Liberal free for all coming to an end

[tslust]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Wagon Riders take note:
This is a INSULT, a KICK in the butt, a SLAP in the face, a KNIFE in the back to all of us...

Get mad and pass it on - I don't know how, but maybe some good will come of this travesty.

If the immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a
woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004.

She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924.
It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.
Each can also obtain an additional $580 in social assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month.

This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement..

Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees !

Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years.

cosign

Don't forget the illegal aliens; who use our ERs (that they don't pay for), send their kids to our schools (that they don't pay for), they send their kids to our hospitals (that they still don't pay for), in some states and cities they can apply for special Federal grants to send their kids to college (that, you guessed it, they don't pay for). -umm what else, oh yeah- They don't speak our language, they don't respect our laws or customs, they have no intention of assimilating into our culture.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

cosign

Don't forget the illegal aliens; who use our ERs (that they don't pay for), send their kids to our schools (that they don't pay for), they send their kids to our hospitals (that they still don't pay for), in some states and cities they can apply for special Federal grants to send their kids to college (that, you guessed it, they don't pay for). -umm what else, oh yeah- They don't speak our language, they don't respect our laws or customs, they have no intention of assimilating into our culture.

Most undocumented workers pay taxes. Facts have a nasty habit of getting in the way of xenophobic vitriol.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

Most undocumented workers pay taxes. Facts have a nasty habit of getting in the way of xenophobic vitriol.

Just as protection money to keep the mafia from torching your store or breaking your kneecaps doesn't count as a business expense, taxes don't count as payment.

Just sayin...

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

Most undocumented workers pay taxes. Facts have a nasty habit of getting in the way of xenophobic vitriol.

Actually, the percentage of undocumented workers (aka, illegal aliens) who pay taxes is fairly low. A majority of them work as day laborers, which is mostly "under the table" jobs, which they pay no taxes on (I used to work those types of jobs, so I know what I'm talking about.). Those who work in jobs that take taxes out of their pay mostly use a false Social Security Number.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Many people lost everything in their 401Ks. That doesn't happen with Social Security. Social Security is basically an insurance policy that is paid into in order to have at least some funds for old age. Privatizing SS would make it vulnerable to stock market fluctuations, an insane idea.

Well with freedom comes responsibility. You're free to choose your retirement plan, and responsible for the results. But this country isn't what it used to be either.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by tslust

Don't forget the illegal aliens...send their kids to our schools (that they don't pay for...

Schools are paid for with property taxes, so unless these aliens are living under bridges or in hotels, they are either directly paying the property taxes on the home they live in, or indirectly paying the property tax through the rent they pay.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

Actually, the percentage of undocumented workers (aka, illegal aliens) who pay taxes is fairly low. A majority of them work as day laborers, which is mostly "under the table" jobs, which they pay no taxes on (I used to work those types of jobs, so I know what I'm talking about.). Those who work in jobs that take taxes out of their pay mostly use a false Social Security Number.

Go ahead and mock my use of the accurate term "undocumented workers" in favor of your deliberately fear-mongering term "illegal alien." Go ahead and try to change the discussion by citing the use of false SSNs, which is a separate issue. Meanwhile, again, facts are facts.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a non-profit, non-partisan research and education organization based in Washington, D.C., has been providing tax information to state policy makers and others for years. ITEP maintains a model of state and local tax structures that allows researchers to estimate the state and local tax contributions of families at different income levels.

Here's a recent headline based on an ITEP study, followed by a link to the article. I chose this one because it points to a real fact: undocumented workers pay more in taxes than many U.S. corporations.

"Study estimates that illegal immigrants paid $11.2B in taxes last year, unlike GE, which paid zero"

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/..._in_taxes.html

Undocumented workers obtain false SSNs precisely to get decent jobs that then require them to pay federal taxes, along with the associated Social Security and Medicare taxes, either via payroll withholding or at tax filing time via self-employment taxes. The Social Security Administration has estimated that about three-quarters of undocumented workers pay these taxes. I don't know in what universe three-quarters is a "fairly low" percentage (to use your words), but perhaps it is the same universe in which a human being is referred to as an "alien."

Oh, and by the way, these same workers who pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems are subsidizing documented workers (that includes me, and assumedly you, tslust), because they don't get to collect the benefits they paid for upon retirement.

[smc]

Originally Posted by The Conquistador

Just as protection money to keep the mafia from torching your store or breaking your kneecaps doesn't count as a business expense, taxes don't count as payment.

Just sayin...

Whatever the fuck this is supposed to mean, I suggest you need to lay off the crack.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

Whatever the fuck this is supposed to mean, I suggest you need to lay off the crack.

Crack is whack. What evidence do you have that supports the notion that I am in any way a drug abuser?

[Amy]

smc has totally owned this thread.

[randolph]

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes
I've heard in all this drama about the debt ceiling:
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC.
"You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit
of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress
are ineligible for re-election."

Three cheers for Buffy old boy!

[Enoch Root]

The xenophobic quotient of the thread is now rising. I really hoped such hateful and blind garbage would not have taken root.

[smc]

Originally Posted by The Conquistador

Crack is whack. What evidence do you have that supports the notion that I am in any way a drug abuser?

You know as well as I do that it is meant to suggest that the complete senselessness of what you wrote might (in jest) be explained by the use of mind-altering drugs. Hence the LOL emoticon.

[Suckslut]

If we adopted the fair tax, everyone would pay taxes.

Illegals have to buy stuff, as well as drug dealers and prostitutes.

[transjen]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

If we adopted the fair tax, everyone would pay taxes.

Illegals have to buy stuff, as well as drug dealers and prostitutes.

A fair tax sounds good at first but once you really look in to it more it's another GOP FU to the poor and working poor
A fair tax will place a 30% tax on everything your phone bill cable bill rent food you name it there's that 30% or higher tax plus there will be on top of that the state tax
no thanks rule number one only a fool would trust the GOP to fix or make a fair tax system
JG J

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by transjen

A fair tax sounds good at first but once you really look in to it more it's another GOP FU to the poor and working poor
A fair tax will place a 30% tax on everything your phone bill cable bill rent food you name it there's that 30% or higher tax plus there will be on top of that the state tax
no thanks rule number one only a fool would trust the GOP to fix or make a fair tax system
JG J

But if you read the fair tax proposal, the government will send out rebates each month to poor families.

So if the poverty rate is $12,000 per person per year, and the fair tax is 25%, the government will send the poor people $3,000 a year back.

The way I would do it is to make water, bread, milk, fruits, vegetables, rent, and all the essentials not subject to the tax.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

But if you read the fair tax proposal, the government will send out rebates each month to poor families.

So if the poverty rate is $12,000 per person per year, and the fair tax is 25%, the government will send the poor people $3,000 a year back.

The way I would do it is to make water, bread, milk, fruits, vegetables, rent, and all the essentials not subject to the tax.

Where I live (Massachusetts, USA), water, bread, milk, fruits, vegetables, rents, and even "non-luxury" clothing are all non-taxable.

A poor person earning $12,000 a year can ill-afford an outlay of 1/4 of effective annual income then wait for it to be rebated, even if it's on a monthly basis.

In addition, such a tax serves to marginalize even further the have-nots. Imagine you are a poor family making perhaps $20,000 annually. Once each year, for one day, your family can afford a "vacation" ... say, an early-morning drive to the beach and nearby amusement park, and back that night because you can't even afford a motel room to crowd the family into. Suddenly, the cost of everything associated with that is 30% greater. The haves suffer not from this imposition; the have-nots no longer can afford this minuscule piece of what might make life living.

You have not thought through your proposal, I imagine, but I guarantee those who came up with the idea and advocate it have. They see it as another smoke-and-mirrors way of protecting the wealth and privilege of the exploiters and taking from the mass of people, who are viewed as less than human and whose existence only has meaning to the wealthy in two regards: as a source of labor (to the degree this is even needed any more, in the age of wealthmaking via electronic financial transactions based on speculation and phony money) and as a constant thorn in their side, always seeking "entitlements" and a "safety net."

If you want to see a "fair tax," let's have a 100% tax on all income over $250,000. That'll sort things out for sure. No one needs more money than that to live a decent life.

[transjen]

So how does this do away with the IRS? some one still needs to collect the tax plus issue refunds checks
Like i said it sounds nice until you sit down and really think it out
And under this system you'll be paying that high tax on every single car payment so a stanard 5 year car loan means you will pay that high tax 60 times on your new car
no thanks

[Suckslut]

First off, I never said this would do away with the IRS. What it would do is cut it by about 90% and do away with filing income taxes for about 90% of people. Plus it would eliminate all the headaches associated with different tax rates for different kinds of income (wages, rent, long term capital gains, social security, deductions, loopholes, etc).

The IRS would only have to look at forms filed by businesses in the US (say 3 million) as opposed to forms filed by almost every single citizen over 18 (say 200 million)

Second of all, you are assuming everything will be 30% more expensive than it is now. That is not true. Income taxes are already figured in to company's margins and expenses. If I'm selling a product and I want to make a $1000 profit and the taxes are 33%, I'm going to sell it for $1500 (assuming other costs are $0, which they aren't, buy I'm trying to keep this simple). Now, with a fair tax at 33% and I want to make a $1000 profit, I could sell it for $1000 (again assuming costs are $0) and the customer pays the 33% tax for a total of $1,333.


I don't trust Republicans either, but I do like this proposal. In fact Mike Gavel, former Democrat Senator for Alaska is for this.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

First off, I never said this would do away with the IRS. What it would do is cut it by about 90% and do away with filing income taxes for about 90% of people. Plus it would eliminate all the headaches associated with different tax rates for different kinds of income (wages, rent, long term capital gains, social security, deductions, loopholes, etc).

The IRS would only have to look at forms filed by businesses in the US (say 3 million) as opposed to forms filed by almost every single citizen over 18 (say 200 million)

Second of all, you are assuming everything will be 30% more expensive than it is now. That is not true. Income taxes are already figured in to company's margins and expenses. If I'm selling a product and I want to make a $1000 profit and the taxes are 33%, I'm going to sell it for $1500 (assuming other costs are $0, which they aren't, buy I'm trying to keep this simple). Now, with a fair tax at 33% and I want to make a $1000 profit, I could sell it for $1000 (again assuming costs are $0) and the customer pays the 33% tax for a total of $1,333.


I don't trust Republicans either, but I do like this proposal. In fact Mike Gavel, former Democrat Senator for Alaska is for this.

Taking your points in reverse order.

1. The fact that a Democrat is for this doesn't matter one wit to me. I do not support any politicians of the Republocrat Party.

2. I think you are being na?ve about prices to consumers. Businesses exist to maximize profits. Without some "fair tax"-related price controls, there is nothing to stop a business from continuing to charge the same as before. Sure, so-called "market forces" may result in adjustments of the sort you describe, but while you may be willing to rely on the market, I think we've had enough experience to known that there is no guarantee of the market adjusting in favor of consumers. (And I'm being kind to the market by only saying that.)

3. More to the point about prices, your construct seems flawed. Are you saying that the seller (i.e., a corporation) will no longer pay a tax? Seems to be what you wrote.

Most important, your proposal would replace a progressive tax (income) with a regressive tax. The solution is to fix the progressive taxation by making the wealthy pay more, not impose yet another hardship on working people. To be honest, you sound like the very thing you claim not to trust.

[Suckslut]

A corporation would pay the fair tax on the goods and services it buys, but not on the profits. Profits would go to the shareholders, managers, employees, tax free. Just like how an employee's salary and wages will be tax free. Everyone would only pay a tax when they buy things.

Smc, I think that a truly free market would resolve prices, but we haven't had a truly free market for a long time. Big companies get regulation passed so small companies can't compete and even conservative republicans can't vote to eliminate oil subsidies or jets for billionaires.

I wouldn't be opposed to a progressive fair tax. Purchases under $1,000 pay 10% tax, under $10,000 but over $1,000, 20% etc. If need be you could make exceptions for houses and cars, which most people need.

But this could turn into a luxury tax. You want to purchase a $5 million home, go right ahead. You'll pay a 50% tax on it, or whatever.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

A corporation would pay the fair tax on the goods and services it buys, but not on the profits. Profits would go to the shareholders, managers, employees, tax free. Just like how an employee's salary and wages will be tax free. Everyone would only pay a tax when they buy things.

Smc, I think that a truly free market would resolve prices, but we haven't had a truly free market for a long time. Big companies get regulation passed so small companies can't compete and even conservative republicans can't vote to eliminate oil subsidies or jets for billionaires.

I wouldn't be opposed to a progressive fair tax. Purchases under $1,000 pay 10% tax, under $10,000 but over $1,000, 20% etc. If need be you could make exceptions for houses and cars, which most people need.

But this could turn into a luxury tax. You want to purchase a $5 million home, go right ahead. You'll pay a 50% tax on it, or whatever.

I genuinely admire your commitment to this concept, and I especially value your willingness to have a real discussion about it without any of the hyperbolic bullshit and made-up "facts" that are so often posted here.

Unfortunately, where we differ goes far beyond the merits of the "fair tax" idea. The notion that one can create a "fair" version of a system that is fundamentally based on exploitation is, frankly, ridiculous.

[randolph]

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however.

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by smc

I genuinely admire your commitment to this concept, and I especially value your willingness to have a real discussion about it without any of the hyperbolic bullshit and made-up "facts" that are so often posted here.

Unfortunately, where we differ goes far beyond the merits of the "fair tax" idea. The notion that one can create a "fair" version of a system that is fundamentally based on exploitation is, frankly, ridiculous.

Think of the fair tax, or the progressive fair tax, as a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more in taxes you pay.

From a business point of view, the more you consume (products you make), the more in taxes your customers pay.

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however.

Prostitution should be legal.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

Think of the fair tax, or the progressive fair tax, as a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more in taxes you pay.

From a business point of view, the more you consume (products you make), the more in taxes your customers pay.

Your response ignores the primary point I made: the system of exploitation is the problem, and all solutions that do not fundamentally eliminate the system that is based on exploitation are pipe dreams. Nevertheless, I will address the points you do make.

All consumption taxes shift the burden of taxation to the poor. Even with the rebate of which you wrote earlier accounted for, thus making it hypothetically a "progressive" tax on consumption, you fail to see how it would be regressive. It is simple arithmetic that consumption falls as a percentage of income as the income level increases. Thus, high-income people would have a lower tax burden under the consumption tax.

Further, consider how the system of exploitation figures into this in one straightforward example. In the Boston suburb where I live, good-quality produce -- healthy, clean, etc. -- is readily available at any number of grocery stores near my home. In the poor neighborhoods of the city, crappy produce is sometimes available at convenience stores; there are very few actual grocery stores. The good produce at my area stores is less expensive than the crap that poor folks can buy near their homes. I have a car; many of them rely on inadequate public transportation.

So, I can buy a clean, organically grown head of lettuce for $2.99 at Whole Foods. They can buy a plastic-wrapped, shitty looking head of iceberg lettuce for $3.50 at the corner "market," or travel on the bus for a half hour to a grocery store that has a slightly better head of lettuce for $2.99 (not as good as the one near me). Add the $1.25 bus fare each way, and that lettuce cost $5.49. On top of this, you would have that person pay a 30% tax.

Progressive? Give me a break.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

Prostitution should be legal.

Yes and so should pot. The drug trade is terrible.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however.

Well, I guess this kind of post in the middle of a serious discussion is better than hyperbolic xenophobia.

[franalexes]

Which is more likely, people come here because it's a porn site; or is this the home of political enlightenment?

Really people! A post about having a sex tax. Somebody had to say it. and somebody did.

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by smc

Your response ignores the primary point I made: the system of exploitation is the problem, and all solutions that do not fundamentally eliminate the system that is based on exploitation are pipe dreams. Nevertheless, I will address the points you do make.

All consumption taxes shift the burden of taxation to the poor. Even with the rebate of which you wrote earlier accounted for, thus making it hypothetically a "progressive" tax on consumption, you fail to see how it would be regressive. It is simple arithmetic that consumption falls as a percentage of income as the income level increases. Thus, high-income people would have a lower tax burden under the consumption tax.

Further, consider how the system of exploitation figures into this in one straightforward example. In the Boston suburb where I live, good-quality produce -- healthy, clean, etc. -- is readily available at any number of grocery stores near my home. In the poor neighborhoods of the city, crappy produce is sometimes available at convenience stores; there are very few actual grocery stores. The good produce at my area stores is less expensive than the crap that poor folks can buy near their homes. I have a car; many of them rely on inadequate public transportation.

So, I can buy a clean, organically grown head of lettuce for $2.99 at Whole Foods. They can buy a plastic-wrapped, shitty looking head of iceberg lettuce for $3.50 at the corner "market," or travel on the bus for a half hour to a grocery store that has a slightly better head of lettuce for $2.99 (not as good as the one near me). Add the $1.25 bus fare each way, and that lettuce cost $5.49. On top of this, you would have that person pay a 30% tax.

Progressive? Give me a break.

I'm not necessary disagreeing with you, but what is your solution? I'm guessing your solution is to have the rich pay more income tax and to close tax loopholes and end corporate subsidies right?

I just don't think that is going to happen. Companies lobby congress to get special deductions and loopholes, and then those companies hire the people from the IRS who know the tax code inside and out so those companies don't end up paying tax anyways.

If they can't figure out how to lower their taxes more, they'll just funnel their money to the Caymen Islands and hide it there.

You talk about the fair tax hurting the poor, because they pay a higher % of their money to taxes, well that is the way it is now. Warren Buffet's tax % is less than his secretary's due to capital gains. Then add on gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, social security (which is a regressive tax), and the poor pay a way more disproportionate % of their wages to taxes.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Which is more likely, people come here because it's a porn site; or is this the home of political enlightenment?

Really people! A post about having a sex tax. Somebody had to say it. and somebody did.

The primary reason people come here is obvious, but keep in mind who it is that has started all these threads (Liberal free for all coming to an end; GOP'ish candidates; Immigration law; If police question/detain a black person is it racism?). The answer is not me.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

I'm not necessary disagreeing with you, but what is your solution? I'm guessing your solution is to have the rich pay more income tax and to close tax loopholes and end corporate subsidies right?

I just don't think that is going to happen. Companies lobby congress to get special deductions and loopholes, and then those companies hire the people from the IRS who know the tax code inside and out so those companies don't end up paying tax anyways.

If they can't figure out how to lower their taxes more, they'll just funnel their money to the Caymen Islands and hide it there.

You talk about the fair tax hurting the poor, because they pay a higher % of their money to taxes, well that is the way it is now. Warren Buffet's tax % is less than his secretary's due to capital gains. Then add on gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, social security (which is a regressive tax), and the poor pay a way more disproportionate % of their wages to taxes.

I gave my solution earlier. The problem in the United States is that everyone ends us saying what you wrote: "I just don't think that is going to happen." How about we make something happen?

[franalexes]

From Emerson?s quarterly earnings conference call August 2, 2011:

Emerson (NYSE: EMR) is a diversified global manufacturing and technology company. Emerson is widely recognized for its engineering capabilities and management excellence. Emerson has approximately 135,000 employees (over 34,000 in the United States) and 240 manufacturing locations worldwide. Sales are estimated to exceed $7.5 billion in 2011. Capital expenditures are estimated to be around $740 million in 2012, (about 2.7% of revenues) as announced by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in Emerson?s quarterly conference call today. He inferred that none of that will be invested in the United States In answering a question from and analyst he went on to passionately criticize the Obama Administration and the ?flood of regulations and taxes?.

Cap-ex plans for 2012

??in the US, they are not really addressing the ?gut? issues. There is a flood of regulations coming at us from the US. The incentive to invest in the US is negative. And from my perspective I have all the clarity I need. They?re spending. They?re taxing. Our tax rate in the US will be over 36% in the US this year. We pay actually pay the US government over $500 million in this year, and they say they want to raise it even more. I run a company. I have a lot of money to invest, but I?m not going to invest it here. And then when you have a company like Boeing, an iconic American company, gets sued by the Federal Government, if that doesn?t get your attention, nothing will. They get sued for investing $2 billion in South Carolina. Last time I saw South Carolina was part of the United States of America, and you get sued for that? I tell you what, as a CEO of a company, you got my attention. And so, from my perspective, people are very nervous about regulation. They have no idea how much healthcare cost is going to get thrown at us. And all I see is things coming at me. The new whistleblower rule, or the new commodity rule, or take a look at everything that is coming at us. You sit there and say how much can you burden companies that want to invest and create jobs? And the answer is, ?I guess it?s never ending,? because they think that we?re going to sit around and take it all. The environment [in the United States] is not very good and I think Washington does not understand how to create jobs. You know they are talking about raising taxes, getting rid of corporate planes, I mean it?s amazing, or doubling the CAF? standards, that?s going to create a lot of jobs. That?s my opinion. And we happen to control a lot of money to invest. We have over 135,000 employees and over 35,000 in the United States.?

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

The primary reason people come here is obvious, but keep in mind who it is that has started all these threads . The answer is not me.

I'll give you that. He struck a raw nerve in a lot of people.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

If police question/detain a black person is it racism?). The answer is not me.

You're kidding. I have to look that up now.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

From Emerson?s quarterly earnings conference call August 2, 2011:

Emerson (NYSE: EMR) is a diversified global manufacturing and technology company. Emerson is widely recognized for its engineering capabilities and management excellence. Emerson has approximately 135,000 employees (over 34,000 in the United States) and 240 manufacturing locations worldwide. Sales are estimated to exceed $7.5 billion in 2011. Capital expenditures are estimated to be around $740 million in 2012, (about 2.7% of revenues) as announced by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in Emerson?s quarterly conference call today. He inferred that none of that will be invested in the United States In answering a question from and analyst he went on to passionately criticize the Obama Administration and the ?flood of regulations and taxes?.

Cap-ex plans for 2012

??in the US, they are not really addressing the ?gut? issues. There is a flood of regulations coming at us from the US. The incentive to invest in the US is negative. And from my perspective I have all the clarity I need. They?re spending. They?re taxing. Our tax rate in the US will be over 36% in the US this year. We pay actually pay the US government over $500 million in this year, and they say they want to raise it even more. I run a company. I have a lot of money to invest, but I?m not going to invest it here. And then when you have a company like Boeing, an iconic American company, gets sued by the Federal Government, if that doesn?t get your attention, nothing will. They get sued for investing $2 billion in South Carolina. Last time I saw South Carolina was part of the United States of America, and you get sued for that? I tell you what, as a CEO of a company, you got my attention. And so, from my perspective, people are very nervous about regulation. They have no idea how much healthcare cost is going to get thrown at us. And all I see is things coming at me. The new whistleblower rule, or the new commodity rule, or take a look at everything that is coming at us. You sit there and say how much can you burden companies that want to invest and create jobs? And the answer is, ?I guess it?s never ending,? because they think that we?re going to sit around and take it all. The environment [in the United States] is not very good and I think Washington does not understand how to create jobs. You know they are talking about raising taxes, getting rid of corporate planes, I mean it?s amazing, or doubling the CAF? standards, that?s going to create a lot of jobs. That?s my opinion. And we happen to control a lot of money to invest. We have over 135,000 employees and over 35,000 in the United States.?

Corporations exist to maximize profits to SHAREHOLDERS. If they could do that without making a single thing, or employing anybody who does anything that has any social value whatsoever, they would do so (look at Wall Street).

When the corporate bosses cry that they are overtaxed and overregulated, and then they get special breaks and subsidies from U.S. taxpayers, they're quick to up and leave and take jobs with them the minute they find a place where they can maximize profits for their shareholders.

Maybe we should get rid of all the regulation that hurts the poor corporations. Let's not have any standards to prevent toxic foodstuffs from being sold to retail supermarkets by agribusiness conglomerates. Let's not have a minimum wage. Let's not have requirements for safe manufacturing facilities. Let's not have any limits on what corporations can spew into the air or dump into lakes and rivers. After all, the corporations are people, too -- so says the ridiculous Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court -- and since they have much more money than other people, why shouldn't they get all the breaks.

And if regular working people don't like it, they can move overseas just like the big corporations, right?

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by smc

Corporations exist to maximize profits to SHAREHOLDERS. If they could do that without making a single thing, or employing anybody who does anything that has any social value whatsoever, they would do so (look at Wall Street).

When the corporate bosses cry that they are overtaxed and overregulated, and then they get special breaks and subsidies from U.S. taxpayers, they're quick to up and leave and take jobs with them the minute they find a place where they can maximize profits for their shareholders.

Maybe we should get rid of all the regulation that hurts the poor corporations. Let's not have any standards to prevent toxic foodstuffs from being sold to retail supermarkets by agribusiness conglomerates. Let's not have a minimum wage. Let's not have requirements for safe manufacturing facilities. Let's not have any limits on what corporations can spew into the air or dump into lakes and rivers. After all, the corporations are people, too -- so says the ridiculous Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court -- and since they have much more money than other people, why shouldn't they get all the breaks.

And if regular working people don't like it, they can move overseas just like the big corporations, right?

We'll never have a free market, or eliminate tax subsidies and loopholes until we overturn Citizen's United.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

We'll never have a free market, or eliminate tax subsidies and loopholes until we overturn Citizen's United.

You got that right, Citizen's United is a terrible ruling.

In other countries especially in Europe, corporate tax rates are very high compared to the US. They are also subject to substantial regulation, yet they are thriving. Whining by wealthy corporate executives is like a spoiled child having a tantrum when it's parent won't give it more candy.
Also, one of our graduate students father worked for Emerson. He said the exec's take huge bribes to set up a plant in a foreign company.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

Maybe we should get rid of all the regulation that hurts the poor corporations. Let's not have any standards ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

(Do you have a serious response?)
You're talking to the wrong person.
Your arguement is with the CEO of Emerson.

How many of those 35,000 U.S. jobs will still be here in another year?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by randolph

Whining by wealthy corporate executives is like a spoiled child having a tantrum when it's parent won't give it more candy.

That is the very analogy I use myself often. It always amazes me how greed, selfishness, and control are not encouraged and in fact punished by parents when they encounter it in their children yet in the economic sphere they are some kind of twisted, debased high virtues.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by randolph

In other countries especially in Europe, corporate tax rates are very high compared to the US.

Technically, only Japan has a higher corporate tax rate than the US. However, we all know that many companies don't pay the statutory 35% rate thanks to the myrian number of deductions and loopholes.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by franalexes

(Do you have a serious response?)
You're talking to the wrong person.
Your arguement is with the CEO of Emerson.

How many of those 35,000 U.S. jobs will still be here in another year?

Actually, quite a few companies are moving production back here because of low taxes, cheap labor and lower shipping costs. Japanese and European car makers for example. Even China is in Central America and Mexico.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

(Do you have a serious response?)
You're talking to the wrong person.
Your arguement is with the CEO of Emerson.

How many of those 35,000 U.S. jobs will still be here in another year?

You posted something that allowed me to make a point. My argument is with the substance of your post, and my response could not be more serious ... your mocking aside. The point is that the corporate bosses really want to eliminate everything that gets in the way of their profit-maximization. Regulations, standards, and so on are only tolerated by the corporations to the degree they are the will of the vast majority of people, either directly or by inference. Opportunities to circumvent them, including by moving elsewhere, are always entertained.

[Amy]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes and so should pot. The drug trade is terrible.

Yep. All across the world, big drug lords LOVE their billions of dollars annually of completely untaxable income.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Actually, quite a few companies are moving production back here because of low taxes, cheap labor and lower shipping costs. Japanese and European car makers for example. Even China is in Central America and Mexico.

And don't forget, China is establishing a foothold in Africa as well.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

You know as well as I do that it is meant to suggest that the complete senselessness of what you wrote might (in jest) be explained by the use of mind-altering drugs. Hence the LOL emoticon.

So, being forced by an organization to pony up money under the threat of violence and then calling the the money that has been extorted as part of "paying your dues" or "taxes" or whatever you want to call it counts as a legitimate payment for goods and services? It is extortion money, plain and simple and no matter what it is used for, be it good or bad, it is still extortion money. I do not see the "senselessness" of calling a spade a spade.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by The Conquistador

And don't forget, China is establishing a foothold in Africa as well.

Yeah, China is buying land in Africa for food production to export to China. What are the poor souls living in Africa going to do for food?
This is the kind of thing England did in Ireland, India and Africa years ago.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yeah, China is buying land in Africa for food production to export to China. What are the poor souls living in Africa going to do for food?
This is the kind of thing England did in Ireland, India and Africa years ago.

Not just food production but resources in general. They are buying farmland, mines, oil wells and numerous other parts of the country. I wouldn't doubt that they are colonizing parts of the African continent and will become a major influence in the region.

[transjen]

Useless yes useless all this post is nothing but talking points of both parties and has changed no ones minds
So this is all useless
In the end the unsupreme court on 12/21/12 will rule 5 to 4 that Bachman is the next president sealing our fate to this
http://youtu.be/8fxFkue8gZ8

Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

The big ouch!