Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

Thunder said:

Folks, I'm not talking about mom & pop stores.

I am talking about Walmart, BJs, Pathmark, Old Navy, etc etc. MASSIVE franchises that make billions in profits.

Click to expand...

You can't put laws on some corporations and not others. It's the whole, "equal protection under the law", thing that the Constitution guarantees.

When you out the screws to big companies, it's un-constitutional not to apply the same laws to mon-n-pop companies.

Just like the tax placed on bonuses. Not only do the fat cat CEO's have to pay more taxes, Joe Bloe grocery store stock boy, who gets a Chirstmas bonus has to pay the same rate. If I recall correctly, the rate that was passed by Congress is 60%.

Thunder said:

tell that to AIG, Citicorp, and Bank of America.

Click to expand...

I don't have to. They already know it.

apdst said:

You can't put laws on some corporations and not others. It's the whole, "equal protection under the law", thing that the Constitution guarantees....

Click to expand...

the Equal Protection clause covers human beings, not grocery stores.

Thunder said:

the Equal Protection clause covers human beings, not grocery stores.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's not true. That's the reason that when a tax is applied to, "corporations", it's applied to all corporations.

Ever hear of the Grassley/Baucus Bill? Yeah, it would place a 35% excise tax on companies issueing bonuses and a 35% excise tax on employees recieving the bonuses.

You want fair. There it is.

apdst said:

...You want fair. There it is.

Click to expand...

Human beings are persons. The idea that corporations are "persons" and are protected by the Bill of Rights, is the raping of our Constitution.

Thunder said:

Human beings are persons. The idea that corporations are "persons" and are protected by the Bill of Rights, is the raping of our Constitution.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations have the same rights as persons. Maybe you recall that ruling.

You constantly scream about, "fairness", yet you turn right around and scream that we treat people and companies un-fairly. It makes no sense.

I guess I might be willing to pay higher taxes if the Federal Government first cut all the things in which they shouldn't be involved (in my opinion). And, then, gave my state back its surplus. Then, they reduced my tax burden to what it should be based on what was left. Then, starting there, I'd be willing to pay higher taxes for specific programs with a term on them - like for a specific defense program, etc.

And, I'd be willing to pay higher local taxes, too, in order to make up for anything that people in my city, county, or state wanted to replace that in which the Federal Government was no longer involved to some level - again, with a term on it.

I'm not happy about the amount of taxes I pay now. But, I'd be much happier paying even the same amount if the majority of it was staying local.

GreenvilleGrows said:

I guess I might be willing to pay higher taxes if the Federal Government first cut all the things in which they shouldn't be involved (in my opinion). And, then, gave my state back its surplus. Then, they reduced my tax burden to what it should be based on what was left. Then, starting there, I'd be willing to pay higher taxes for specific programs with a term on them - like for a specific defense program, etc.

And, I'd be willing to pay higher local taxes, too, in order to make up for anything that people in my city, county, or state wanted to replace that in which the Federal Government was no longer involved to some level - again, with a term on it.

I'm not happy about the amount of taxes I pay now. But, I'd be much happier paying even the same amount if the majority of it was staying local.

Click to expand...

The more that I think about taxation, the more I become convinced that it is reprehensible that the federal government takes so much to begin with, then essentially blackmails the states* into doing their dirty work by threatening to cut off federal money.

*- The blackmail is necessary because what they are demanding is technically unconstitutional so they cannot literally dictate it. "If you don't do as we say, we'll take away your <insert project/program here> funding."

apdst said:

The Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations have the same rights as persons. Maybe you recall that ruling. [...]

Click to expand...

Your interpretation is overly broad, but I do recall that ruling. I also recall the thumping sound that accompanied it -- the thumping sound caused by the founding fathers spinning in their graves . . . .

apdst said:

The Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations have the same rights as persons. Maybe you recall that ruling....

Click to expand...

which just goes to show you that even the Supreme Court of the USA, can be wrong.

radcen said:

The more that I think about taxation, the more I become convinced that it is reprehensible that the federal government takes so much to begin with [...]

Click to expand...

Numbers from the Heritage Foundation show the U.S. percentage of taxation to GDP to be pretty much middle of the road (26.9% out of a range from 1.4% to 69.7%).

Also, they rank the U.S. 9th out of 179 countries in economic freedom (Hong Kong is ranked first, North Korea last).

Would you care to expound on how that is "reprehensible"?

Thunder said:

which just goes to show you that even the Supreme Court of the USA, can be wrong.

Click to expand...

Or can be corporate lackeys

Thunder said:

which just goes to show you that even the Supreme Court of the USA, can be wrong.

Click to expand...

In the end there is no right or wrong when it comes to interpretation of the law. There is only opinion... and the ability to enforce it. It is your opinion that the SC is wrong. On this particular subject, I agree with you, but unfortunately I am not in a position to enforce my opinion.

Extending person hood related measures and privileges to Corporate heads has been an ongoing practice since the early 1800's. In some ways they have it and in some ways they don't.

It's not like it's a new bastard of an idea or something - it's been slowly occurring with each ruling over the last two centuries.

In some ways it limits or enables what they can and cannot do - but it also enables them to be held more individually accountable for some of their actions by government and law.

Thunder said:

Human beings are persons. The idea that corporations are "persons" and are protected by the Bill of Rights, is the raping of our Constitution.

Click to expand...

The problem can be traced to the 14th amendment, I have heard argued, and is basically a very tiny loophole that the Supreme Court has used to award corporate personhood:




If, as I have heard it argued, the words "any natural person" had been used in place of "any person", corporations today would have no right of free speech.

wages are not tied into or related to profit achieved. this is indeed a problem..and its unfair.

Click to expand...

yes, business-owners have invested time and money into their company. but that doesn't change the fact that its the labor of the workers who are making the products or services that earn the money that accounts for the profits.

a fairer system of dividing profits between owners & workers, should be devised.

Click to expand...

no, I just want a country that is a bit more fair. that's all.

Click to expand...

This is the epitome of the ignorance that has resulted in the lunacy of Occupy Wallstreet. These are not fact based arguments you are making. They are rhetoric- and not even good rhetoric. It seems to be the rhetoric of the masses, though. The ignorant, stupid masses who want to change the system yet are not willing to educate themselves sufficiently on how the process works currently. How else can you suggest a solution?

I have a couple of questions for you:

What do CEO's do, really? What is their job?

What does a properly managed company do with the profits they earn in a capitalistic system?

And who should devise this system of dividing profits?

I suggest you google the answers before responding.

kamikaze483 said:

This is the epitome of the ignorance that has resulted in the lunacy of Occupy Wallstreet. These are not fact based arguments you are making. They are rhetoric- and not even good rhetoric. It seems to be the rhetoric of the masses, though. The ignorant, stupid masses who want to change the system yet are not willing to educate themselves sufficiently on how the process works currently. How else can you suggest a solution?

Click to expand...

Yes, most of the country are the "ignorant, stupid masses". And apparently the other percent are arrogant SOBs.

kamikaze483 said:

What do CEO's do, really? What is their job?

Click to expand...

Manage.

kamikaze483 said:

What does a properly managed company do with the profits they earn in a capitalistic system?

Click to expand...

Lot's of different things.

kamikaze483 said:

And who should devise this system of dividing profits?

Click to expand...

Who devised the current system? What a cop-out of an argument that is.

kamikaze483 said:

I suggest you google the answers before responding.

Click to expand...

You think I need to Google to have a debate with you? This should be fun.

Here are some facts for you, kamikaze:

Rio Grande Valley Jobs
-From 2005 to 2008, median wage was $8.14 for adults in Rio Grande. The ****ing median.
-A quarter of them earned less than $6.19 an hour.
-One in five Americans worked jobs that had poverty-level wages in 2010. One in five.

That means, according to you, 20 percent of the work force are lazy, idiots. Again, that's just of the work force, as it leaves out the portion of people who don't even have jobs. Which means, in reality, you think at least 30% of Americans are worthless.

GreenvilleGrows said:

I guess I might be willing to pay higher taxes if the Federal Government first cut all the things in which they shouldn't be involved (in my opinion). And, then, gave my state back its surplus. Then, they reduced my tax burden to what it should be based on what was left. Then, starting there, I'd be willing to pay higher taxes for specific programs with a term on them - like for a specific defense program, etc.

And, I'd be willing to pay higher local taxes, too, in order to make up for anything that people in my city, county, or state wanted to replace that in which the Federal Government was no longer involved to some level - again, with a term on it.

I'm not happy about the amount of taxes I pay now. But, I'd be much happier paying even the same amount if the majority of it was staying local.

Click to expand...

Paying the taxes I currently pay would be easier for me to swallow, if I didn't see the money outright wasted, like it is.

Thunder said:

which just goes to show you that even the Supreme Court of the USA, can be wrong.

Click to expand...

Why is it wrong to apply laws equally to everyone? I don't want to get screwed by the government, just because I'm self employed. That ain't right. What about MY rights? Do I give those up, when I start my own business?

whysoserious said:

Yes, most of the country are the "ignorant, stupid masses". And apparently the other percent are arrogant SOBs.


Manage.



Lot's of different things.



Who devised the current system? What a cop-out of an argument that is.



You think I need to Google to have a debate with you? This should be fun.

Click to expand...

If those are your answer to those question, you to google your butt off. :rofl

apdst said:

Why is it wrong to apply laws equally to everyone? I don't want to get screwed by the government, just because I'm self employed. That ain't right. What about MY rights? Do I give those up, when I start my own business?

Click to expand...

you are a human being. you have rights.

corporations are not human beings, and do not deserve the same rights as humans. just as animals don't deserve the same rights as humans.

and yet, some people think corporations deserve more rights than chimpanzees.

Thunder said:

you are a human being. you have rights.

corporations are not human beings, and do not deserve the same rights as humans. just as animals don't deserve the same rights as humans.

and yet, some people think corporations deserve more rights than chimpanzees.

Click to expand...

I'm a human being that owns a business. My corporation shouldn't be treated any better, or worse than any other corporation.

If it's ok to screw over large corporations, then you're setting the stage for it to be ok to screw over small corporations.

I intended to have the discussion with the person who posted the comments I listed. Each of them were rhetorical comments, not based on fact, but based on a misunderstanding of the way things work. It is clear that he (or she) and many other people, many of whom are active in the Occupy Movement just don't have a lot of facts to work with- they work on feeling. That is not how problems are solved. Now to deal with the facts YOU listed, which I find hard to believe, but because I don't live there I'll assume they are correct.

-A quarter of them earned less than $6.19 an hour.

Click to expand...

I list this one first because it will be the simplest one to deal with. The Federal Minimum Wage is higher than this, which usually is accounted for by companies utilizing the labor of illegal immigrants, contrary to Federal Law. It also means that companies reported average wages at below the FMW. That would just be dumb, because it would expose their illegal activities. There is an agreesive US Department of Labor that will entertain any claims of minimum wage violations for American Citizens.

From 2005 to 2008, median wage was $8.14 for adults in Rio Grande. The ****ing median.

Click to expand...

This is just a broader statistic of the one we just discussed, so illegal labor also dilutes the numbers. I will concede that is is highly possible that Rio Grande has a very low median wage due to the volume of agriculture business. The great thing about a capitalistic economy is that it is capitalitic for all. Wages are set by the market- just as prices for goods and services are set by the market. A company will pay a worker based also on the value of that worker to the company. The employee has the opportunity to either make themselves more valuable (and less disposable) to the company. If they do that and still are underpaid based on the market, they should look for another job. You get to choose where you work, just as companies get to choose who they hire. The economy is very difficult right now for businesses as well as employees.

And I don't disagree with your statement about 20 percent of people below the FPL, but that and these other statistics are not the fault of corporations and businesses, generally, and are impertinent to the argument I was making that debates have to commence at some basis of fact, not feeling- in order to result in compromise or solutions.

apdst said:

I'm a human being that owns a business. My corporation shouldn't be treated any better, or worse than any other corporation.....

Click to expand...

yes, and the law currently says that if your business goes bankrupt, you should not go banktrupt with it.

the law says that you AND your corporation, have seperate rights to freedom of speech.

this, is insane.