• 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

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.

No business is being forced to either stay or leave the country. It does matter what problems I have with enticements since the Citizens United decision clearly now sets the stage for a corporate challenge to selective tax breaks based on the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment. That trumps any problems or concerns I may have.
 
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?

Amazing how you stumbled into the basic difference between a liberal and a conservative. You seem to believe it is the role of the govt. to pick winners and losers instead of the role of the markets to do that or to balance the playing field using the tax code to do that. You have no problem with a Federal Progressive tax rate and giving tax breaks to CERTAIN corporations but not states doing the same thing to entice businesses to move to the states. Just like the govt. giving waivers for the healthcare bill to some businesses but not to others? Interesting "logic" liberals have!
 
No business is being forced to either stay or leave the country. It does matter what problems I have with enticements since the Citizens United decision clearly now sets the stage for a corporate challenge to selective tax breaks based on the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment. That trumps any problems or concerns I may have.

You continue to show how little you know about business. It isn't about forcing business out of this country it is about maximizing shareholder value to do just that. Nice diversion from your support of a progressive tax rate at the Federal level as you condemn states for providing incentives to move there by offering lower tax rates. What prevents other states from doing the same thing?
 
Amazing how you stumbled into the basic difference between a liberal and a conservative. You seem to believe it is the role of the govt. to pick winners and losers instead of the role of the markets to do that or to balance the playing field using the tax code to do that. You have no problem with a Federal Progressive tax rate and giving tax breaks to CERTAIN corporations but not states doing the same thing to entice businesses to move to the states. Just like the govt. giving waivers for the healthcare bill to some businesses but not to others? Interesting "logic" liberals have!

You are taking my position and getting it ass backwards. I do NOT want the government to pick winners and losers.

The Progressive Income tax was settled almost a century ago. Get over it and deal with it.

I do not remember advocating any of the things you have thrown into you posts as strawmen like this nonsense about health care wavers.
Why can't you deal with the issue as it is instead of muddying it up with your own strawmen?

Nice diversion from your support of a progressive tax rate at the Federal level as you condemn states for providing incentives to move there by offering lower tax rates.

Yet again, in your zeal to personally attack me, you have my position ass backwards. I have no problem with a state having lower tax rates as long as they are applied legally and within the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment. And when the government can now clearly favor one corporation over the other that creates a situation where the rights of the unfavored company have been violated.

Thank Citizens United for that.
 
Last edited:
The Progressive Income tax was settled almost a century ago. Get over it and deal with it.


Oh, so when some corrosive liberal "progressive" idea is passed and instituted, then we who think it unfair, must just live with it, is that right? No repeal, no recourse?

Man you libs are totalitarian.


j-mac
 
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

How do you define "tax breaks". If corporate taxes in state A are 5% and in state B 6% is state A giving a tax break. If so do we just find the highest state tax rate and use that across the board. Then we can go to health care costs which might be differnet due to state mandates and equalize them. How about insurance rates. Then why stop at states, why not make sure cities, or counties are all equalized. Let's also make sure that every school gets the same test scores lest we give an unfair advantage where people might want to locate for better schooling for their kids.

I can't put into words what I think of this idea. Lest I want to get some infraction points.
 
Oh, so when some corrosive liberal "progressive" idea is passed and instituted, then we who think it unfair, must just live with it, is that right? No repeal, no recourse?

Man you libs are totalitarian.


j-mac

Of course you can advocate anything you want to advocate as future change. You should get candidates to run on that platform in 2012.
 
How do you define "tax breaks". If corporate taxes in state A are 5% and in state B 6% is state A giving a tax break. If so do we just find the highest state tax rate and use that across the board. Then we can go to health care costs which might be differnet due to state mandates and equalize them. How about insurance rates. Then why stop at states, why not make sure cities, or counties are all equalized. Let's also make sure that every school gets the same test scores lest we give an unfair advantage where people might want to locate for better schooling for their kids.

I can't put into words what I think of this idea. Lest I want to get some infraction points.

What I am talking about is within a state - within the same state - where a state entices a company to come there and extends to them a tax break that other companies and other corporations and other employers operating in that same state DO NOT GET. That is the state picking winners and losers and is now a questionable and illegal practice in view of the the implications of the Citizens United case in which corporations are persons and have the same rights under the 14th Amendment equal protections clause of the US Constitution.
 
What I am talking about is within a state - within the same state - where a state entices a company to come there and extends to them a tax break that other companies and other corporations and other employers operating in that same state DO NOT GET. That is the state picking winners and losers and is now a questionable and illegal practice in view of the the implications of the Citizens United case in which corporations are persons and have the same rights under the 14th Amendment equal protections clause of the US Constitution.
They are not picking winners and losers... they are getting more business into the state, creating more jobs, increasing tax revenue (even with the 'deal', it's still more tax revenue than the state would otherwise have had).

The state gets money.
the citizens get jobs.

Win/win
 
Yet again, in your zeal to personally attack me, you have my position ass backwards. I have no problem with a state having lower tax rates as long as they are applied legally and within the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment. And when the government can now clearly favor one corporation over the other that creates a situation where the rights of the unfavored company have been violated. Thank Citizens United for that.

What you are talking about is done through tax credits, in order to qualify for the tax credit you have to meet some obligation (i.e. just moved your company to X state and hired x number of people).

have you wondered why no one (maybe a rival business) wouldn't challenge this obviously (according to you) illegal act in a court of law?
 
What you are talking about is done through tax credits, in order to qualify for the tax credit you have to meet some obligation (i.e. just moved your company to X state and hired x number of people).

have you wondered why no one (maybe a rival business) wouldn't challenge this obviously (according to you) illegal act in a court of law?

These things take time and I have little doubt that a challenge will occur. Look how long it took for the laws to be overturned from the Citizens United decision.

But regardless of looking into the future, the case is there just the same and the policy is clearly an unfair and unequal application of the power of the state to pick winners and losers.
 
They are not picking winners and losers... they are getting more business into the state, creating more jobs, increasing tax revenue (even with the 'deal', it's still more tax revenue than the state would otherwise have had).

The state gets money.
the citizens get jobs.

Win/win

Until some other state decides to sell their favors on the corner even cheaper when the selected tax breaks for the pet company expire down the road. So the first company got a free ride at taxpayer expense and are now waving their middle finger in a goodbye salute when they slink away to some other suitor who promises more.

And in the meantime, other companies have to compete against governments pet and have a distinct disadvantage. Some system you got there. Adam Smith would roll over his his grave.
 
These things take time and I have little doubt that a challenge will occur. Look how long it took for the laws to be overturned from the Citizens United decision.

But regardless of looking into the future, the case is there just the same and the policy is clearly an unfair and unequal application of the power of the state to pick winners and losers.

How did the court rule on all of those other tax credit challenges?
 
How did the court rule on all of those other tax credit challenges?

what other tax credit challenges.......?????

do you have them to present?????

Was that before or after the Citizens United decision expanded corporate rights?????
 
God forbid you actually have a business that some day you hope to incorporate....considering how evil they must be and all....


j-mac
 
what other tax credit challenges.......?????

do you have them to present?????

Was that before or after the Citizens United decision expanded corporate rights?????

Governments have used tax credits to incentivize certain individual and business behaviors (probably forever) and you are unaware of any court challenges? I find that odd for something so obviously illegal.

Based on your postings, I can't believe that you are claming that only tax credits for businesses are illegal. You obviously believe that the SC ruling made business equal to individuals (which it didn't, but that's netiher here nor there). So, I assume that if you beleive tax credits to encourage behaviors of a business should be illegal, you believe the same for the individual tax payer.

And still, after all these decades, not a single court challnege? Crazy!
 
Last edited:
Governments have used tax credits to incentivize certain individual and business behaviors (probably forever) and you are unaware of any court challenges? I find that odd for something so obviously illegal.

Based on your postings, I can't believe that you are claming that only tax credits for businesses are illegal. You obviously believe that the SC ruling made business equal to individuals (which it didn't, but that's netiher here nor there). So, I assume that if you beleive tax credits to encourage behaviors of a business should be illegal, you believe the same for the individual tax payer.

And still, after all these decades, not a single court challnege? Crazy!

You brought up the subject of past challenges.
You show me the challenges.
 
God forbid you actually have a business that some day you hope to incorporate....considering how evil they must be and all....


j-mac

I had a successful business I operated for many years.
 
What I am talking about is within a state - within the same state - where a state entices a company to come there and extends to them a tax break that other companies and other corporations and other employers operating in that same state DO NOT GET. That is the state picking winners and losers and is now a questionable and illegal practice in view of the the implications of the Citizens United case in which corporations are persons and have the same rights under the 14th Amendment equal protections clause of the US Constitution.

Corporations have enjoyed 14th amendment protections long before Citizens United. After all, this is one principal which allows a corporation to enter into a legal contract under the law. Furthermore, Citizens United wasn't a 14th case anyways. It was a First amendment issue.

Highlighting the Citizens United case is moot to the topic at hand anyway. After all, Citizens United held that corporations do enjoy first amendment protection in political broadcasting. Your line of reasoning is whether or not States are able to pick winner's and losers not corporations. Clearly, a State does hold such authority otherwise a corporation would have a constitutional argument to protest unequal corporate tax rates and personal state/federal income tax rates under the 14th.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that States and communities should be able to establish their own tax rates. Such tax rates can be different, from state to states and community to community. If that is the case, then I misunderstood you in a prior post. Your complaint would be that states and communities should not be able to adjust their respective tax rates and regulatory over-site to enhance the prospects of luring business unless such rates and restrictions are offered to all within the same geographical boarder?
 
You brought up the subject of past challenges.
You show me the challenges.

There weren't any challenges. That is the point.

Tax credits have been used for to encourage individual behaviors for virtually forever. No one ever challegned it in the courts because it is not illegal for the government to use tax credits to encourage behaviors. In the same way, it is not illegal for governemnt to use tax credits to encourage business to act in a certain way.
 
There weren't any challenges. That is the point.

Tax credits have been used for to encourage individual behaviors for virtually forever. No one ever challegned it in the courts because it is not illegal for the government to use tax credits to encourage behaviors. In the same way, it is not illegal for governemnt to use tax credits to encourage business to act in a certain way.

Exactly, as long as no other business was denied the same opportunity and the lack of law suits shows that to be the case. Any individual or corporation that engaged in the same practices were entitled to the same opportunities for tax benefits and that seems to be haymarket's problem. He always wants equal outcome vs. equal opportunity.
 
from nevergolfpar

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that States and communities should be able to establish their own tax rates. Such tax rates can be different, from state to states and community to community.

yes.

from Buck

Tax credits have been used for to encourage individual behaviors for virtually forever. No one ever challegned it in the courts because it is not illegal for the government to use tax credits to encourage behaviors. In the same way, it is not illegal for governemnt to use tax credits to encourage business to act in a certain way.

Tax credits are not individually selective picking only one individual over everyone else and to the exclusion of everyone else in that category. That is precisely what tax breaks given to new companies to relocate are doing.
 
from nevergolfpar

yes.

from Buck

Tax credits are not individually selective picking only one individual over everyone else and to the exclusion of everyone else in that category. That is precisely what tax breaks given to new companies to relocate are doing.

I'd like a link substantiating your opinion, Haymarket. In fact, show me that these tax breaks can be given without proper legislation in place. You are making the assumption that there are no guidelines for these tax breaks. Example: Alaska helps subsidize movie productions done within its borders. It's legislated. Not a perk to be handed out with indiscretion. Here's one called an Angel Investment Tax Credit enacted by the legislature in Illinois. Note the parameters of who is eligible. The State of Illinois Approves Angel Tax Credit - Hyde Park Angels

For example, a state may have legislation on the books that allows tax credits if . . .

More than 20,000 jobs are created (Or whatever the number)
Headquartered in that state
Might specify what industries are eligible to receive them (and spell out those who aren't)
Involves a real estate purchase not less than 20 acres
Whatever.....

In fact, Texas, has its own website devoted to telling companies what incentives are available to businesses. TexasWideOpenForBusiness.com Texas Economic Development: Tax Incentives

Fit the criteria they set? You're eligible. Don't fit it? You're not. Surely you aren't saying that every single business that opens its doors in the state of Texas ought to get tax incentives? Or that none should get them? Or, further, that every state has to offer the same ones?? That position is impossible to defend.
 
Last edited:
No state or locality should be able to entice a business to come to their state by offering them breaks or payments that other businesses already in the state cannot get.

There is no website to support that opinion. Its my opinion.

I base my opinion on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the Citizens United Decision and common sense having seen corporations travel like ladies of the night from customer to customer only staying long enough to get the money and then move on to the next one in line with even more.

It is a tactic with no long term prospects of victory for anyone but the corporation. Some state, some locality will ALWAYS be there to offer a better deal. Its a race to the bottom.

Do you want to win that race?
 
Last edited:
No state or locality should be able to entice a business to come to their state by offering them breaks or payments that other businesses already in the state cannot get.

There is no website to support that opinion. Its my opinion.

I base my opinion on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the Citizens United Decision and common sense having seen corporations travel like ladies of the night from customer to customer only staying long enough to get the money and then move on to the next one in line with even more.

It is a tactic with no long term prospects of victory for anyone but the corporation. Some state, some locality will ALWAYS be there to offer a better deal. Its a race to the bottom.

Do you want to win that race?

Most states understand the benefits of bringing new business and taxpayers to their particular state and most businesses in those states probably already received many of the benefits offered by the state. There is no evidence that all businesses don't have the same opportunities for start up benefits in the states. Moving isn't cheap and no existing business has those start up expenses. You really don't seem to understand how business works. Why would an existing business want the start up costs that new businesses have that are being offered to entice businesses to their area?
 
Back
Top Bottom