• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study finds Corporate America avoided $60B in taxes (2010)

Please, spare me the Bachman bull****. It's a ****ing joke for leftists to even say the name of the founders. They hate the Constitution and want to change this country into Europe. That's a generalization that is generally true for most. But you're a centrist right? Yeah sure. I don't believe in centrists and moderates.

Both liberals and conservatives have changed the constitution, and it should go back to the way the founders wanted it... only white rich men can vote, and we'll all be able to own slaves again. It will beautiful.
 
Both liberals and conservatives have changed the constitution, and it should go back to the way the founders wanted it... only white rich men can vote, and we'll all be able to own slaves again. It will beautiful.
Careful, there are some posters here who probably agree with that.
 
Careful, there are some posters here who probably agree with that.

its the left that favors slavery. what exactly is a 70 or 80% tax rate but slavery?
 
its the left that favors slavery. what exactly is a 70 or 80% tax rate but slavery?
We had 90% rates under Eisenhower. Do you consider the rich back then to be enslaved? I swear you are so delusional. On a slightly unrelated note who are more a fan of Rand or Rothbard?
 
its the left that favors slavery. what exactly is a 70 or 80% tax rate but slavery?

Yeah, I think you can really relate to slaves... Of course since you pay a tax rate you despise, you know exactly how it feels to see your own children put in little baby hand cuffs and shackles, crammed on a ship, and later sold in a auction.

You haven't been whipped this hard literally, but the burden of paying your tax rate stings just as bad and dehumanizes just as much.

slave.jpg




Your emotional arguments equate to pure BS, and I am tired of ****ing reading your whiny posts. I have seen your write posts and say you are being raped. You're not a rape victim. You're not a ****ing slave. It's just like in the other thread you were arguing the government confiscates your wealth, but not people in a lower tax bracket. WTF, just WTF.

Keep running your mouth, because the more you do, the more and more difficult it becomes to feel sorry for you.
 
Both liberals and conservatives have changed the constitution, and it should go back to the way the founders wanted it... only white rich men can vote, and we'll all be able to own slaves again. It will beautiful.

Go look back on their arguments on voting. A good starting point would be John Adams and his wives letters they had on topic. When you do you will find his arguments had nothing to do with race or gender but experience and investment. Btw,In those letters she was arguing for womans voting rights and by the end of those letters she admitted he was right.

As for the other argument on slavery, that has debunked many times.
 
Go look back on their arguments on voting. A good starting point would be John Adams and his wives letters they had on topic. When you do you will find his arguments had nothing to do with race or gender but experience and investment. Btw,In those letters she was arguing for womans voting rights and by the end of those letters she admitted he was right.

As for the other argument on slavery, that has debunked many times.

We are talking about not changing the constitution....
 
We are talking about not changing the constitution....

Are you saying you admit you are full of it or do you wish to not admit you are full of it?
 
Are you saying you admit you are full of it or do you wish to not admit you are full of it?

Well, what is your argument exactly? That the founders weren't proud of the constitution?
 
Well, what is your argument exactly? That the founders weren't proud of the constitution?

Who changed it and for what purpose is your argument. Mine is merely on the two examples you brought up.
 
We had 90% rates under Eisenhower. Do you consider the rich back then to be enslaved? I swear you are so delusional. On a slightly unrelated note who are more a fan of Rand or Rothbard?

1) how many people did that rate affect

2) what deductions and avoidance mechanisms were available then that are not available now

3) what was the overall top effective tax rate

taking 90c on the next dollar someone earns is slavery. If you are not willing to pay that rate what gives you any moral foundation to demand someone else pay that rate

what brand of socialism do you prefer? national socialism or stalinesque socialism?

I haven't read Rand in 30 years-the other guy not at all
 
Who changed it and for what purpose is your argument. Mine is merely on the two examples you brought up.

The founders didn't change it, and you seem to be arguing they gave a constitution they weren't proud of
 
you have an effective rate of 33%? Find that amazing given that the highest effective rate is those making between 380K to 5 million and their's is 24%

wrong: 2010 Tax Brackets | Tax Rates

2010 tax rates
Tax rate Single filers Married filing Married filing Head of
jointly or qualifying separately household
widow/widower
10% Up to $8,375 Up to $16,750 Up to $8,375 Up to $11,950
15% $8,376 - $34,000 $16,751 - $68,000 $8,376 - $34,000 $11,951 - $45,550
25% $34,001 - $82,400 $68,001 - $137,300 $34,001 - $68,650 $45,551 - $117,650
28% $82,401 - $171,850 $137,301 - $209,250 $68,651 - $104,625 $117,651 - $190,550
33% $171,851 - $373,650 $209,251 - $373,650 $104,626 - $186,825 $190,551 - $373,650
35% $373,651 or more $373,651 or more $186,826 or more $373,651 or more
 
1) how many people did that rate affect

2) what deductions and avoidance mechanisms were available then that are not available now

3) what was the overall top effective tax rate

taking 90c on the next dollar someone earns is slavery. If you are not willing to pay that rate what gives you any moral foundation to demand someone else pay that rate

what brand of socialism do you prefer? national socialism or stalinesque socialism?

I haven't read Rand in 30 years-the other guy not at all
1. I don't have the exact numbers, but probably not very many. That is because this forced them to invest instead of hoarding wealth. That is the main reason we have high tax rates because it encourages them to reinvest so that they will make more money instead of simply hoarding it all.
2. They probably have more loopholes now.
3. The top tax rate was 90%.

First of all Nazism was supported by big business and no actual historian considers hem a socialist party. They were fascists which is a far right ideology. Secondly I'm a democratic socialist with some Trotskyist leanings.
 
wrong: 2010 Tax Brackets | Tax Rates

2010 tax rates
Tax rate Single filers Married filing Married filing Head of
jointly or qualifying separately household
widow/widower
10% Up to $8,375 Up to $16,750 Up to $8,375 Up to $11,950
15% $8,376 - $34,000 $16,751 - $68,000 $8,376 - $34,000 $11,951 - $45,550
25% $34,001 - $82,400 $68,001 - $137,300 $34,001 - $68,650 $45,551 - $117,650
28% $82,401 - $171,850 $137,301 - $209,250 $68,651 - $104,625 $117,651 - $190,550
33% $171,851 - $373,650 $209,251 - $373,650 $104,626 - $186,825 $190,551 - $373,650
35% $373,651 or more $373,651 or more $186,826 or more $373,651 or more

you don't understand top marginal rates and overall effective rates
 
1. I don't have the exact numbers, but probably not very many. That is because this forced them to invest instead of hoarding wealth. That is the main reason we have high tax rates because it encourages them to reinvest so that they will make more money instead of simply hoarding it all.
2. They probably have more loopholes now.
3. The top tax rate was 90%.

First of all Nazism was supported by big business and no actual historian considers hem a socialist party. They were fascists which is a far right ideology. Secondly I'm a democratic socialist with some Trotskyist leanings.


massive fail there were far more "loopholes" then and the overall effective tax rate was not much different than it is now. far right-far left- pretty much the same crap in practice

so you like capital gains being taxed far less than say salary? that is the only way that claim of yours makes sense. By investing I am looking for CG income

do you understand how silly your claim is?
 
The founders didn't change it, and you seem to be arguing they gave a constitution they weren't proud of

No, I'm not arguing that they weren't proud of what they put out. I'm merely telling you need to reconsider your arguments.

And besides a compromise on slavery is hardly a way to measure if they were happy with the overall goal and structure of the government they formed.
 
Corporate Welfare in the U.S.

"Subsidies considered excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by lobbying are often called corporate welfare. The label of corporate welfare is often used to decry projects advertised as benefiting the general welfare that spend a disproportionate amount of funds on large corporations, and often in uncompetitive, or anti-competitive ways. For instance, in the United States, agricultural subsidies are usually portrayed as helping honest, hardworking independent farmers stay afloat. However, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs actually goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland, as they own a considerably larger percentage of production.[5]

According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.[6]

Alan Peters and Peter Fisher have estimated that state and local governments provide $40-50 billion annually in economic development incentives,[7] which many critics characterize as corporate welfare.

Some economists consider the recent bank bailouts in the United States to be corporate welfare.[8][9] U.S. politicians have also contended that zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve to financial institutions during the global financial crisis were a hidden, backdoor form of corporate welfare."


Corporate welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Corporate Welfare in the U.S.

"Subsidies considered excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by lobbying are often called corporate welfare. The label of corporate welfare is often used to decry projects advertised as benefiting the general welfare that spend a disproportionate amount of funds on large corporations, and often in uncompetitive, or anti-competitive ways. For instance, in the United States, agricultural subsidies are usually portrayed as helping honest, hardworking independent farmers stay afloat. However, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs actually goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland, as they own a considerably larger percentage of production.[5]

According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.[6]

Alan Peters and Peter Fisher have estimated that state and local governments provide $40-50 billion annually in economic development incentives,[7] which many critics characterize as corporate welfare.

Some economists consider the recent bank bailouts in the United States to be corporate welfare.[8][9] U.S. politicians have also contended that zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve to financial institutions during the global financial crisis were a hidden, backdoor form of corporate welfare."


Corporate welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I say we end all subsidies to all entities. Do you agree?
 
No, I'm not arguing that they weren't proud of what they put out. I'm merely telling you need to reconsider your arguments.

And besides a compromise on slavery is hardly a way to measure if they were happy with the overall goal and structure of the government they formed.

The compromise on slavery in the Constitution is what we should be looking at when we hold the Founders in such high esteem. Our current government could learn a thing or two from them about how to compromise, and it should teach us that compromise between two sides is what made this country great.
 
No, I'm not arguing that they weren't proud of what they put out. I'm merely telling you need to reconsider your arguments.

And besides a compromise on slavery is hardly a way to measure if they were happy with the overall goal and structure of the government they formed.

Your arguments are sick. If I wanted to end slavery but let it continue, I wouldn't feel proud about that at all...
 
Well from what I have gathered from other posters here... they ship jobs out because of high taxes, so tax rates need to be lowered on companies. That will keep there here, even though many of them don't pay taxes and are getting refunds. So wait, the real problem is the compliance costs with tax code, so we need to make it easier and less expensive for them to get refunds... then the 60B will finally trickle down to us all. :shrug:

Trickle down economics is a scam, and it has been proven so by this recent economic depression. If it did work, however, we'd see improvements such as job growth and increasing wages. The government has even come out with recent statistics stating that the economy was worse than originally stated in 2007-2009. :doh No kidding.

But it is important to note that raising taxes on corporations will only result in consumers paying higher prices for their goods. No matter how high corporate taxes get, corporations will never pay taxes because they will pass the increases on to their customers as the cost of doing business. In my opinion, corporate personhood needs to be done away with, and the laws need to go back as they were before the corporate lawyers raped the 14th Amendment.
 
massive fail there were far more "loopholes" then and the overall effective tax rate was not much different than it is now. far right-far left- pretty much the same crap in practice

so you like capital gains being taxed far less than say salary? that is the only way that claim of yours makes sense. By investing I am looking for CG income

do you understand how silly your claim is?

Yes and no. Yes, there were more loopholes, but no, the effective tax rate was not about the same. In fact the effective tax rate was MUCH higher back in the day. If we had the same effective tax rates now (personal and corporate) that were in effect in 1961, we could pay down the national debt in 15-20 years without cutting spending.
 
Back
Top Bottom