporation has already paid income tax on the earnings, so goes tax free to the shareholders. They can also deduct mortgage interest paid on their taxes, a deduction not available to the poor.

The working poor are now unable to save money because it takes every dollar they can earn as well as every dollar of assistance they can get, to keep a roof over their heads.

My father worked in a small non-union, manufacturing plant, the type of job that no longer exists in Canada or the US. My parents raised 6 kids on his wages. They purchased a house on a large lot, and planted the backyard with fruit trees, and a large kitchen garden. They raised chickens. We didn't own a car until all my brothers and sisters had grown up and left home.

My parents were able to save enough money to purchase a restaurant, and went into business.

Until Reagan changed the tax code, the working poor had savings. Now they have income supplements.

The middle class is now losing ground. At the same time that the working poor were being sucked dry, the top 5% were getting a whole lot richer. "Trickle down" was a total myth, but "Trickle up" is still going strong.

Now Trump is proposing a huge tax cut to corporations and top income earners. And Republicans are now blaming the costs of these social programs for the loss of equity by the middle class.

As a percentage of their overall income the poor pay much higher taxes than the rich, even if you include their "free stuff" as income at face value.

Why not include their free stuff as negative taxes?
If the government gives you $10,000 and your sales tax is $1000, sounds like your taxes are negative $9,000.

The rich also get "free stuff", like tax free dividends

The rich in America get tax fee dividends? Since when?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Every dollar a corporation doesn't pay in taxes has to be paid by someone else,

all else being equal.

Notice how the dipshit, talks about taxes in, but never reduction of the FAILED government agencies? I just showed a video of illegal anchors scamming billions from US tax payers ( #5 ), but hey, those evil corps need to pay more. Why? So those future illegal Democrat voters will vote Democrat. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal.

The topic is taxes, retard.

If you are too stupid not to know how to avoid paying taxes, then you deserve to pay all those taxes you pay to the government. It isn't my fault but yours and your failed ideologue that DEMANDS that everyone be equally poor and equally miserable. That is why liberal tax people to death. Dumbass....

To collect a hundred dollars in revenue:

You tax the individual, the corporation. If you give the corporation a tax break, you have to increase taxes on the individual in order to get the same hundred in revenue,

or you have to run a deficit.

Get it?

no, you don't get it. You decrease the amount you spend by the amount you did not collect.

Lawmakers won't do that voluntarily. That's why PAYGO worked.

 

[g5000]

When you hear Republican politicians talking about filling out your income taxes on a post card, there is only one way that can be achieved.

By eliminating almost all tax expenditures.

They don't tell you that. They believe you are too stupid to understand it, and a lot of morons who think they are right wingers continuously demonstrate they actually are too stupid to get it.

But that is what politicians are saying when they talk about a postcard tax return.

Eliminating tax expenditures allows you to lower tax rates. They are intertwined.

Imo early on Trump was basically on board with at least eliminating most expenditures for individuals. I suspect he was all balls for income averaging and taking losses, though. He sort of got off message.

No one has been completely honest about tax reform, except perhaps Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

Even Rand Paul was a little shady, not calling his VAT for what it is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't just keep cutting taxes and dreaming that someday magically the deficit will disappear, the budget will balance, and the debt will get paid down.

 

[g5000]

Notice how the dipshit, talks about taxes in, but never reduction of the FAILED government agencies? I just showed a video of illegal anchors scamming billions from US tax payers ( #5 ), but hey, those evil corps need to pay more. Why? So those future illegal Democrat voters will vote Democrat. Just cant get more stupid than a liberal.

The topic is taxes, retard.

If you are too stupid not to know how to avoid paying taxes, then you deserve to pay all those taxes you pay to the government. It isn't my fault but yours and your failed ideologue that DEMANDS that everyone be equally poor and equally miserable. That is why liberal tax people to death. Dumbass....

To collect a hundred dollars in revenue:

You tax the individual, the corporation. If you give the corporation a tax break, you have to increase taxes on the individual in order to get the same hundred in revenue,

or you have to run a deficit.

Get it?

no, you don't get it. You decrease the amount you spend by the amount you did not collect.

Lawmakers won't do that voluntarily. That's why PAYGO worked.

The last Republican Congress and Republican President ejected PAYGO out the window. And then they created a whole new government medical entitlement which has added more to our debt than ObamaCare.

Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.

 

[bendog]

The working poor pay property taxes (included in rent), withholding, SS taxes, gas taxes, and sales taxes. The only tax they don't pay is income tax. It is a fiction and a falsehood to say the poor don't pay taxes.

When the government is paying for their food and their rent, it's true that they aren't paying taxes.

How much of their earned income goes to substance, Todd? Do you actually know, or are you just parroting a line of shit. I think the latter.

How much of their earned income goes to substance

People who have their rent and food bought by government usually don't have much earned income.

Ah, so your final answer is all to their housing food clothing etc is paid for by the govt. Are you sure you don't want to use a lifeline here?

No people have all their rent and food paid for by government? Are you sure?

That is not what you said or what I responded to. I was going to take you seriously at face value, but you are dishonest in your posting. Goodbye.

 

[bendog]

When you hear Republican politicians talking about filling out your income taxes on a post card, there is only one way that can be achieved.

By eliminating almost all tax expenditures.

They don't tell you that. They believe you are too stupid to understand it, and a lot of morons who think they are right wingers continuously demonstrate they actually are too stupid to get it.

But that is what politicians are saying when they talk about a postcard tax return.

Eliminating tax expenditures allows you to lower tax rates. They are intertwined.

Imo early on Trump was basically on board with at least eliminating most expenditures for individuals. I suspect he was all balls for income averaging and taking losses, though. He sort of got off message.

No one has been completely honest about tax reform, except perhaps Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

Even Rand Paul was a little shady, not calling his VAT for what it is.

Well, at one time there was some gop support broadening the tax base by cutting expenditures and giving the middle a greater % of rate reductions than the 1-3%, with an overall aim are revenue neutrality. Rubio was pretty much on board because this move would be most likely to increase consumption.

I'm not totally negative on a Vat of some kind.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The topic is taxes, retard.

If you are too stupid not to know how to avoid paying taxes, then you deserve to pay all those taxes you pay to the government. It isn't my fault but yours and your failed ideologue that DEMANDS that everyone be equally poor and equally miserable. That is why liberal tax people to death. Dumbass....

To collect a hundred dollars in revenue:

You tax the individual, the corporation. If you give the corporation a tax break, you have to increase taxes on the individual in order to get the same hundred in revenue,

or you have to run a deficit.

Get it?

no, you don't get it. You decrease the amount you spend by the amount you did not collect.

Lawmakers won't do that voluntarily. That's why PAYGO worked.

The last Republican Congress and Republican President ejected PAYGO out the window. And then they created a whole new government medical entitlement which has added more to our debt than ObamaCare.

Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.

Not to mention they passed two tax cut bills in the face of two wars having started. You RAISE taxes when faced with an extraordinary expense like a war, you don't cut them.

 

[Borillar]

Every dollar a corporation doesn't pay in taxes has to be paid by someone else,

all else being equal.

/----/ Not true. Letting people keep more of their hard earned money costs nothing.

We have 20 trillion in debt proving that is wrong.

Half of that being Obama's doing. If you remember the national debt was only something like $9 Trillion when GW left office.

And where did that $10 Trillion dollars Obama ran up go to?

Bush was no piker when it came to spending. As a percentage, bush increased the debt more than obama did. In dollar amounts, obama spent more than bush, but not significantly more. Also, obama took over when the country was suffering the worst downturn in decades, thanks at least in a great degree to the bush, cheney spending spree in the middle east. And yeah, the market did crash after bush was prez for several years, so most of it's on him. As far as the stock market, it did tank for awhile under obama, then went to it's highest level ever. Republicans are now rejoicing about how the stock market is under trump. So that must mean obama was a pretty good president also, right?

Which President Added Most to the U.S. Debt?

/----/ Oooops. Only Congress can spend the money. And Dems ran the. Ingress for most of Bush's term.

2 years out of 8 isn't most of Bush's term. And Repugs ran the congress 6 of the 8 years of Obama's term. Oooops!

 

[imawhosure]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

Let me explain something to you. 87% of lost manufacturing jobs that were lost in the last 25 years were automated. They didn't move overseas, they were taken over with less expensive machinery. These machines can work all night in the dark. They don't need healthcare, they don't get injured.

And yet, manufacturing output has more than doubled during that time. These companies are making money hand over fist. They are located within this country. They use American water and land and resources and they aren't paying more now than they were paying before. They are paying less thanks to Republicans who think the country exists to support companies who don't pay their fair share. And one of those costs is living in a safe and stable country where those companies can continue to exist and prosper. They aren't paying security because WE ARE the security.

In Russia, Putin forced families to turn over their money and assets and that made him the wealthiest man in the world. That doesn't happen here. But if these companies keep taking advantage of this country, ripping us off and stripping the US of it's wealth and natural resources, it's inevitable. A logical outcome. It can't be explained any more simply than that.

Only Republicans fight to make less. They want to repeal the minimum wage. They are against education. It's as if they are determined to keep themselves down and ruin the lives of their children. All they stand for is bad. That's it. Just bad.

This person wants the Feds to be the union and negotiate a wage for you. That is an interesting, socialistic, concept, isn't it!

 

[Kosh]

Once again the far left drones ignores real history.

The two biggest tax cuts happened under two Democrat presidents, JFK and Carter.

Obama did not have any kind of budget passed until the Republicans took over the senate. Al other bills were tabled by Harry Reid for 6 of the 8 years under Obama.

Under Bush, since the far left seems to love to use him, only 4 supplemental budgets were passed for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and they were about half of the Obama failed stimulus package.

So as you see the far left will repeat far left religious dogma not connected to reality.

Also Unions are corporations, how much to they pay in taxes?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The poor pay no taxes. That they believe they do is an indication of how insane and delusional they really are.

The taxes that the poor believe they pay is the difference between the benefits they receive and the benefits they want.

If the poor person is getting an aggregate of $5,000 a month, that's what my step granddaughter gets. She believes she should get twice that. The poor person now has a tax rate of 50%. Much higher than most of the rich. If corporations paid more in taxes, the poor would get more of what they believe they should get.

It's just all in their head.

 

[Dragonlady]

As a percentage of their overall income the poor pay much higher taxes than the rich, even if you include their "free stuff" as income at face value.

The rich also get "free stuff", like tax free dividends, on the theory that the corporation has already paid income tax on the earnings, so goes tax free to the shareholders. They can also deduct mortgage interest paid on their taxes, a deduction not available to the poor.

The working poor are now unable to save money because it takes every dollar they can earn as well as every dollar of assistance they can get, to keep a roof over their heads.

My father worked in a small non-union, manufacturing plant, the type of job that no longer exists in Canada or the US. My parents raised 6 kids on his wages. They purchased a house on a large lot, and planted the backyard with fruit trees, and a large kitchen garden. They raised chickens. We didn't own a car until all my brothers and sisters had grown up and left home.

My parents were able to save enough money to purchase a restaurant, and went into business.

Until Reagan changed the tax code, the working poor had savings. Now they have income supplements.

The middle class is now losing ground. At the same time that the working poor were being sucked dry, the top 5% were getting a whole lot richer. "Trickle down" was a total myth, but "Trickle up" is still going strong.

Now Trump is proposing a huge tax cut to corporations and top income earners. And Republicans are now blaming the costs of these social programs for the loss of equity by the middle class.

As a percentage of their overall income the poor pay much higher taxes than the rich, even if you include their "free stuff" as income at face value.

Why not include their free stuff as negative taxes?
If the government gives you $10,000 and your sales tax is $1000, sounds like your taxes are negative $9,000.

The rich also get "free stuff", like tax free dividends

The rich in America get tax fee dividends? Since when?

 

[imawhosure]

The topic is taxes, retard.

If you are too stupid not to know how to avoid paying taxes, then you deserve to pay all those taxes you pay to the government. It isn't my fault but yours and your failed ideologue that DEMANDS that everyone be equally poor and equally miserable. That is why liberal tax people to death. Dumbass....

To collect a hundred dollars in revenue:

You tax the individual, the corporation. If you give the corporation a tax break, you have to increase taxes on the individual in order to get the same hundred in revenue,

or you have to run a deficit.

Get it?

no, you don't get it. You decrease the amount you spend by the amount you did not collect.

Lawmakers won't do that voluntarily. That's why PAYGO worked.

The last Republican Congress and Republican President ejected PAYGO out the window. And then they created a whole new government medical entitlement which has added more to our debt than ObamaCare.

Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.

If you are too stupid not to know how to avoid paying taxes, then you deserve to pay all those taxes you pay to the government. It isn't my fault but yours and your failed ideologue that DEMANDS that everyone be equally poor and equally miserable. That is why liberal tax people to death. Dumbass....

To collect a hundred dollars in revenue:

You tax the individual, the corporation. If you give the corporation a tax break, you have to increase taxes on the individual in order to get the same hundred in revenue,

or you have to run a deficit.

Get it?

no, you don't get it. You decrease the amount you spend by the amount you did not collect.

Lawmakers won't do that voluntarily. That's why PAYGO worked.

The last Republican Congress and Republican President ejected PAYGO out the window. And then they created a whole new government medical entitlement which has added more to our debt than ObamaCare.

Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.

Not to mention they passed two tax cut bills in the face of two wars having started. You RAISE taxes when faced with an extraordinary expense like a war, you don't cut them.

Once again the far left drones ignores real history.

The two biggest tax cuts happened under two Democrat presidents, JFK and Carter.

Obama did not have any kind of budget passed until the Republicans took over the senate. Al other bills were tabled by Harry Reid for 6 of the 8 years under Obama.

Under Bush, since the far left seems to love to use him, only 4 supplemental budgets were passed for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and they were about half of the Obama failed stimulus package.

So as you see the far left will repeat far left religious dogma not connected to reality.

Also Unions are corporations, how much to they pay in taxes?

The poor pay no taxes. That they believe they do is an indication of how insane and delusional they really are.

The taxes that the poor believe they pay is the difference between the benefits they receive and the benefits they want.

If the poor person is getting an aggregate of $5,000 a month, that's what my step granddaughter gets. She believes she should get twice that. The poor person now has a tax rate of 50%. Much higher than most of the rich. If corporations paid more in taxes, the poor would get more of what they believe they should get.

It's just all in their head.

G5000 is on my last nerve, lol.

Only thing people need to know is--------> The Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts ALL increased money to the federal treasury substantially. They also increased economic expansion.

One would think that carebear and a host of others posts about how if you give a tax break to A, B then must make up the difference is a logical assumption. That is NOT the case. By putting a dollar IN TO the economy, as it flows, it is taxed many times, and it creates NEW dollars to tax as it moves. Their assessment of the situation would be correct, if the economy was a zero sum game; which it is not! As the economy grows, there is more money, and profit to tax!

Also...........it is much easier today than in the 20s, to quickly INCREASE treasury flow from growth. How? Because today, with all the freebies given out by the feds and states, it is easier to SUBTRACT, which is actually an add to in revenue.

WHAT DO I MEAN? EXAMPLE----------> Citizen A receives a grand total of help from all government sources of 10,000 dollars a year. The economy improves significantly through tax cuts and money moves freely, so they get a decent job...........not a great job, just a decent one. So now they pay in 1000 a year, instead of taking out 10,000 a year, for a grand total of----------->11,000 PROFIT to all government agencies that used to have to pay them. So sometimes, it is NOT what you put into the system, but instead, what you no longer take out of it!

And a little off topic, but here is another variable-----------> what if a President, from either party, asked his economic advisors HOW MANY LIVING WAGE JOBS he/she had to make policies for so it would be easy for the private sector to create them, to achieve a 4.5% unemployment rate, with a 72% participation rate, meaning virtually full employment?

What if they told this President; from either party, you chose which one..........that to achieve this economic deal, he had to create 12 million jobs. (just creating a number here) And to do this, he/she had to do these policies. So they DID, and created 12 million jobs in LESS time than even they believed it would happen!

And so, that President is sitting pretty in his/her own mind right! So he/she goes back to his economic advisors, and tells them he/she wants to run on his/her economic record. His advisors tell him/her, that unemployment has ticked up slightly, participation rate is still in the tank, wages are still stagnant, and the natives are restless. Not to mention, MORE foodstamps are being given out!

How can this be the Prez asks! Easy says his/her economic advisors........... you didn't take into account the 13 million illegals that would flood over the border, as soon as jobs opened up, and they offer their services, for 75% of the going wage. Basically Mr President, you just created job opportunities for South America, and NOT for your taxpaying constituents. In essence, you lost ground by almost 1 million jobs!!!!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

/----/ Libtards have a second issue as well. They can't grasp the notion that corporations treat taxes as overhead that gets passed on to the consumer. In effect, corporate taxes are taxes on the consumer.

So lower taxes on a corporation allows them to buy more capital equipment and materials, to give more raises to existing employees, to hire more employees, to keep from outsourcing to foreign countries, and to keep the price of their product affordable.

That's a win-win situation.

Then why is it when we lower taxes on corporations, they just keep the money?

If they could sell more product, they would already be doing it. We have been cutting taxes on corporations since Reagan.....wages have been flat

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

They've been trained to believe that the government IS the economy, it's moronic and ignorant and destructive, but that's Liberals for yawz

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many times have you heard "Corporate tax breaks are being subsidized by the tax-paying public" or "The tax payers are having to foot the bill for a private company"?

Those are ignorant statements. A tax break given to a corporation isn't existing money the government has already collected from taxpayers, it's some of the money those corporations have earned on their own. Money which they don't have to pay to the government. They earned it, and they own it.

That would be equivalent to saying that the general public has some right to a corporation's earnings which anyone can tell you, is socialism.

/----/ Libtards have a second issue as well. They can't grasp the notion that corporations treat taxes as overhead that gets passed on to the consumer. In effect, corporate taxes are taxes on the consumer.

So lower taxes on a corporation allows them to buy more capital equipment and materials, to give more raises to existing employees, to hire more employees, to keep from outsourcing to foreign countries, and to keep the price of their product affordable.

That's a win-win situation.

Then why is it when we lower taxes on corporations, they just keep the money?

If they could sell more product, they would already be doing it. We have been cutting taxes on corporations since Reagan.....wages have been flat

Then why is it when we lower taxes on corporations, they just keep the money?

When is the last time we cut taxes on corporations?
What do you mean, "they just keep the money"?
A vault in the basement of HQ, stacks of Benjamins?

We have been cutting taxes on corporations since Reagan..

Really? What were corporate rates in 1980? In 1988? Since?