Welfare programs, my argument, your thoughts?

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate... blah blah blah

Nice job with cut and paste...

Bruce Bartlett: Are Taxes in the U.S. High or Low? - NYTimes.com


This is the second time in this thread that your reply has been nothing more than a cut and paste of a Liberal article. Notice that nobody else is doing that? Notice that others are actually capable of thinking for themselves and making their own points and opinions?



EDIT: It's the 3rd time.

[RetiredSFC 97]

Jesus Christ, when are people going to realize corporate taxes are individual taxes? Not only paid for by the rich but the poor as well.

Santorum has suggested repealing ALL taxes on business if they produce here. But he can't even get an honorable mention by any of the networks.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Jim,

Corporations in this country have so many loop holes that they are actually taxed at some of the lowest rates in the industrialized world.

Every time I hear this stuff about companies leaving because of the high taxes, all I have to do is point the finger at Germany. They have one of the highest tax rates in the world and they are doing quite well compared to some of the other first world economies.

The reality is that these companies move their operations overseas because the labor is cheaper, not because of the taxes. Then we allow them to keep the profits overseas where they are not taxed. How god damn crazy is that?

We have Fortune 500 companies renouncing their American identity and opening up shell companies all around the world to hide money from the federal government. Why are none of you pissed off about that? No, it's the poor guy that lost his welding job that is bringing down America. WTF???

No US company gives one single rat fu@k about any of you. Tax the bastards and jail the son of a bitches that try to skirt the system.

Corporations aren't supposed to care about me. They are supposed to make money for stockholders.

And "We" or the government don't allow companies to move - they are free to do that to find the most efficient means to produce those profits. That's the way it works. That's what freedom is all about.

You cite Germany - two points - They are exporting jobs to the US because of the size of our market, and how much of their GDP goes to national defense? Part of our financial issue is spending a large chunk to protect Europe and Japan and Saudi Arabia... but that's another thread.

I don't like corporations opening up shell corps and trying to move assets and jobs overseas. But unless I own stock in them, it's not my call. Stanley Tools tried it several years ago and caught a great deal of flack. But the reason they are doing that is the cost of doing business in the USA is too high - labor, tax rates, government regulations... if they want to move the corporation and operations over seas and it makes more sense for them to become an importer, then how is that different than if a Korean company decides import product here? That company is still going to pay taxes - but probably to a government that has a more favorable tax structure for them and their stockholders.

There's no skirting the system. You can't drive corporations away with tax policy, labor costs and environmental regulations and then whine because they aren't here to pay a more reasonable tax rate.

If the heat gets too bad, people leave the kitchen. You seem to think they should be forced to remain and do the cooking for you.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by BuckyThreadkiller

Corporations aren't supposed to care about me. They are supposed to make money for stockholders.

And "We" or the government don't allow companies to move - they are free to do that to find the most efficient means to produce those profits. That's the way it works. That's what freedom is all about.

You cite Germany - two points - They are exporting jobs to the US because of the size of our market, and how much of their GDP goes to national defense? Part of our financial issue is spending a large chunk to protect Europe and Japan and Saudi Arabia... but that's another thread.

I don't like corporations opening up shell corps and trying to move assets and jobs overseas. But unless I own stock in them, it's not my call. Stanley Tools tried it several years ago and caught a great deal of flack. But the reason they are doing that is the cost of doing business in the USA is too high - labor, tax rates, government regulations... if they want to move the corporation and operations over seas and it makes more sense for them to become an importer, then what difference is that to you if a Korean company decides to do it?

There's no skirting the system. You can't drive corporations away with tax policy, labor costs and environmental regulations and then whine because they aren't here to pay a more reasonable tax rate.

If the heat gets too bad, people leave the kitchen. You seem to think they should be forced to remain and do the cooking for you.

This.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by BuckyThreadkiller

Corporations aren't supposed to care about me. They are supposed to make money for stockholders.

Are they supposed to care for or look our for their own employees?

And "We" or the government don't allow companies to move - they are free to do that to find the most efficient means to produce those profits. That's the way it works. That's what freedom is all about.

You cite Germany - two points - They are exporting jobs to the US because of the size of our market, and how much of their GDP goes to national defense? Part of our financial issue is spending a large chunk to protect Europe and Japan and Saudi Arabia... but that's another thread.

So are you saying we could afford our social programs if we ended the wars and brought the troops home?

I don't like corporations opening up shell corps and trying to move assets and jobs overseas. But unless I own stock in them, it's not my call. Stanley Tools tried it several years ago and caught a great deal of flack. But the reason they are doing that is the cost of doing business in the USA is too high - labor, tax rates, government regulations... if they want to move the corporation and operations over seas and it makes more sense for them to become an importer, then how is that different than if a Korean company decides import product here? That company is still going to pay taxes - but probably to a government that has a more favorable tax structure for them and their stockholders.

There's no skirting the system. You can't drive corporations away with tax policy, labor costs and environmental regulations and then whine because they aren't here to pay a more reasonable tax rate.

If the heat gets too bad, people leave the kitchen. You seem to think they should be forced to remain and do the cooking for you.

We are not driving them away. That is a fallacy. The problem is there are loop holes that allow these corporations to open up shell companies in other nations, still run their US operations, and then run the profits through the shell companies specifically and for no other reason other than to avoiding US taxes. That is wrong and needs to stop.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

In case you missed it... I will ask this twice. What time period are you referring to when our country was great?

Was there more or less regulation than now?

Was there more government or less?




Out of curiosity, what is different between your vision of a great America and communism?

We have been in decline since Clinton left office. And stop with the stupid communism shit. I haven't called you a fascist.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Out of curiosity, what is different between your vision of a great America and communism?

Originally Posted by Joecooool

We have been in decline since Clinton left office. And stop with the stupid communism shit. I haven't called you a fascist.

Pay attention. I didn't call you a communist. I asked you a simple question.

What is different from what you see as a "great" America, and the commonly accepted ideals of communism?


Below are multiple definitions pulled from the web and directly quoted. At one time or another I have heard you speak directly for almost every one of these points.

Communism - a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

-a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

-a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society

-Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production and the end of wage labour and private property.

-Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively; Any political social system that implements a communist political philosophy; The international socialist society where classes and the state no longer exist

-(Communist) A theoretical form of Socialism where all individuals are equal, all property is jointly owned, and all decisions are made by consensus of the collective

-A concept or system of society in which the collective community shares ownership in resources and the means of production. In theory, such societies provide for equal sharing of all work, according to ability, and all benefits, according to need

Again... simple question. What is the difference between your beliefs and the accepted beliefs of communism? If you were to ask what is different between my views and the fascist that you seem to imply that I am, it would be easy for me to answer.


... and by all means, label me with any political title you want. I'm not overly concerned with your opinion about me. Although, if the one you choose is to call me a fascist, you are doing nothing other than showing your ignorance.

[VITE1]

The Liberal Hypocrisy

They want Darwinism taught in schools but refuse to allow it in Society.

[RetiredSFC 97]

Actually corporations are supposed to make money for the corporation. Stock holders are gamblers, they owe them nothing.

This is the same entitlement mentality that's ruining this country. It used to be a company made a widget that filled a need and created profit. Now it's about selling a widget to make money for gamblers.

If a company wants to move I'm all for it, it's their business. But they should be treated as a foreign country when they bring thewir cheap shit back here to sell.

They want our markets and money but don't want to produce here.

That's why I support santorum. He wants to reduce corporate taxes to zero for those who produce here. The others not so much.

[jaxgator]

Originally Posted by RetiredSFC 97

Jesus Christ, when are people going to realize corporate taxes are individual taxes? Not only paid for by the rich but the poor as well.

Santorum has suggested repealing ALL taxes on business if they produce here. But he can't even get an honorable mention by any of the networks.

I couldn't agree more.

Of course Phil never responded to this. He thinks it's just fine to increase corporate taxes, essentially taxing the rich and the poor that purchase products from said mean old nasty profitable corporations.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

So are you saying we could afford our social programs if we ended the wars and brought the troops home?

The problem isn't affording them, the problem is that they are bloated and have become a mentality for generations that that's the way to live here. We could afford them if they were used as intended. Unfortunately, they're not. And just why is that? Because they were instituted and are run by the government.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Are they supposed to care for or look our for their own employees?

So are you saying we could afford our social programs if we ended the wars and brought the troops home?

We are not driving them away. That is a fallacy. The problem is there are loop holes that allow these corporations to open up shell companies in other nations, still run their US operations, and then run the profits through the shell companies specifically and for no other reason other than to avoiding US taxes. That is wrong and needs to stop.

Smart companies care for their employees. Not all companies are smart and neither are all employees. Henry Ford paid a higher wage than other manufacturers because he wanted to build a working middle class that could afford the the cars. But then that turned out well for him when the Wobblies, AFL and CIO got going, didn't it? How many folks were killed on both side of the line when the River Rouge strikes got bad?

Why are you blaming corporations for our tax laws? Congress can close any loophole they want at any time. Corporations will employ any and all means - lobbyists, PACs or what ever they can to keep their tax burden as low as possible. That's part of doing business. But you can't vilify companies for stupidity on Congress' part.

Can we afford our social programs if we end the wars? I seriously doubt it. According to the Preamble the priority of the Federal government is to establish Justice, keep the peace and provide for the common defense before dealing with the general welfare. You can't have any type of social programs if there isn't security. BUT, IMHO we don't need to be in Iraq, Saudi, Germany, Japan or anywhere else that doesn't have eminent National Security issues. We can't afford it.
There are apparently still people in Afghanistan and Pakistan who want to kill Americans so I think the President is wrong to rely on those country's domestic security services to keep us safe. I'm for putting more troops in Kabul to eliminate the threat. Kill it dead. then come home.

The second priority is to make sure that everyone who has paid into Medicare and Social Security gets their money paid out when they need it. They've already paid for the those services. Too many people forget that the reason those have existed for generations is those generations have paid for them.

THEN if there's money left, deal with unemployment benefits, Block grants, stimulus graft and that jazz.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by RetiredSFC 97

Actually corporations are supposed to make money for the corporation. Stock holders are gamblers, they owe them nothing.

This is the same entitlement mentality that's ruining this country. It used to be a company made a widget that filled a need and created profit. Now it's about selling a widget to make money for gamblers.

If a company wants to move I'm all for it, it's their business. But they should be treated as a foreign country when they bring thewir cheap shit back here to sell.

They want our markets and money but don't want to produce here.

That's why I support santorum. He wants to reduce corporate taxes to zero for those who produce here. The others not so much.

True some stockholders are gamblers bit most stocks are owned through mutual funds and are owned because the fund managers are charged with showing a profit to the fund purchasers.

Day traders and the like are gamblers - but the majority of folks own the stock for the dividend or growth. If the company doesn't show a profit - eventually the shareholders will boot the board or sell it off.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by RetiredSFC 97

Actually corporations are supposed to make money for the corporation. Stock holders are gamblers, they owe them nothing.

This is the same entitlement mentality that's ruining this country. It used to be a company made a widget that filled a need and created profit. Now it's about selling a widget to make money for gamblers.

this is very true for many large corporations/companies.

I has a conversation w/ a top brass member of a large home builder several years ago.

He informed me...in no uncertain terms, that the goal is not to profit beyond NOI. The goal was to deliver as many units as possible, as to remain at the top of the: "America's largest home builder" game.

This, was what drives the stock prices. and stock prices was the ultimate goal.

[jaxgator]

My 23 y/o son just came home. I posed this simple question to him. A company sells widgets for $1.00. The government institutes a tax of 3¢ per widget. What does the company do? His answer? Charge $1.03 per widget. I then asked him why and he said that the company needs to continue to make the same profit on the widget and so they pass the tax on to the consumer.

Here is a "kid" that really doesn't pay much attention to politics, the market, or the GDP, and yet, he understands this basic concept. Why don't you Phil?

God! I can only hope that my "kid" understands politics like he understands the economy and votes.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by jaxgator

My 23 y/o son just came home. I posed this simple question to him. A company sells widgets for $1.00. The government institutes a tax of 3¢ per widget. What does the company do? His answer? Charge $1.03 per widget. I then asked him why and he said that the company needs to continue to make the same profit on the widget and so they pass the tax on to the consumer.

Here is a "kid" that really doesn't pay much attention to politics, the market, or the GDP, and yet, he understands this basic concept. Why don't you Phil?

God! I can only hope that my "kid" understands politics like he understands the economy and votes.

CS101 Phil slept through that course.....