• 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!

Corporations Aren't People

Harshaw said:
Give me an example of a corporation paying less than the corporate income tax rate.




:roll: Going through life just making things up is not advisable.




You already said that. No, they cannot.
Click to expand...

Oh, on the contrary:

"Joshua Holland: When we got into World War II, individuals and families paid 38 percent of federal income taxes and corporations picked up the other 62 percent. Last year, individuals and families paid 82 percent of federal income taxes and corporations paid just 18 percent. How did this happen?

David Cay Johnston: All modern societies require a large public sector to provide the goods and services on which the private sector depends. So you need commonwealth services – education, basic research, statistical gathering and civil law enforcement – a whole host of activity than can only be provided through the public sector.

Now, corporations have a concentrated interest in the taxes they pay and the capacity to lobby for changes and make campaign donations to rent, or in some cases buy politicians’ votes. Over a long period of time, they saw to it that we change these tax laws and shifted this burden." The US Has Low Taxes -- So Why Do People Feel Ripped Off? | Connecting the Dots, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Corporation unlike people are often not subject to those taxes and often pay less due to favorable laws. They can freely move abroad in the search for cheap labor. People cannot freely pass borders legally.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry...did you just say corporations pay less than people?
 
Now to respond to your second comment: snip from Clinton's Signing NAFTA/GATT Cut America's Economic Throat

Compared to the United States, labor costs in China, Indonesia and similar nations were substantially lower than what U.S. workers earned. NAFTA/GATT allowed our corporations and U.S. entrepreneurs to move their manufacturing technology overseas and take advantage of the reduced costs of doing business, while avoiding our former trade protections that made such a move prior to NAFTA/GATT unprofitable. For those enterprises that made the move overseas right away, there was nothing but exorbitant profits to be made.


What could be better for a typical American manufacturer? You get to avoid all U.S. payroll taxes, worker's compensation costs and environmental regulations and hurdles. You no longer have to deal with unions and provide employee benefits like health insurance and retirement plans. You get to manufacture in China, Indonesia and similar foreign nations to your heart's content, and you still get to sell your products to the U.S. consumer at the same or nearly the same cost as before.


Those who benefited are the stockholders of these firms and their top CEOs and CFOs. If you had money to invest before NAFTA/GATT, your returns on the investments spiked. But if you are just the typical middle-class American family with an average $9,000.00 per month credit card balance and little or no savings except what's in your 401k, you didn't have the chance to participate in that gold rush. You were blind-sided and left behind, and the immediate effect of NAFTA/GATT was for around five million people who had high-paying, family wage paying manufacturing jobs to lose them to low-wage workers overseas.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Oh, on the contrary:

"Joshua Holland: When we got into World War II, individuals and families paid 38 percent of federal income taxes and corporations picked up the other 62 percent. Last year, individuals and families paid 82 percent of federal income taxes and corporations paid just 18 percent. How did this happen?

David Cay Johnston: All modern societies require a large public sector to provide the goods and services on which the private sector depends. So you need commonwealth services – education, basic research, statistical gathering and civil law enforcement – a whole host of activity than can only be provided through the public sector.

Now, corporations have a concentrated interest in the taxes they pay and the capacity to lobby for changes and make campaign donations to rent, or in some cases buy politicians’ votes. Over a long period of time, they saw to it that we change these tax laws and shifted this burden." The US Has Low Taxes -- So Why Do People Feel Ripped Off? | Connecting the Dots, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com
Click to expand...

On the contrary of WHAT? None of this has anything to do with what I said, nor your claims that corporations "often pay less" than the corporate income tax rate and "often pay less than people" -- to say nothing of your absurd claims that corporations can just roam freely about the world and set up shop wherever they want.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Now to respond to your second comment: snip from Clinton's Signing NAFTA/GATT Cut America's Economic Throat

Compared to the United States, labor costs in China, Indonesia and similar nations were substantially lower than what U.S. workers earned. NAFTA/GATT allowed our corporations and U.S. entrepreneurs to move their manufacturing technology overseas and take advantage of the reduced costs of doing business, while avoiding our former trade protections that made such a move prior to NAFTA/GATT unprofitable. For those enterprises that made the move overseas right away, there was nothing but exorbitant profits to be made.


What could be better for a typical American manufacturer? You get to avoid all U.S. payroll taxes, worker's compensation costs and environmental regulations and hurdles. You no longer have to deal with unions and provide employee benefits like health insurance and retirement plans. You get to manufacture in China, Indonesia and similar foreign nations to your heart's content, and you still get to sell your products to the U.S. consumer at the same or nearly the same cost as before.


Those who benefited are the stockholders of these firms and their top CEOs and CFOs. If you had money to invest before NAFTA/GATT, your returns on the investments spiked. But if you are just the typical middle-class American family with an average $9,000.00 per month credit card balance and little or no savings except what's in your 401k, you didn't have the chance to participate in that gold rush. You were blind-sided and left behind, and the immediate effect of NAFTA/GATT was for around five million people who had high-paying, family wage paying manufacturing jobs to lose them to low-wage workers overseas.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you should probably read articles written by people who have some idea what they're talking about. Here's a big hint:

Until 1993, the United States of America was the world's economic king,
Click to expand...

That the author is an idiot.
 
Harshaw said:
On the contrary of WHAT? None of this has anything to do with what I said, nor your claims that corporations "often pay less" than the corporate income tax rate and "often pay less than people" -- to say nothing of your absurd claims that corporations can just roam freely about the world and set up shop wherever they want.
Click to expand...

Allow me to highlight this again:

"Joshua Holland: When we got into World War II, individuals and families paid 38 percent of federal income taxes and corporations picked up the other 62 percent. Last year, individuals and families paid 82 percent of federal income taxes and corporations paid just 18 percent. How did this happen?

This proves my point.
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah, you should probably read articles written by people who have some idea what they're talking about. Here's a big hint:



That the author is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Nope, true fact that our trade laws have allowed this easy movement of corporations.
 
Bodhisattva said:
And when does that make them right?
Click to expand...

*Cough* Dred Scott *Cough*

rabbitcaebannog said:
False. Unions must get the permission of its members before they use money toward a candidate which is not at all true with corporations. They don't need the permission from shareholders to endorse candidates. The money flows easily with no strings attached.
Click to expand...

Yes but how do unions get said permission is the issue here? Often they are done in votes where everyone knows how the other person voted, thus not a conducive environment for debate and disagreement with the union bosses. Also, corporations are in the business of making money. Hence why, unlike with the unions, I have no problem with them exercising their right to support whatever candidate they think is best.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Allow me to highlight this again:

"Joshua Holland: When we got into World War II, individuals and families paid 38 percent of federal income taxes and corporations picked up the other 62 percent. Last year, individuals and families paid 82 percent of federal income taxes and corporations paid just 18 percent. How did this happen?

This proves my point.
Click to expand...

Allow me to quote what you said again:

rabbitcaebannog said:
Yeah, but they often pay less than that rate. At any costs, they usually pay less than people.
Click to expand...

How does that show that corporations "usually" pay less than the corporate income tax rates?

And if you meant that as a share of total income taxes paid, "people" in general pay more, then you expressed it piss-poorly. The way you said it, it either meant that corporations "usually" pay a rate less than "people," or that a typical person pays more in tax than a corporation -- both of which are asinine.
 
Last edited:
Hamster Buddha said:
*Cough* Dred Scott *Cough*



Yes but how do unions get said permission is the issue here? Often they are done in votes where everyone knows how the other person voted, thus not a conducive environment for debate and disagreement with the union bosses.
Click to expand...

Huh??? What exactly does that have to do with unions having to get permission from their members before their money can endorse a candidate??? And, to comment on your second point, corporation are in it to make more money. Why shouldn't people??? Seems like one groups interest is trumping another's quite significantly.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Huh??? What exactly does that have to do with unions having to get permission from their members before their money can endorse a candidate??? And, to comment on your second point, corporation are in it to make more money. Why shouldn't people??? Seems like one groups interest is trumping another's quite significantly.
Click to expand...

My reference to Dredd Scott was in concern to the falacy that "Because the Supreme Court make a ruling, it is right". I actually think we are in agreement when it comes to whether Corporations should have the first amendment rights that other people to support a candidate of their choosing.
 
Harshaw said:
Allow me to quote what you said again:



How does that show that corporations "usually" pay less than the corporate income tax rates?

And if you meant that as a share of total income taxes paid, "people" in general pay more, then you expressed it piss-poorly. The way you said it, it either meant that corporations "usually" pay a rate less than "people," or that a typical person pays more in tax than a corporation -- both of which are asinine.
Click to expand...

I gave numbers that people do pay more of an overall federal income tax than corporations. I also stated that corporation don't usually pay the rate they are suppose to due to favorable treatment that people don't enjoy.

I did not prove my second part, but gladly I will: snip http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html

But by taking advantage of myriad breaks and loopholes that other countries generally do not offer, United States corporations pay only slightly more on average than their counterparts in other industrial countries. And some American corporations use aggressive strategies to pay less — often far less — than their competitors abroad and at home. A Government Accountability Office study released in 2008 found that 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Nope, I'm absolutely right. If not prove it.
Click to expand...

Piece of cake.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/effective-corporate-tax-rates/

Bartlett said:
According to the Internal Revenue Service, corporations had gross profits of $1.8 trillion in 2007 and taxable income of $1.2 trillion.
Click to expand...

His estimate put the effective corporate tax rate at 36.2 percent – above the statutory rate.
Click to expand...

Now for individuals:

Effective individual tax rates hover around 20%. The IRS will give you figures to look at here. If you want to view, however, you will need Excel or some form of Excel reader. The source information is here:

SOI Tax Stats - Individual Time Series Statistical Tables

Or, if you can read .pdf files, you can go here. It goes up to 2005.

www.cbo.gov/.../cbofiles/attachments/effective_rates_0.pdf

Corporations pay a much higher effective tax rate. It's not close.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Perhaps, to you it doesn't matter but it clearly shows a shift in power which is disturbing to many people.
Click to expand...

What you've "clearly shown" is that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I gave numbers that people do pay more of an overall federal income tax than corporations.
Click to expand...

Yes, if they're correct, but that isn't the claim you made. Or if you did, you did so poorly.

I also stated that corporation don't usually pay the rate they are suppose to due to favorable treatment that people don't enjoy.

I did not prove my second part, but gladly I will: snip http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html

But by taking advantage of myriad breaks and loopholes that other countries generally do not offer, United States corporations pay only slightly more on average than their counterparts in other industrial countries. And some American corporations use aggressive strategies to pay less — often far less — than their competitors abroad and at home. A Government Accountability Office study released in 2008 found that 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say they don't pay the rate. It says they don't pay much more in a monetary sense than corporations in other countries.

And as for that "55 percent" which supposedly paid no federal income taxes . . . did they make a profit? Such a number is meaningless without context.
 
year2late said:
I was under the impression that Citizens United opened the floodgates to unions as well.

I want big money - whether it is unions, big business, or individuals out of politicians pockets ASAP - directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
Unions aren't people, either. I don't see you bitching about them being goven 1st Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

I do. Loud and clear.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one...
 
ChezC3 said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one...
Click to expand...

And I'll believe they are not one when they can no longer be taxed on income...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom