• 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!

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown calls for Burger King boycott over Tim Hortons deal

Montecresto said:
You mean to say that you too think the only reason corporations relocate is for lower taxes? I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

No, they relocate for a number of reasons. The issue here, though, is taxes.

Try to keep up.
 
Ikari said:
If the claim is that they are people, then they can pay like people pay. What? You like giving them the convenience of personhood without the bills? If they can influence our government, then they can damned well pay for the maitnance and upkeep on the government. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch "libertarian".
Click to expand...

They are like people, they arent people.
 
NIMBY said:
Thanks for being a conservative on this thread with a great demeanor.
The "Linc" in me is reemerging and I'm happy about that.

I quoted this part of your post for a reason.

Don't wait until you retire before you take long road trips in the USA, not to mention your own great Canada.
I still remember the sight of the Regina skyline when we seemed to come around a big bend on Canada 1 IIRC.
Now Thunder Bay, there's a wild-ass town.
The Al-Can to Alaska--the Icefields Parkway from Banff to Jasper--the diagonal from Golden, BC to Vancouver and so many more.

On a solo to Utah once to see a recommended place known as the "slot canyons", I hiked with a great couple from Toronto.
They were into the greenhouse business growing things like tomatoes.

It's still the people you meet, the places you go and the things you do on these trips.
It made going back to teach all the more inspiring for me .
Click to expand...

All that sounds great.

I haven't done much traveling recently because of family illnesses and having to take care of parents in their last years. I've been retired for about 4 years now and I'm still not at a point where I'm ready to do anything and now my dog is in her last year(s) so another responsibility that comes first. I do enjoy road trips and you're right, the interesting people and sometimes downright strange people make the journeys lots of fun and memorable.

Glad you enjoyed your time away this summer.
 
jonny5 said:
They are like people, they arent people.
Click to expand...

Tis true, yet they can contribute to the political system and influence our government; they can pay for that. No such thing as a free lunch.
 
JasperL said:
A VAT is functionally equivalent (in theory) to a retail sales tax, or at least that is the way VAT's operate in most of the developed world. Producers get a credit for the VAT paid at earlier levels of production/distribution. The only step where there is no credit is the final sale to the non-business consumer, who pays the total VAT accumulated during production and distribution at point of sale.

The advantages of a VAT to the RST are administrative, and historical. The credit makes it easier to enforce a VAT - there is no advantage to an upstream buyer for downstream producers to evade the VAT because evasion reduces the credit available. Also, the RST has traditionally excluded most services, but the VAT taxes 'value added' which would effectively include all services in the tax base. So the base is broader and enforcement arguably easier, which allows for a lower rate to collect the same revenue

Two big advantages to a VAT over RST - businesses pay a lot of RST, maybe 40%, depending on the estimate, and exported goods include that imbedded RST in the cost, raising the after tax cost for U.S. made goods. With a VAT, 100% of the tax paid during U.S. production can be rebated at the border and goods exported free of VAT, which should increase the competitiveness of U.S. made goods relative to current law. And VAT is fully assessed on all imports.
Click to expand...

But the problem is the VAT has to be factored at every level, which raises complexity (and thus cost), and tax becomes hidden once its laundered through multiple levels, such that the final consumer may not know how much tax has been included along the way. It allows for meddling by politicians. Which isnt that much different than corporate tax, really. But i dont support either. Corporations should not pay taxes at all, just individuals.

What about value-added taxes (VATs), like they have in Europe and Canada? Are they not consumption taxes?

While VATs are also consumption taxes, and better than income taxes, the FairTax is not a VAT. A VAT works very differently. It taxes every stage of production. It is much more complex and is typically hidden from the retail consumer. Second, in industrialized countries that have a VAT, it coexists with high-rate income tax, payroll, and many other taxes that, in some instances, have led to marginal tax rates as high as 70 percent. Third, all other industrialized countries, except Australia and Japan, have a much larger tax burden than the U.S., which requires higher rates and makes tax administration much more difficult. Lastly, a VAT is a lobbyist’s dream, allowing them to install their loopholes unbeknownst to the purchaser. A retail sales tax, in contrast, is a lobbyist’s nightmare, applied as it is under the bright lights of the retail counter.
Click to expand...

FAQS - FairTax.org
 
Ikari said:
Tis true, yet they can contribute to the political system and influence our government; they can pay for that. No such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

No they cant, the people who own them can. They are people. Corporations are not.
 
Travis007 said:
yes we need a nanny state...
Click to expand...

Thank you for your contribution to the ever increasing obesity / diabetes epidemic this country is facing. It took laws to get people to wear bicycle and motor cycle helmets and car seat belts. Many didn't want to comply with the "nanny state". Turns out it saved a lot of lives and more importantly to the Libertarian freaks it significantly lowered heath care and emergency room costs while increasing their capacity. Reduced the amount of organ donors but there is a cost to everything. Its one thing if a moron wants to take chances where the consequences only effect that individual. Its another where those consequences affect many others. The helmets and seatbelts reduced helped make sure if I or anyone need emergency care it would be available. It also lowered health care costs which we all pay one way or another. Healthcare is not an unlimited resource, its time we started doing something to reduce its consumption not to mention help people live better, healthier lives.
 
NIMBY said:
VAT's are a bad idea since Canada has one right?
But inversions are a good idea since Canada allows them right?
And IKE was not a holy grail DEM right?

IIRC, President Eisenhower had the most progressive tax structure of any POTUS since WW2.
And GOPs love to point out that JFK began changing that.
Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this since I'm not an "expert" on the economy as Boehner has also said many times.

And I'll repeat myself from past posts.
The sooner both camps look back at the "small" agreement between Rep. Ryan and Sen. Murray from last December the better.
It has prevented government shutdowns ever since .
Click to expand...

1. I am not for any additional taxation on anyone. The government gets enough of my hard earned money. Let them learn how to live within their means.

2. I personally am for a flat tax.

3. I could care less how Canada deals with their financial situations, that is for them to decide, and they make those decisions. So, you'd do better to not try to put words into my mouth and simply address what I say. Thanks.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Thank you for your contribution to the ever increasing obesity / diabetes epidemic this country is facing. It took laws to get people to wear bicycle and motor cycle helmets and car seat belts. Many didn't want to comply with the "nanny state". Turns out it saved a lot of lives and more importantly to the Libertarian freaks it significantly lowered heath care and emergency room costs while increasing their capacity. Reduced the amount of organ donors but there is a cost to everything. Its one thing if a moron wants to take chances where the consequences only effect that individual. Its another where those consequences affect many others. The helmets and seatbelts reduced helped make sure if I or anyone need emergency care it would be available. It also lowered health care costs which we all pay one way or another. Healthcare is not an unlimited resource, its time we started doing something to reduce its consumption not to mention help people live better, healthier lives.
Click to expand...

You must have loved Bloomberg....Too bad for you we still have a relatively free society.
 
jonny5 said:
No they cant, the people who own them can. They are people. Corporations are not.
Click to expand...

Corporations can spend money and contribute to political campaigns. It's not the personal individuals, as they are covered separately. Corporate monies are used, corporations can pay America for their access to our government.
 
j-mac said:
You must have loved Bloomberg....Too bad for you we still have a relatively free society.
Click to expand...

I did. He was fairly conservative and did what he thought best no matter what some idiots thought because he sure wasn't going to please everyone. They repealed the soda limitation under a much more liberal administration if that is what worried you. BTW, I don't live in NYC but I liked his style. You mean even if its against the law to drink alcohol and drive or not wear a seat belt we are still living in a free society? Do tell.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Thank you for your contribution to the ever increasing obesity / diabetes epidemic this country is facing. It took laws to get people to wear bicycle and motor cycle helmets and car seat belts. Many didn't want to comply with the "nanny state". Turns out it saved a lot of lives and more importantly to the Libertarian freaks it significantly lowered heath care and emergency room costs while increasing their capacity. Reduced the amount of organ donors but there is a cost to everything. Its one thing if a moron wants to take chances where the consequences only effect that individual. Its another where those consequences affect many others. The helmets and seatbelts reduced helped make sure if I or anyone need emergency care it would be available. It also lowered health care costs which we all pay one way or another. Healthcare is not an unlimited resource, its time we started doing something to reduce its consumption not to mention help people live better, healthier lives.
Click to expand...

HSA is the way.. not Michelle Obamas taking of our freedoms..
 
Hari Seldon said:
I did. He was fairly conservative and did what he thought best no matter what some idiots thought because he sure wasn't going to please everyone. They repealed the soda limitation under a much more liberal administration if that is what worried you. BTW, I don't live in NYC but I liked his style. You mean even if its against the law to drink alcohol and drive or not wear a seat belt we are still living in a free society? Do tell.
Click to expand...

*Sigh*

1. I could have swore that the repeal came only after the courts struck down the ban.

2. Bloomberg is an authoritarian idiot.

3. Alcohol - Drunk driving puts others in danger. My having a Big Mac Extra value meal means nothing to you as I eat it.

4. Seat belts should be up to the driver, if you want to get killed in a crash that is your problem alone.
 
Ikari said:
Corporations can spend money and contribute to political campaigns. It's not the personal individuals, as they are covered separately. Corporate monies are used, corporations can pay America for their access to our government.
Click to expand...


Man that really got under your skin didn't it ?

You know, union's not having a Political funding monopoly anymore.
 
j-mac said:
*Sigh*

1. I could have swore that the repeal came only after the courts struck down the ban.

2. Bloomberg is an authoritarian idiot.

3. Alcohol - Drunk driving puts others in danger. My having a Big Mac Extra value meal means nothing to you as I eat it.

4. Seat belts should be up to the driver, if you want to get killed in a crash that is your problem alone.
Click to expand...

1. You could be right, never really paid it too much attention.

2. Exactly, he didn't care what morons thought. And NYC prospered.

3. When the healthcare system is overwhelmed because that is all you eat and I am unable to get proper care it sure is my problem. If insurance companies are forced to raise premiums across the board to take care of you fat azz it sure is my problem. Like I said healthcare is not an unlimited resource.

4. Killed is one thing, major trauma is another. The cost of taking care of a paraplegic, a permanently brain damaged individual etc. is enormous and sure does effect me. Not to mention the medical resources they use which are now unavailable to me and mine.
 
jonny5 said:
No they cant, the people who own them can. They are people. Corporations are not.
Click to expand...

According to US law, Corporations are people with all the same rights and responsibilities.
 
Ikari said:
If corporations are people and can contribute to political parties and such, then they can pay some taxes.
Click to expand...

Corporations aren't people, so they raise prices in order to pay for the taxes. This is a hidden tax, and hidden taxes should not be tolerated.

The problem is people like you think you are getting at the corporations, but it is just going to hurt consumers instead.
 
Fenton said:
Man that really got under your skin didn't it ?

You know, union's not having a Political funding monopoly anymore.
Click to expand...

Unions can pay taxes too. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
Corporations aren't people, so they raise prices in order to pay for the taxes. This is a hidden tax, and hidden taxes should not be tolerated.

The problem is people like you think you are getting at the corporations, but it is just going to hurt consumers instead.
Click to expand...

Well there is much in the ways of problems with our current corporate capitalist model we're running. But in general, if you get to influence the government, you get to pay for it. That's all there is to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom