If corporations are people, why don't right wingers complain that most corporations pay no taxes? (party affiliation, Clinton)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't say it was a new loop-hole, but a loop-hole nonetheless. They need to start reviewing them and closing them just like Reagan did. Even you agree that there are loop holes to be closed. The idea is to close them, and then lower the corporate tax rate in US. The problem is that some companies are better positioned to exploit the loop holes than some others. For example small businesses are unlikely to be able to benefit from the same cookies as the big multinationals, and that is not right. Close the loopholes and end subsidies, and lower the rate, that is my opinion. You do not share the same view, and that is cool. You are entitled to your opinion.
New? Who said new. I said that Google's strategey & resultant tax rate is not a loophole.
Please point out a specific "loophole" you think ought to be closed. I'm not saying you are wrong about the need to close "loopholes," but I want to know what you think is a loophole.
That's complete BS Nobody wants them exempt from taxes, just not singled out for excessive taxes. That fact that your vision is so weak as to not see that is scarry. Stay off of the roads.
They are not singled out for excessive taxes, the rest of us are-scary only has one r by the way-scarry would be if I had a lot of scars-I guess I do from all of the economic injuries I have suffered due to the right wing policies of letting the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and the elimination of the middle class.
1- Who would be these "so-called" poor?
2- Do you see the rich benefitting with flat taxes?
3- How does the middle class benefit?
PS. Stop making arguments with "allegedly", when it is your opinion on the subject that should take precedence.
The so called poor are those who get tax returns greater than the tax they paid in.
I dont see the rich benefiting anymore or any less than anyone else.
The middle class would gain nothing nor would they lose anything.
P.S
No disrespect intended but.
4 combat injuries in the service of my country I'll use what ever words I like. If you dont like the words I chose you have the right to ignore my posts.
I really mean no disrespect I just dont like being told how I can post. I always try to be respectful no matter how strongly I might disagree with another poster.
The so called poor are those who get tax returns greater than the tax they paid in.
I dont see the rich benefiting anymore or any less than anyone else.
The middle class would gain nothing nor would they lose anything.
So, your idea is that flat tax would have no effect on middle class and the rich. You want it only because some people don't pay anything in taxes (much less get something back). In other words, it isn't about making anything better, just making it worse for those "so-called poor".
BTW, how did you arrive at the conclusion that it ain't middle class folks (much less rich) who aren't among those not paying federal income tax, just "poor" people? By that definition, you must accept as nearly half of America being poor? What brought about that? Was it always that way?
Quote:
P.S
No disrespect intended but. 4 combat injuries in the service of my country I'll use what ever words I like. If you dont like the words I chose you have the right to ignore my posts.
I really mean no disrespect I just dont like being told how I can post. I always try to be respectful no matter how strongly I might disagree with another poster.
No disrespect intended but try not to use emotional card in a logical debate. I couldn't care less about your "sacrifice" if you want to play it along those lines. I really mean no disrespect. And I certainly won't ignore posts, although may choose to not waste times on illogical ones.
Try to stay up with the discussion because Finn didnt want MY perspective. I had absolutely no problem with him rambling on about the 1980's, but he clearly had a problem with me disccusing something more current.
I am, considering that I feel you're (again) trying to avoid using perspective to push your agenda against Obama. Discussing anything, including policies, of the past, simply happens to get on your nerves. Tell me, why exactly do you don't want others to use the perspective?
... Coming to think of it Republicans call the removal of loop holes "tax increase" ....
Any time your taxes go up it's a tax increase. Just like for your personal return; if the govt took away your personal exemption loophole, you would pay more taxes. That's a tax increase.
Any time your taxes go up it's a tax increase. Just like for your personal return; if the govt took away your personal exemption loophole, you would pay more taxes. That's a tax increase.
So, you are opposed to closing any loopholes or subsidies no matter how badly they are abused?
Wouldn't you be willing to let go $1000 worth of loopholes if they lowered the corporate tax rate which would save you $1100? Remember that lowering the tax rate would benefit all businesses, not just the ones who have invested in mastering the art of expoiting all possible loopholes?
So, your idea is that flat tax would have no effect on middle class and the rich. You want it only because some people don't pay anything in taxes (much less get something back). In other words, it isn't about making anything better, just making it worse for those "so-called poor".
BTW, how did you arrive at the conclusion that it ain't middle class folks (much less rich) who aren't among those not paying federal income tax, just "poor" people? By that definition, you must accept as nearly half of America being poor? What brought about that? Was it always that way?
No disrespect intended but try not to use emotional card in a logical debate. I couldn't care less about your "sacrifice" if you want to play it along those lines. I really mean no disrespect. And I certainly won't ignore posts, although may choose to not waste times on illogical ones.
No emotion intended. simply stating I earned the right to use what ever words I like just as I defended your right to use snide replies.
As I said the a flat tax removes the loopholes from the rich that the left cries about so hard.
It also removes the loopholes from those who thus far have enjoyed a free ride.
I want it so that everyone and the select few pay a share of the burden.
I dont accept that half america is poor. being well traveled I have seen what poor looks like and america aint it.
As I said the a flat tax removes the loopholes from the rich that the left cries about so hard.
It also removes the loopholes from those who thus far have enjoyed a free ride.
I want it so that everyone and the select few pay a share of the burden.
I dont accept that half america is poor. being well traveled I have seen what poor looks like and america aint it.
Again, it doesn't help anybody, but its only purpose is to punish half of America. No wonder you'd have issues with "the left".
Last edited by CaseyB; 08-17-2011 at 01:05 PM..
Reason: off topic
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
