• 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!

70% corporate tax?

Moot said:
Well, I have credit card and bank fees and high interest rates to back up my statement, what do you have besides your own snotface attitude? :rofl
Click to expand...

So does everyone else in this country.
 
middleagedgamer said:
Here's the statistic: Small businesses are preferred by the government, at least de jure (de facto, the government tends to suck the dix of corporations). The reason that small businesses are so preferred is because they create the majority of jobs in America.

Small businesses take the majority of risks in order to compete with corporations (since they can't compete with price, they have to compete via differentiation).

Corporations exist for one reason, and one reason only: Profit. That's it. Period. It's profit first, and everything else second. This has given way to the pejorative terms "Corporate America," and "the Man." If a CEO called foul on something the stockholders wanted to do to increase profits at the expense of, say, the environment, and said "No, wait, money isn't everything! We need to have ethics, too!" He's probably get ousted the next stockholder meeting. Corporations are like viruses; they exist solely to grow, and to hell with anything they hurt in the process. Corporations have no soul, no conscience.
Click to expand...

You seem to overlook the fact that it is people who are the shareholders who would "oust" a CEO for "having ethics." If people wanted ethics involved, they would not oust a CEO for stating that.

Your comment that corporations have no soul, is by extension saying that people (investors etc that make up a corporation) have no soul.

Corporations are the employers that treat their employees like numbers. Walmart, for example, implemented a short-lived policy in August 2006 that stated that employees' hours would be selected, not by local managers who might be more familiar with the individual needs of workers, but by computers (yes, COMPUTERS) at corporate headquarters in Berryville, AR. If that isn't treating their employees like numbers (literally, ones and zeros), please tell me what is. When was the last time you heard of a Mom & Pop company doing that?

Corporations are directly responsible for almost all of the oligopolies in this nation (oligopoly: At least two suppliers, but still very few suppliers, so while consumers have options, those options are quite limited).

Granted, all corporations eventually started out as Mom & Pop stores, but after a while, they became a little too big for their britches.

Therefore, in order to get rid of the soulless money-eating machines, and encourage the job-creating small businesses to thrive, we should implement a federal corporate tax of 70%.
Click to expand...

I don't understand...you seem to be arguing that a company can have to much success, and the government needs to ensure this is not the case by enacting a 70% tax.

Industries that require a corporate size in order to perform their most basic functions would be exempt. For example, no Mom & Pop company can possibly even get their foot in the door of a telecommunications service. Same with utilities, as they have to be big in order to provide the services that they do.
Click to expand...

So, in essence, the government decides what markets companies are allowed to compete in?

Franchises would also be exempt, as they are still locally owned and operated. So, Dennys would pay the 70% tax; McDonalds wouldn't.

This would encourage most of today's corporate moneywhores to either become an S Corporation (I think of "S" standing for "Small Corporation"), or begin a franchise program, in order to encourage the corporations, and the LLCs taxed as such, to become small businesses again, therefore, increasing the likelihood that they will create more jobs, and actually treat their employees as human beings, rather than no more of a tool than the mop that the employee is wielding.

Wal-Mart can still have their profits, and can still be the biggest retailer in America, just as how McDonalds is the biggest fast food company in America; they just have to start doing franchises. Is that too much to ask?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes.. that is too much to ask. Government has no business dictating how large business can be in this country, or what structure a business has to take in order to compete.
 
phattonez said:
So does everyone else in this country.
Click to expand...
Brilliant. So what do you call it when banks borrow money at near 0% from the Feds and then charge borrowers exorbitant and/or hidden fees and high interest rates?
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Brilliant. So what do you call it when banks borrow money at near 0% from the Feds and then charge borrowers exorbitant and/or hidden fees and high interest rates?
Click to expand...

If it worked out as peachy as you make it, i would call it a great business plan. However, reality dictates that when you have the ability to borrow @ near 0%, a fair amount of your portfolio will be NPL's (non performing loans).
 
Moot said:
Brilliant. So what do you call it when banks borrow money at near 0% from the Feds and then charge borrowers exorbitant and/or hidden fees and high interest rates?
Click to expand...

A bank that won't be able to compete with another bank with less fees.
 
phattonez said:
A bank that won't be able to compete with another bank with less fees.
Click to expand...

Which is why the first bank does a hostile takeover of the second one, and raises the fee's to pay for the takeover
 
Should I direct you to the libertarian poll thread for a discussion of monopoly?
 
Middle Aged Gamer, All taxes upon commercial entities are generally and eventually paid by their customers.

Regardless, I still contend to whatever extent and rates we tax individuals’ incomes, we should continue to tax corporate incomes. Otherwise too many entrepreneurs will be further enabled to evade paying their fair share of income taxes.

I absolutely disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that a corporation should have all of the rights and entitlements of an individual. I certainly believe that corporations should not be taxed at a greater rate than other commercial entities and commercial entities .

Rwespectfully, Supposn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom