• 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!

G.E. Profit Up Despite ‘Volatile’ Economy

More regulation always tilts the scales toward large companies that have the economies of scale to comply with it, and it prevents smaller companies from catching them.

Jeff Immelt shoud know.
 
If you have a TV or a cell phone one is paying a federal tax on their electric bill to power the things.

If that actually deterred the non FIT payers from wanting more spending it might make sense

it doesn't

people who have no skin in the game shouldn't be demanding people like me pay more

if they want me to pay more they should face tax hikes too
 
If that actually deterred the non FIT payers from wanting more spending it might make sense

it doesn't

people who have no skin in the game shouldn't be demanding people like me pay more

if they want me to pay more they should face tax hikes too

And therein lies the biggest moral hazard our Republic has ever faced, predicted for almost two centuries that we would face it. The ability of the electorate to vote itself the largesse of the Treasury.

Everyone needs to pay a portion of every tax where they have any income. No exemptions. As you note, all need skin in every game. It is part of the appeal of Cain's 9-9-9. It greatly reduces that number of games being played, and all get to participate in some very transparent and simple revenue schemes, such that the government cannot play hide-and-steal with the tax codes.
 
And therein lies the biggest moral hazard our Republic has ever faced, predicted for almost two centuries that we would face it. The ability of the electorate to vote itself the largesse of the Treasury.

Everyone needs to pay a portion of every tax where they have any income. No exemptions. As you note, all need skin in every game. It is part of the appeal of Cain's 9-9-9. It greatly reduces that number of games being played, and all get to participate in some very transparent and simple revenue schemes, such that the government cannot play hide-and-steal with the tax codes.

the welfare socialists hate the thought of everyone having to pay income tax since it would really cut down on the ability of the pimps in their party winning elections by promising a couple hundred thousand slackers that their needs will be funded by raising taxes on a couple thousand highly productive tax payers
 
the welfare socialists hate the thought of everyone having to pay income tax since it would really cut down on the ability of the pimps in their party winning elections by promising a couple hundred thousand slackers that their needs will be funded by raising taxes on a couple thousand highly productive tax payers

I bet Dean Foods would not like your proposition. Odds are you just like millions bought milk from one of their dairys.
 
If that actually deterred the non FIT payers from wanting more spending it might make sense

What spending are you talking about?

if they want me to pay more they should face tax hikes too

They have over the past thirty or so years.
 
I bet Dean Foods would not like your proposition. Odds are you just like millions bought milk from one of their dairys.

nah we always bought Coors when I was a kid, and later Trauth though both are now out of business

and its people who pay taxes corporations are just conduits
 
What spending are you talking about?



They have over the past thirty or so years.

wrong, the bottom 95% pay less of the federal income tax burden now than at any time in the last 60 years
 
nah we always bought Coors when I was a kid, and later Trauth though both are now out of business

and its people who pay taxes corporations are just conduits

Coors is out of business?

WOW those right wing nuts there at Coors have really gone nutso!

and its people who pay taxes corporations are just conduits

psssst corporations are people too. just ask a judge.
 
Last edited:
Coors is out of business?

WOW those right wing nuts there at Coors have really gone nutso!



psssst corporations are people too. just ask a judge.

Coors DAIRY IN CINCINNATI not the brewery

people ultimately decide how a corporation spends the owners' money
 
GE is thriving and not sharing any of their gains with the people of the US, therefore we need to stop giving them the preferential treatment that’s allowed them to thrive; we need to find companies that are willing to share their windfall with the people and give them those resources instead.

Also: 1+1=2
 
.....that.....


OR



maybe given that human beings will seek to maximize their own self interest, and businesses are owned and run by human beings, we should just cease giving out preferential treatment alltogether?
 
.....that.....


OR



maybe given that human beings will seek to maximize their own self interest, and businesses are owned and run by human beings, we should just cease giving out preferential treatment alltogether?

Yet another in a long streak of great ideas, CP! We can stop giving preferential treatment to everybody!

So what about keeping the government running? We’re gonna have to tax somebody to keep essential services going (whatever you think those may be). How are we going to decide who gets taxed and who doesn’t without preferential treatment? Tax everybody the same %? Shouldn’t we take marginal propensity to spend into account? What about industries that are vital to American infrastructure? Shouldn’t we favor those to avoid being stuck in the 20th century while the rest of the world advances around us?

No matter how much bull**** you try to spatter on the issue, it is impossible to avoid giving preferential treatment to somebody. I’m saying that we should rationally assess who and what conditions will spread the most prosperity to the middle class.

I know that sounds difficult, CP, but don’t worry; none of us are going to heft undue expectations of rationality onto your shoulders. Carry on, good sir.
 
Yet another in a long streak of great ideas, CP! We can stop giving preferential treatment to everybody!

So what about keeping the government running? We’re gonna have to tax somebody to keep essential services going (whatever you think those may be). How are we going to decide who gets taxed and who doesn’t without preferential treatment? Tax everybody the same %?

:shrug: that sounds fine. with an income floor at the level of poverty.

Shouldn’t we take marginal propensity to spend into account?

unless we are looking to decrease it by switching to a consumption tax model (which I would also be fine with), I don't see why we should.

What about industries that are vital to American infrastructure?

:shrug: if they truly are vital then they will continue to be used and therefore will survive. if, however, they are not vital, but rather simply have good lobbyists who can get congresscritters to declare them "vital", then they will wither on the vine. as they should.

Shouldn’t we favor those to avoid being stuck in the 20th century while the rest of the world advances around us?

nope see above.

No matter how much bull**** you try to spatter on the issue, it is impossible to avoid giving preferential treatment to somebody.

not really - that's the beauty of the flat tax. but within it, i'm willing to make an exception and give preferential treatment to income earned by the poor. That's a tilt I could support quite happily.

I’m saying that we should rationally assess who and what conditions will spread the most prosperity to the middle class.

and I'm saying that it is exceedingly unlikely that our politicians have the expertise or incentives to do that. you might as well put them in charge of making us all happy.

I know that sounds difficult, CP, but don’t worry; none of us are going to heft undue expectations of rationality onto your shoulders

well i'm relieved :)

. Carry on, good sir.

and to you.
 
GE is thriving and not sharing any of their gains with the people of the US, therefore we need to stop giving them the preferential treatment that’s allowed them to thrive; we need to find companies that are willing to share their windfall with the people and give them those resources instead.

Also: 1+1=2


Where is it a law that gains or profits of a company must be shared?

j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom