The President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction by Geezer

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I would also put capital gains tax on the same footing as ordinary income, and tax people on their "revenues" (net income), just like business is currently taxed.

As an aside, people often say that "the wealthy" and business already pay their "fair share" of taxes. If they knew the basics of investment and business tax rules, there would be no discussion about how bad business has it. First of all, businesses are taxed on whatever is left after expenses. That would be as if households were only taxed on their savings. Then, business gets to depreciate any of their physical assets. And that's not even counting the specific tax loopholes that businesses enjoy.

My reasoning is that if businesses are also people, they should be taxed like people. And, if they commit a serious crime, the business should be put to death.

But so far, the tax proposals look like a good start.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:34 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My reasoning is that if businesses are also people, they should be taxed like people.

They are. Businesses are taxed pretty much like any self-employed individual. They subtract expenses from gross income to arrive at taxable income. See an IRS Schedule C or Schedule F for the kinds of expenses they can deduct.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sf.pdf

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, Geezer, if businesses are also people ... with privacy rights, and "free speech" ... they should be taxed like ordinary wage earners, who are (in effect) the smallest of all subcontracting units.

Think about it: MY "business asset"... my production machine... is myself. I have to maintain my machine,.. I have to fuel it and protect it and keep it in good repair, even upgrade it with new software from time to time, otherwise my small business doesn't go forward.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:50 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, Geezer, if businesses are also people ... with privacy rights, and "free speech" ... they should be taxed like ordinary wage earners, who are (in effect) the smallest of all subcontracting units.

No, SignyM. If you want to compare businesses with individuals, compare them with the individuals with whom they have the most in common; the self-employed folks who have to risk their capital in equipment and expenses in the hope of enough return to make a profit.

Or, if you really want to destroy the country, tax both businesses and the self-employed on their gross income.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:59 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

That doesn't work, Geezer. If corporations are "people", you can only compare corporate taxes to those of the BUSINESS the small-business owner runs, not the individual themselves, because if corporations are "individuals", so are small businesses.

Individuals AND actual small businesses (bearing in mind that "small business" can be made to include many, many HUGE businesses...like the Koch Brothers...by how they're defined) don't have the access to all (or even many) of the tax loopholes corporations do, the money to hire expensive accountants who know their way around the tax code or the lawyers to tell them what they can get away with.

There is actually no comparison whatsoever. Corporations have access to myriad tax-saving resources that ACTUAL individuals do not. And they take advantage of every single one of them, ergo what the tax code SAYS is their taxable percentage bears little resemblance to the percentage they ACTUALLY pay.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:11 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
That doesn't work, Geezer. If corporations are "people", you can only compare corporate taxes to those of the BUSINESS the small-business owner runs, not the individual themselves, because if corporations are "individuals", so are small businesses.

SignyM is comparing corporations to individuals, not small businesses. The closest individuals to corporations, from a tax treatment standpoint, are the self-employed.

Both corporate "people" (to use your and SignyM's conceit) and self-employed people follow pretty much the same rules in computing gross income, allowable expenses, and taxable net income. Seems the most reasonable comparison of corporations and individuals, unless you're trying to confuse the situation.

Also, both corporations and self-employed individuals, along with pretty much everyone else, uses all facilities available to them to pay as little income tax, or get back as much refundable credit, as possible.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer: The comparison of corporations to people is not "my" conceit, it is that of the right-wing.

If corporations are people, according to Mtt Romney, then people are corporations. That's what happens when you put an equal sign between two terms- you make them equivalent.

Now, corporations spend money to make money. I spend money to make money. They buy or rent buildings for production and storage. I buy or rent buildings for production, or storage.

They need to buy materials and fuel. I need to buy materials and fuel. They need communications. I need communication. They need heating and cooling. I need heating and cooling. They need to upgrade, I need to upgrade. I even need employees of my own. How am I NOT risking my capital?

Now you may claim that some of my expenses are ... well, expensive. But I'm not asking for private jets or cristal champagne or team-building exercises in Cancun, so I guess what's necessary is all in the eye of the beholder, innit?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:18 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: The comparison of corporations to people is not "my" conceit, it is that of the right-wing.

If corporations are people, according to Mtt Romney, then people are corporations. That's what happens when you put an equal sign between two terms- you make them equivalent.

Now, corporations spend money to make money. I spend money to make money. They buy or rent buildings for production and storage. I buy or rent buildings for production, or storage.

They need to buy materials and fuel. I need to buy materials and fuel. They need communications. I need communication. They need heating and cooling. I need heating and cooling. They need to upgrade, I need to upgrade. I even need employees of my own. How am I NOT risking my capital?

Now you may claim that some of my expenses are ... well, expensive. But I'm not asking for private jets or cristal champagne or team-building exercises in Cancun, so I guess what's necessary is all in the eye of the beholder, innit?

This is my very favorite post in a long time! You just won the interwebz, Signy!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"If corporations are people, according to Mitt Romney, then people are corporations. That's what happens when you put an equal sign between two terms ..."

But in republicanland, some are MORE equal than others.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: The comparison of corporations to people is not "my" conceit, it is that of the right-wing.

No. Your conceit is in taking that statement to ridiculous extremes, and quite out of the context Gov. Romney used it in. Here's a more complete statement.

“I told them, corporations are people…Raising taxes on corporations is raising taxes on people.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64030.html

Do you realize that in this sense, corporations ARE people; the employees and the investors (and at one remove, the customers)?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Do you realize that in this sense, corporations ARE people; the employees and the investors (and at one remove, the customers)?

In that sense? Well, in your kind of sense governments are people too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:33 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Do you realize that in this sense, corporations ARE people; the employees and the investors (and at one remove, the customers)?
In that sense? Well, in your kind of sense governments are people too.

Well, yes. So are sports teams and churches and political parties and Girl Scout troops and even cooperatives. They all consist of people. They are MADE of people. They are all groups of people coming together to complete a given task, or reach a common goal, or earn a buck.

It should be obvious to just about anyone that Gov. Romney, in his full "Corporations are people" statement, means just this: that corporations consist of people - people who will have to pay in one way or another if corporate taxes are raised.

Your trying to conflate this idea with the idea that corporations should pay taxes in precisely the same way that individuals do is nonsense, and you know it. Would you have your beloved cooperatives pay taxes at the same rate?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:56 AM

DALEK!

There is a mark difference between "are people" and "made up of people".

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 8:02 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My reasoning is that if businesses are also people, they should be taxed like people.

They are. Businesses are taxed pretty much like any self-employed individual. They subtract expenses from gross income to arrive at taxable income. See an IRS Schedule C or Schedule F for the kinds of expenses they can deduct.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sf.pdf

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Wow, you had to excise the part of Sig's post that explained why they're not, just so you could say "Yes, they are".

Wow.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 8:24 AM

BYTEMITE

I don't like corporations having personhood... Seems like it just makes it harder to litigate against them when they're in the wrong and it also gives them greater power than any individual to drown out dissenting opinions.

No one should have the kind of power they seem to have.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:02 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Nope. I just excised the portion that made no sense, just like in this post.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:03 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
There is a mark difference between "are people" and "made up of people".

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Really?

I've often heard pastors say "Our church is people". Do you think they meant that their church had corporate personhood, or that their church was the people who belonged to and supported it, rather than the bricks and mortar?

Besides, if you read the whole statement from Gov. Romney, instead of taking a snippet out of context (which I'm sure you'd never do), you can pretty much see he's referring to the same fact; that a corporation is the people who work for and invest in it, not the factory or office building.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:31 AM

DALEK!

Saying "Our church is people", which I would hope mean the church is made up of the people is still differnet that saying "the church is a person".

Put it this way, a group is different then an individual.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 12:17 PM

DREAMTROVE

Sig, why increase govt. revenue when you already know that money is going to wars and bailouts?

The soc. sec and medicare come from direct taxes, and the roads, schools, etc. come from state. You know the feds are going to borrow as much money as they can anyway, to expand the wars and handouts to their friends, why give them more money?

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:05 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Nope. I just excised the portion that made no sense, just like in this post.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Guess the Alzheimers must really be kicking in for ya, then. Not that this wasn't already clear.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 4:52 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It should be obvious to just about anyone that Gov. Romney, in his full "Corporations are people" statement, means just this: that corporations consist of people - people who will have to pay in one way or another if corporate taxes are raised.

So if one way or another people will pay, let's just tax corporations and be done with it, and stop chasing after individuals and all their piddly little income streams. Corporate taxes are more efficient that way, since the money is already collected up. Right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:01 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Geezer, are you still flogging the language? Jeeze, give it up already.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:09 PM

Quote:
Posted by Geezer:

Besides, if you read the whole statement from Gov. Romney, instead of taking a snippet out of context (which I'm sure you'd never do)...

This is particularly hilarious, coming on the heels of Geezer telling us to google "hoffa" and "sons of bitches" in order to prove that his taking snippets of a speech out of context really isn't something he does.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2011 1:10 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2011 1:24 AM

DALEK!

If you want to talk about Solyndra and the future of green energy why don't you take yourself back to that thread...you know the one you ran from...the one that you refused to answer my questions.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2011 2:53 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Saying "Our church is people", which I would hope mean the church is made up of the people is still differnet that saying "the church is a person".

Put it this way, a group is different then an individual.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Who said "the Corporation is a person"? SignyM, maybe, but not Gov. Romney.

Once again, what he said is this:

“I told them, corporations are people…Raising taxes on corporations is raising taxes on people.”

You can dance around it all you like, but that's a preety clear statement that increases in taxes on corporations increase the costs to the people who make up the corporations.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2011 2:57 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
This is particularly hilarious, coming on the heels of Geezer telling us to google "hoffa" and "sons of bitches" in order to prove that his taking snippets of a speech out of context really isn't something he does.

I don't remember leaving "Sons of bitches" out of my quote.

Sorry if it was you and others who got all "OH, he was talking about votes". Whether it was votes, guns, water balloons or Hallmark cards, calling your political opponents 'sons of bitches' is inflamatory and not so bright.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2011 3:03 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Who said "the Corporation is a person"? SignyM, maybe, but not Gov. Romney.

Once again, what he said is this:

“I told them, corporations are people…Raising taxes on corporations is raising taxes on people.”

You can dance around it all you like, but that's a preety clear statement that increases in taxes on corporations increase the costs to the people who make up the corporations.

Raising taxes on corporations may end up costing the people who make up the corporation, but that does not make corporation equivalent to people, even in this regard. That is the problem.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2011 3:07 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So if one way or another people will pay, let's just tax corporations and be done with it, and stop chasing after individuals and all their piddly little income streams. Corporate taxes are more efficient that way, since the money is already collected up. Right?

Cool, so you're against raising taxes on the rich now? Actually, as a retiree who has nothing invested in corporations, businesses, etc. that'd work fine for me, as I'd get to keep 100% of my pension.

Of course, it would sort of end the concept of a graduated income tax, since all workers would in effect pay the same rate, and would get no tax breaks for dependents, mortgage interest, medical expenses, etc.

But it does move closer to your goal, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2011 3:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Raising taxes on corporations may end up costing the people who make up the corporation, but that does not make corporation equivalent to people, even in this regard. That is the problem.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

It's SignyM who's talking about corporations as equivalent to people. Gov. Romney is saying corporations are made up of people. Quite a difference.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2011 3:15 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
It's SignyM who's talking about corporations as equivalent to people. Gov. Romney is saying corporations are made up of people. Quite a difference.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

"corporations are people"

That statement is saying corporations are equivalent to people. Now he may have ment something else, but that is not what he said. You can't remove "made up of" and keep the same meaning.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2011 4:08 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, I guess I'm going to have to start saying "You're trying to communicate with GEEZER. You might want to look to that". He's as bad as Wulf and Raptor when it comes to twisted logic and attempts to justify what isn't justifyable. Romney said "Corporations are people, my friends". Period. what he meant is up to interpretation, but it's hard to interpret it to mean "corporations are made up of people", given the Supreme Court's decision. That really should have been all there was to it, posts ago.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2011 4:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Of course, it would sort of end the concept of a graduated income tax, since all workers would in effect pay the same rate, and would get no tax breaks for dependents, mortgage interest, medical expenses, etc.

What an idiot. First of all, I can imagine a graduated corporate tax. Secondly, if you are paying no tax at all, up front, it's the same as 100% tax breaks across the board.

Since you're not making any sense at all, I have to ask: What's your REAL problem with the idea, then? Must be because it DOES make a difference when you tax corporations instead of people, so your original point (the taxes get passed on anyway so it doesn't make a difference) just fell pretty flat. Logic, Geezer.

Quote:
Gov. Romney is saying corporations are made up of people. Quite a difference.

Indeed, if that is what Romney said, then it WOULD be quite a difference. Also, what Niki said about the Supreme Court.

One of the thrusts of the so-called tea Party has been to grant corporations ALL of the rights of actual people (privacy, freedom of speech etc.) with none of the responsibilities*... or taxes, I might add.

*When was the last time you say a corporation put to death for mass murder?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2011 8:07 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
ALL of the rights of actual people (privacy, freedom of speech etc.) with none of the responsibilities

Oh, Sig, you could go on FOREVER on that one! Like thievery (legal, of course, but not for US),

How about the things they get AWAY with that ordinary "people" don't, like tax loopholes, pollution, subsidies, and on and on and on. I'd like some of those, since I'm a "people"...well, not the pollution part, but the rest of it...

One of the important of these privileges corporations have is called limited liability, which means that the corporation shields its owners (yes — the actual people) from liability when engaging in risky business endeavors. How do we get that, I'd LOVE to know?

Do a search for "responsibilities corporations as people", and virtually everything that comes up on the first page talks about them having the rights of people with few if any of the responsibilities. That IS the crux of the Supremes' incomprehensible decision.

The fact is, corporate decision making is like a machine and is incapable of making moral or rational decisions because the profit motive will override all moral considerations. Individuals within corporations can be morally responsible, but that doesn’t mean a corporation, an abstract social construct, can be morally responsible.

Is there a death penalty for corporations? Of course not. And the fact is, if a corporation breaks the law or does something else requiring punishment, many of the people who were in charge of the those acts (You know, the actual PEOPLE running the "corporate peronhood") would be the first to jump ship and go to other corporations to try again with more stealth. The entire idea is bizarre, and to me is merely a reflection of how far to the right our entire government has been pushed; it can ONLY be via a Supreme Court with a majority of right-wingers which could come up with such a concept.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 23, 2011 9:01 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Posted by Geezer:

Besides, if you read the whole statement from Gov. Romney, instead of taking a snippet out of context (which I'm sure you'd never do)...

This is particularly hilarious, coming on the heels of Geezer telling us to google "hoffa" and "sons of bitches" in order to prove that his taking snippets of a speech out of context really isn't something he does.

Wingnuts are usually of the "Do as I say, not as I do" ilk.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2011 3:22 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
"corporations are people"

That statement is saying corporations are equivalent to people. Now he may have ment something else, but that is not what he said. You can't remove "made up of" and keep the same meaning.

If you purposely pull one sentence out of the whole quote and out of context, maybe.

Once again, try reading the whole statement.

“I told them, corporations are people…Raising taxes on corporations is raising taxes on people.”

Try it in the context of the statement it was in response to. - something like "We should just raise taxes on corporations".

You can keep quoting the snippet and ignoring the whole statment all you want, but that just shows your bias.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2011 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
"corporations are people"

That statement is saying corporations are equivalent to people. Now he may have ment something else, but that is not what he said. You can't remove "made up of" and keep the same meaning.

If you purposely pull one sentence out of the whole quote and out of context, maybe.

Once again, try reading the whole statement.

“I told them, corporations are people…Raising taxes on corporations is raising taxes on people.”

Try it in the context of the statement it was in response to. - something like "We should just raise taxes on corporations".

You can keep quoting the snippet and ignoring the whole statment all you want, but that just shows your bias.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

So when you keep using the out-of-context snippet from Hoffa, you're doing so in order to show your bias?

Thanks for clarifying that.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2011 4:14 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, I can imagine a graduated corporate tax.

I can too, but it wouldn't have the same effect as the progressive income tax rates we have now.

If one corporation is taxed at any rate, all the employees and investors of that corporation would (or should) lose an equal amount of their income. If the tax rate were 20%, everyone from the janitor making $7.50 and hour to the CEO making millions would lose 20%. Now if you were a flat tax fan, that might appeal to you, but it's a lot rougher on the janitor than the CEO.

Of course, you could go back and give the folks on the lower end of the income scale rebates, credits, etc., but that'd end up being as complicated as the current tax system, and probably more prone to fraud and abuse.

Quote:
Secondly, if you are paying no tax at all, up front, it's the same as 100% tax breaks across the board.

But, if your income comes from working for or investing in a corporation, you DO end up paying since there's less money after the corporate tax for salarys or dividends. And you'd get kind'a pissed off at those folks working for cooperatives, small businesses, or themselves, who'd pay no taxes.

Quote:
What's your REAL problem with the idea, then?

See above. It loses the benefits of a progressive tax unless a rebate/credit system much more complicated than the current one is implemented, and it pretty much puts the entire tax burden on the backs of corporate employees and investors. You're pretty much suggesting that corporate wage-slaves support the rest of us.

Quote:
Indeed, if that is what Romney said, then it WOULD be quite a difference.

If you read all of Gov. Romney's comments in context, that is pretty much what he said.

Quote:
One of the thrusts of the so-called tea Party has been to grant corporations ALL of the rights of actual people (privacy, freedom of speech etc.) with none of the responsibilities*... or taxes, I might add.

Oh, I get it. You think I'm defending corporate personhood. Okay, calling you an idiot is now appropriate.

You're the one who kept proposing that businesses are like people:

"My reasoning is that if businesses are also people, they should be taxed like people."

"if businesses are also people ... with privacy rights, and "free speech" ... they should be taxed like ordinary wage earners"

My only objection to that was that, if this was so, they should be taxed like the people they most resemble, the self-employed.

Then you tried to conflate Gov. Romney's statement into support for corporate personhood, which it obviously isn't.

And with the doctrinaire illogic you so love, you take my attempts to correct your misapprehension as support for corporate personhood.

The concept of corporate personhood is as silly as your idea of taxing corporations only.

The concept that what happens to corporations affects the people connected with it, as employees and investors, is valid. This is not to say that corporations shouldn't be taxed, regulated, etc., but that there should be an awareness that these actions have an impact on pensioners and working people and their families, not just the executives and big investors.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2011 4:19 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So when you keep using the out-of-context snippet from Hoffa...

If I'm indicating that I think calling your political opponents "sons of bitches" is inflamatory and stupid, and I include Hoffa calling his political opponents "sons of bitches" in my quote, I fail to see how I've left anything out.

If you want to argue a point I'm not trying to make, go right ahead. You and SignyM can form a club.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2011 4:26 AM

I'm curious: Is it worse to call an opponent a "son of a bitch", or to call a female opponent a "bitch"?

Or are both equally inflammatory?

Would someone using such an epithet, or at the very least not condemning such language, automatically lose any support you might otherwise give them?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2011 4:35 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm curious:

Yes.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 24, 2011 4:27 PM

Sounds like you could never have voted for someone like McCain/Palin, then, since they were either engaging in such violent rhetoric themselves, or simply standing around chuckling while others used such inflammatory language.

Glad to hear you never supported either of them, Geezer. ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 25, 2011 2:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Sounds like you could never have voted for someone like McCain/Palin, then, since they were either engaging in such violent rhetoric themselves, or simply standing around chuckling while others used such inflammatory language.

Glad to hear you never supported either of them, Geezer. ;)

Nope. I could never have voted for McCain or Palin because I didn't support many of their policies. I voted straight Libertarian in 2010, except for my state representative, who's a Republican representing one of the most liberal districts in Va.

Not voting for them does not mean I was unaware of the character assassination directed at them by the news and entertainment media, or the fact that Democratic politicians were also, if not engaged in such rhetoric, then standing around chuckling at it.

Unfortunately, such attacks have re-emerged in recent years, after a period of detante. I recognize this is occurring on both sides, but I don't have to like it or accept it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 25, 2011 4:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Gawd, Geezer's getting to be just like Raptor...rather than address questions, he starts a new tack: Media is picked on McCain/Palin; even if Democrats DIDN'T do the same, they were laughing at it. It's getting ridiculous.

It's just impossible for him to make his point; what Hoffa said is open to interpretation, tho' it shouldn't have been because the full quote shows his intent, even if his wording was unfortunate. What Breitbart said was FILLED with violent rhetoric and much longer; there is no question what his intent was. There was no reason for it to go beyond that.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:00 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Gawd, Geezer's getting to be just like Raptor...rather than address questions, he starts a new tack: Media is picked on McCain/Palin; even if Democrats DIDN'T do the same, they were laughing at it. It's getting ridiculous.

Gawd, Niki's Getting worse than Mike. At least he'll address insults in the first person.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:12 AM