• 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!

Illinois Lawmakers Propose 75% Income Tax Hike

WOW!!!! The reaction here to my idea that we need a national policy for a national problem seems to be one of knee jerk ranting and raving. I am accused of wanting to abolish Federalism. I am accused of being a socialist. Amazing.

I never realized that accepting that we are one nation, like the Pledge of Allegiance maintains, was such a radical belief. Bringing all of America under the same ban on giving corporations and businesses unfair tax breaks is only consistent with the 14th Amendment of the USA. The Supreme Court has ruled - and has done so very recently in the Citizens United case - that corporations are persons are entitled to the Constitutional protections of rights that persons are entitled to. So let us extend the protections of the 14th Amendment to them as well. Let us extend to all corporations the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. No company, co corporation, no business can have an unfair advantage extended by the government as it would violate other corporations equal protection of the laws.
 
WOW!!!! The reaction here to my idea that we need a national policy for a national problem seems to be one of knee jerk ranting and raving. I am accused of wanting to abolish Federalism. I am accused of being a socialist. Amazing.

I never realized that accepting that we are one nation, like the Pledge of Allegiance maintains, was such a radical belief. Bringing all of America under the same ban on giving corporations and businesses unfair tax breaks is only consistent with the 14th Amendment of the USA. The Supreme Court has ruled - and has done so very recently in the Citizens United case - that corporations are persons are entitled to the Constitutional protections of rights that persons are entitled to. So let us extend the protections of the 14th Amendment to them as well. Let us extend to all corporations the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. No company, co corporation, no business can have an unfair advantage extended by the government as it would violate other corporations equal protection of the laws.

Some persons are more equal than others.
 
WOW!!!! The reaction here to my idea that we need a national policy for a national problem seems to be one of knee jerk ranting and raving. I am accused of wanting to abolish Federalism. I am accused of being a socialist. Amazing.

I never realized that accepting that we are one nation, like the Pledge of Allegiance maintains, was such a radical belief. Bringing all of America under the same ban on giving corporations and businesses unfair tax breaks is only consistent with the 14th Amendment of the USA. The Supreme Court has ruled - and has done so very recently in the Citizens United case - that corporations are persons are entitled to the Constitutional protections of rights that persons are entitled to. So let us extend the protections of the 14th Amendment to them as well. Let us extend to all corporations the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. No company, co corporation, no business can have an unfair advantage extended by the government as it would violate other corporations equal protection of the laws.

We are 50 states belonging to one nation. Talk about usurping states' rights. Yikes! I don't think you've thought it through.

But it is sort of the union way of looking at things, isn't it? Let's put everyone on an equal footing with everyone else and control what happens to them. Let's make it impossible for anyone, no matter how skilled, to rise above the minions. Same tune...different words.
 
We are 50 states belonging to one nation. Talk about usurping states' rights. Yikes! I don't think you've thought it through.

But it is sort of the union way of looking at things, isn't it? Let's put everyone on an equal footing with everyone else and control what happens to them. Let's make it impossible for anyone, no matter how skilled, to rise above the minions. Same tune...different words.

I was wondering how he was going to equalize the weather. The Southwest has an unfair advantage over the Midwest and Northeast so do we put ice cubes in the clouds to make it snow in Arizona. What about the earthquake insurance companies in Calif. have to pay, totally unfair. I say we need more quakes in NY to make things fairer!
 
So explain to me how giving favorable financial or regulatory treatment to one company over other companies is not a violation of the Constitution given the Citizens United decision.

Weather is not created by the government. Unfair tax breaks are. When my kids were teenagers they would say "duh" to a comment like this

I was wondering how he was going to equalize the weather. The Southwest has an unfair advantage over the Midwest and Northeast so do we put ice cubes in the clouds to make it snow in Arizona. What about the earthquake insurance companies in Calif. have to pay, totally unfair. I say we need more quakes in NY to make things fairer!
 
This story is an excellent example of a corporation whipsawing a state using tactics that amount to legal blackmail. It exemplifies why we need one national policy which forbids this very sort of chicanery. We are one nation, one people, one economy with more uniting us that mere state lines on a map. It is well beyond time that we accepted this and made the necessary changes. Or we will forever be subject to corporate blackmail.

so... when a corporation threatens to move from one state to another because taxes will bankrupt it, you cry foul... but unions organizing people to boycott businesses and put them out of business is acceptable?

You want a law that doesn't let businesses relocate from one state to another?

<blink>
 
So explain to me how giving favorable financial or regulatory treatment to one company over other companies is not a violation of the Constitution given the Citizens United decision.

Weather is not created by the government. Unfair tax breaks are. When my kids were teenagers they would say "duh" to a comment like this

I think it's only fair that you summarize your understanding of this ruling and how it supports your position which is, as I understand it, that the Federal government should pass laws that restrict a state's right to incentivize business.
 
so... when a corporation threatens to move from one state to another because taxes will bankrupt it, you cry foul... but unions organizing people to boycott businesses and put them out of business is acceptable?

You want a law that doesn't let businesses relocate from one state to another?

<blink>

I have no problem with a company relocating from one state to another.

It is foolish to compare the activities of a private union and the peoples government.
 
I think it's only fair that you summarize your understanding of this ruling and how it supports your position which is, as I understand it, that the Federal government should pass laws that restrict a state's right to incentivize business.

If corporations are persons who have rights under the Constitution, then every corporation has the rights to equal protection of the law.

Any law passed by a level of government which extends favored treatment to one corporation while failing to extend them to others is placing those unfavored corporations in a different class and treating them unequally.
 
If corporations are persons who have rights under the Constitution, then every corporation has the rights to equal protection of the law.

Any law passed by a level of government which extends favored treatment to one corporation while failing to extend them to others is placing those unfavored corporations in a different class and treating them unequally.

I find your position interesting, but slippery. I'd like to debate you on it, but until you define it more clearly, I'm at a loss. Maybe next time. ;)
 
I find your position interesting, but slippery. I'd like to debate you on it, but until you define it more clearly, I'm at a loss. Maybe next time. ;)

That is fine and I look forward to it.

I do find it very ironic that conservatives generally take the position that government should NOT pick winners and losers in the economic arena but seem to be the biggest defenders of doing just that with tax breaks and other incentives that clearly place some companies on a very unfair plane and make it difficult to compete. Conservatives also tended to be the biggest supporters of the Citizens United decision and welcomed it but seem to not want to think through the implications for this issue.
 
If corporations are persons who have rights under the Constitution, then every corporation has the rights to equal protection of the law.

Any law passed by a level of government which extends favored treatment to one corporation while failing to extend them to others is placing those unfavored corporations in a different class and treating them unequally.

So, then using your argument, it is also illegal for Illinois residents to pay a different level of taxes then Florida residents. Essentially FL is incetivizing people to leave IL and move to FL.

Likewise it is illegal for Lake county Illinois to charge their residents a lower tax rate then those in cook county Illinois. Lake County is incentivizing people to leave Cook and move to Lake.

Lastly, it would seem to be illegal for a level of government to tax the rich and poor at different levels. Wouldn't it be more equal to charge them the same rate, rather then giving favored tax rate treatement to the poorer amongst us?
 
So, then using your argument, it is also illegal for Illinois residents to pay a different level of taxes then Florida residents. Essentially FL is incetivizing people to leave IL and move to FL.

Likewise it is illegal for Lake county Illinois to charge their residents a lower tax rate then those in cook county Illinois. Lake County is incentivizing people to leave Cook and move to Lake.

Lastly, it would seem to be illegal for a level of government to tax the rich and poor at different levels. Wouldn't it be more equal to charge them the same rate, rather then giving favored tax rate treatement to the poorer amongst us?

:bravo:

Well done!
 
:bravo:

Well done!

Absolutely awesome post that is probably blowing haymarkets mind. Liberals don't want to be confused by posts like yours, buck. The silence will be deafening.
 
So, then using your argument, it is also illegal for Illinois residents to pay a different level of taxes then Florida residents. Essentially FL is incetivizing people to leave IL and move to FL.

Likewise it is illegal for Lake county Illinois to charge their residents a lower tax rate then those in cook county Illinois. Lake County is incentivizing people to leave Cook and move to Lake.

Lastly, it would seem to be illegal for a level of government to tax the rich and poor at different levels. Wouldn't it be more equal to charge them the same rate, rather then giving favored tax rate treatement to the poorer amongst us?

Not at all. As long as the taxes within the state or governmental area apply according to the law and are applied without preference favoring one individual over another or one company , then there is no problem with each state setting its own tax rates.

As to different tax rates for different incomes, we settled that issue almost 100 years ago.

This is not rocket science.

If a state wants to lower corporate for all businesses - both existing or those that will move there - to create what they believe is a more favorable business climate - that is their right.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely awesome post that is probably blowing haymarkets mind. Liberals don't want to be confused by posts like yours, buck. The silence will be deafening.

Silence lasted only while I took a shower. My mind was not blown - or even taxed. Its a simple question that requires a simple answer.
 
Not at all. As long as the taxes within the state or governmental area apply according to the law and are applied without preference favoring one individual over another or one company , then there is no problem with each state setting its own tax rates.

As to different tax rates for different incomes, we settled that issue almost 100 years ago.

This is not rocket science.

LOL, you don't see the contradiction in your posts? you don't want states to create incentive for business movement but have no problem with Progressive tax rates by the Federal Govt. which do the same thing?
 
Silence lasted only while I took a shower. My mind was not blown - or even taxed. Its a simple question that requires a simple answer.

It is a very simple answer, you have no problem with a Federal Progressive tax rate which reduces incentive and forces business to move out of country but have a problem with states doing the same thing thus enticing businesses to move to different states. Guess the benefit to one American over another is a problem for you especially since you claim we are all Americans and one nation.
 
So...we can standardize tax laws. That will eliminate any corporations from having an incentive to relocate (brilliant when you are trying to trap them in place and exploit them from a union perspective). SO...they would instead just leave the country. REALLY well thought out plan that one! Oh...and if we standardize the tax plans across the country...we could maybe turn all 50 states into the socialist mecca's that are California and Illinois.
 
It is a very simple answer, you have no problem with a Federal Progressive tax rate which reduces incentive and forces business to move out of country but have a problem with states doing the same thing thus enticing businesses to move to different states. Guess the benefit to one American over another is a problem for you especially since you claim we are all Americans and one nation.

Im not sure...trying to recall...didnt the founders of this country INSIST on strong states rights to avoid this one world federal government mindset? Im pretty sure that was the case...hmmmm...
 
LOL, you don't see the contradiction in your posts? you don't want states to create incentive for business movement but have no problem with Progressive tax rates by the Federal Govt. which do the same thing?

Of course he doesn't. I knew he would come back with something in order to justify is feelings (at least to himself). They always do.
 
Last edited:
Im not sure...trying to recall...didnt the founders of this country INSIST on strong states rights to avoid this one world federal government mindset? Im pretty sure that was the case...hmmmm...

Exactly! Our Founders left an oppressive Central Govt. in England and built a nation based upon individual and state's rights with a smaller, limited govt. that has grown into the monstrosity we have today. Notice the inconsistency of liberals when they talk about Progressive tax rates at the Federal Level but then don't want states to provide incentive to businesses for moving to their state and creating jobs for their "Americans" and of course to a liberal that is bad.

Liberals are inconsistent at best, progressive tax rates at the Federal level but all states competing on a level playing field and not providing incentives? There in a nutshell are the problems many have with liberalism.
 
Exactly! Our Founders left an oppressive Central Govt. in England and built a nation based upon individual and state's rights with a smaller, limited govt. that has grown into the monstrosity we have today. Notice the inconsistency of liberals when they talk about Progressive tax rates at the Federal Level but then don't want states to provide incentive to businesses for moving to their state and creating jobs for their "Americans" and of course to a liberal that is bad.

Liberals are inconsistent at best, progressive tax rates at the Federal level but all states competing on a level playing field and not providing incentives? There in a nutshell are the problems many have with liberalism.

Now now...I wouldnt blame 'liberals'. Frankly...most liberals I know would see Haymarkets foolishness for what it is. He is a mindless clone when it come to promoting union and socialist ideals. Outside of this website...of all the liberal minded folk I work with (a majority in my field) the great majority would laugh their ass off at his postings.
 
Of course he doesn't. I knew he would come back with something in order to justify is feelings (at least to himself). They always do.

That is because you are comparing apples to cinderblocks and so is Conservative. There is an inherent hypocrisy in the right wing attitude that is evident here in spades. On the one hand you all get on your high horse about how government should to pick winners and losers and stay out of the private sector letting the market do its magic work. But you see nothing at all wrong with government stepping in and allowing a favored company to pay less taxes than an already existing company giving it a clear advantage in the marketplace. You see nothing wrong with giving a business incentives or even money to come into a community while existing businesses get no such accommodation. You are picking winners and losers by this strategy.

Why is it that nobody here can do anything but spout right ring rhetoric and cannot address the key issues here raised by the Citizens United decision and how highly selective tax breaks for some companies is not a violation of the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment?
 
So...we can standardize tax laws. That will eliminate any corporations from having an incentive to relocate (brilliant when you are trying to trap them in place and exploit them from a union perspective). SO...they would instead just leave the country. REALLY well thought out plan that one! Oh...and if we standardize the tax plans across the country...we could maybe turn all 50 states into the socialist mecca's that are California and Illinois.

Actually the Founding Fathers took care of that problem way back in 1787.
 
Back
Top Bottom