GOP'ish candidates

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

It's about corporations being "people," which is obvious even to you ... as are the implications in our political system.

I think Mitt says it pretty simply:
"Corporations are people my friend... Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?"

Those earnings go to people. Then they get taxed on those earnings. If you tax the corporation as well, you're taxing those people twice. As for your cartoon... A woman would be far more likely to give birth to a sole proprietorship don't you think?

In Obama's latest ads he's saying he's for insourcing. Yet his policies say otherwise. What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think Mitt says it pretty simply:
"Corporations are people my friend... Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?"

Those earnings go to people. Then they get taxed on those earnings. If you tax the corporation as well, you're taxing those people twice. As for your cartoon... A woman would be far more likely to give birth to a sole proprietorship don't you think?

In Obama's latest ads he's saying he's for insourcing. Yet his policies say otherwise. What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?

I didn't expect you to answer the real question about the "implications in our political system" for defining corporations as people (which gives them the rights people enjoy). Thanks for living up to my expectations.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I didn't expect you to answer the real question about the "implications in our political system" for defining corporations as people (which gives them the rights people enjoy). Thanks for living up to my expectations.

Oh, sorry. When you lead your response with "It's about corporations being "people" I thought that was the real question. I was going to thank you for this new rational dialog we've been having the last few days. Let's keep it going rather than devolving into our usual BS. Other than the way the implications to our political system question was downplayed in your response, it didn't occur to me to respond because, other than the sides the left and right have obviously taken I see no other implications. But please fill me in.

I know you wouldn't make the same mistake I made when I didn't answer your other question, so I'll wait for your answer to "What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?"

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh, sorry. When you lead your response with "It's about corporations being "people" I thought that was the real question. I was going to thank you for this new rational dialog we've been having the last few days. Let's keep it going rather than devolving into our usual BS. Other than the way the implications to our political system question was downplayed in your response, it didn't occur to me to respond because, other than the sides the left and right have obviously taken I see no other implications. But please fill me in.

I'm sorry, too, because I really can't follow what you write in the quote just above. Please clarify. I'm serious; I don't get the next-to-last sentence in the paragraph.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I know you wouldn't make the same mistake I made when I didn't answer your other question, so I'll wait for your answer to "What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?"

You are trying to change the subject, as usual. We can have a discussion about corporate tax rates and other criteria that might be reasonable for corporations to decide where to do business. But answer the question: do you think corporations are people in that they should have the same rights afforded to individuals (such as "free speech" as defined in Citizens United, coupled with the "right" to be completely secretive about who is actually exercising that "right")?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I'm sorry, too, because I really can't follow what you write in the quote just above. Please clarify. I'm serious; I don't get the next-to-last sentence in the paragraph.

Perhaps I was too vague. But I see from your last post perhaps what you're talking about when you say political implications. Your talking about corporations and free speech?

Originally Posted by smc

do you think corporations are people in that they should have the same rights afforded to individuals (such as "free speech" as defined in Citizens United, coupled with the "right" to be completely secretive about who is actually exercising that "right")?

Just as corporations are made up of people, and therefore already taxed, they also have the right to free speech. I know this is an issue for you and you asked me about my views on this a while back and I answered it the same way. Deja vu all over again. I think just as Hollywood puts out movies laced with the left viewpoint time after time, and the media presents the left viewpoint time after time, corporations (as the people they consist of do) have the right to free speech as well. Your argument may be that corporate speech may be banned because corporations enjoy certain privileges afforded by law. But the government may not require the surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for state-furnished benefits, like barring criticism of Congress by residents of public housing. Extrapolate from there and you can forbid newspapers from making endorsements. Media companies are exempt from the ban. Why should newspapers be free to spend money urging support of a candidate while other companies are not?

Originally Posted by smc

You are trying to change the subject, as usual. We can have a discussion about corporate tax rates and other criteria that might be reasonable for corporations to decide where to do business.

You're saying we can talk about other criteria that decides where a corporation does business and remain on "subject" but not how corporate taxes influence where corporations do business? No I think that's part of the equation. Sure you can tax corporations or any other entity to its knees but there are consequences and that is part of the subject. Please answer the question.

What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Just as corporations are made up of people, and therefore already taxed, they also have the right to free speech. I know this is an issue for you and you asked me about my views on this a while back and I answered it the same way. Deja vu all over again. I think just as Hollywood puts out movies laced with the left viewpoint time after time, and the media presents the left viewpoint time after time, corporations (as the people they consist of do) have the right to free speech as well. Your argument may be that corporate speech may be banned because corporations enjoy certain privileges afforded by law. But the government may not require the surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for state-furnished benefits, like barring criticism of Congress by residents of public housing. Extrapolate from there and you can forbid newspapers from making endorsements. Media companies are exempt from the ban. Why should newspapers be free to spend money urging support of a candidate while other companies are not?

I find your analogy to Hollywood movies to be rather specious, and I contend that there are umpteen movies that espouse what some might call the "right viewpoint," but be that as it may ... Here's a big difference. In a Hollywood movie, who is funding the message and stating the message is clear. When a corporation funds a political advertisement, it is not even remotely as transparent. So, would you at least agree that the transparency should be there for the corporate funders?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You're saying we can talk about other criteria that decides where a corporation does business and remain on "subject" but not how corporate taxes influence where corporations do business? No I think that's part of the equation. Sure you can tax corporations or any other entity to its knees but there are consequences and that is part of the subject. Please answer the question.

What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?

Your question is an attempt to introduce something to the equation that is tangential. Whether a corporation wants to do business here or there has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a corporation and a person are equal by definition and thus have equal "rights." I could put a map of impoverished places in the world, where all water is unpotable, disease is rampant, there are no educational opportunities, and food is scarce, and ask "What person would want to live here?" Does the answer have anything to do with our subject? Of course not.

Nevertheless, since based on experience one might reasonably assume you will pretend not to see the point and accuse me of not answering your question now asked multiple times, I will state that I don't think corporate taxes are high enough in this country. Now, you can take that up as a way of avoiding the subject I first raised ... it is my gift to you, because you are always so deserving.

(Yes, that's sarcasm.)

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

When a corporation funds a political advertisement, it is not even remotely as transparent. So, would you at least agree that the transparency should be there for the corporate funders?

Heaven forbid a voter actually try and read between the lines and think about what's really been said. Yes I agree it would be nice to know who's behind the message... but Constitutionally, I can't see the reasoning behind that.

Originally Posted by smc

Your question is an attempt to introduce something to the equation that is tangential.

You posted your cartoon about giving birth to a corporation and referenced Romney. I didn't know what Romney said about corporations being people so I googled it and found something on him talking about corporate taxes. I assumed corporate taxes were what you were talking about. And when I think about corporate taxes, whether or not the government should tax corporations is the first thing I think about and the second is the competitiveness of our corporations. You must admit we think very differently. Don't think I'm purposely trying to tick you off. I just don't see things the same way you do or have the same concerns as you.

Originally Posted by smc

Whether a corporation wants to do business here or there has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a corporation and a person are equal by definition and thus have equal "rights."

No, it doesn't, if your comment and cartoon was about the rights of a corporation. I assumed it was about taxes though. Does that mean you will not answer my question about corporate taxes?

[tslust]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?

Wow, to hear the liberals talk, the corporations in America are not taxed at all (in GE's [the company in obama's back pocket] case this would be true). The only country with a coperate rate higher than ours (40%) is United Arab Emirates.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by tslust

Wow, to hear the liberals talk, the corporations in America are not taxed at all (in GE's [the company in obama's back pocket] case this would be true). The only country with a coperate rate higher than ours (40%) is United Arab Emirates.

To hear some right wingers talk, you'd think they have a real aversion to something called facts. Where is the federal corporate tax rate 40%? Oh, you must be lumping in state and local tax rates to the "statutory minimum" federal rate of 35%. Yep, that's right, the federal tax rate is only 35%. And it only applies to businesses making over $18 million of taxable income. Income between $335,000 and $10 million is taxed at a flat rate of 34%. Income below the $335,000 threshold is taxed less.

It's certainly conceivable that if state and local taxes are added to the federal tax rate, a FEW corporations may pay in the neighborhood of 40%. But this is far from universally true-- if for no other reason that some state (and many municipalities) don't have corporate taxes at all.

Further, even if every state did have corporate tax to levy, still, the vast majority of corporations would pay nowhere near 40%. Those who know anything about business know that the effective tax rate (aka. the actual rate that a corporation ends up paying after factoring in deductions, credits, etc.) is 19%. Obviously, the distribution of deductions and credits is not even by business or industry-- under the current tax code, some corporations end up paying close to the federal "minimum" rate, others pay hardly any tax at all.

What does all this mean? That our tax code is definitely convoluted. But it also means that it's disingenuous to lay out a blanket percentage of tax rate as if it's fact that applies equally to all.