RE: War on the Poor?

RE: War on the Poor? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Edwird -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 12:20:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX ORIGINAL: Edwird How many people did Sweden kill in the last 100 years to do their thing? The US killed more than 170,000 civilians in anther country just in the latest episode. Not to mention numerous promotion and support of anti-freedom dictators along the way, and making a wreck out of South America in the process, and an absolute mess of the Middle East and increase in world disturbance in that noisy process. As already pointed out by freedomdwarf, you have no capacity in understanding the distinction or difference between communism and socialism. quote: Communist apologists aplenty, but no communists? [:D] If you've read any of the straightforward explanations as to what is or isn't communism as coming from 'apologists,' then you are even more clueless than any of us thought. Every contributor to that failed attempt is plain for everyone else to see decidedly anti-communist, glad to see you didn't let that get in your way. quote: We are talking about "socialist" governments gaining power through popular support, then slaughtering untold numbers of their own helpless citizens It has happened time and again. Like with the Swedes and Danish and Dutch and Swiss and Italian and French? Yeah, more people of their own killed than their entire population, is that it? quote: You complain about deaths incurred, I didn't complain about a damned thing. I merely pointed out reality, such as you find so troublesome. It's you who wakes up crying every day and wants to scream your toxic liqueur hangover to the world every day, not me.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 3:57:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How much of a difference will block grants make to the efficiency of Medicaid, . . . States don't have to change their Medicaid programs at all. What will change (under the plan), is how much is being given to States for Medicaid. Income affects plans, change in budget=change in plans. You've got a family, don't tell me you don't know this. I understand. However, you can sometimes still meet all your needs, even with a smaller budget, if you can get your money to go further. That would be potential efficiencies through block grants.... quote: quote: Considering Medicaid is really a State level program why should taxpayers from one State have any of their taxes given to another State for care of the poor citizens of that other State? Should NY taxpayers pay for Arkansas's poor? Or, should an Arkansas taxpayer pay for Arkansas' poor? Arkansans have already paid out the ass for NY and Cali bailouts in terms of both before and after tax, enough of that already because yes, they and every other state pay federal taxes, however much shortfall there might be after what was stolen from them by blue corporate welfare states. But to your point; why stop there? Why should you live in the US at all, then? Or in your state? Or in your city? Why should your city have to pay for the infrastructure and the libraries and the schools and the roads, which not everybody directly uses but still pays for? It's called -Society-, and every tribe and every government in history has succeeded or failed by how well they were able to serve that ultimate interest. Really? That's all you have? The City pays for maintenance of city roads. The County, for county roads. The State for State roads. The Federal government should only be paying for the Federal roads. As far as libraries, schools, etc., isn't it better to have a more decentralized system where those in the area are the ones determining how the libraries, schools, etc. are being run, paid for, etc.? quote: I don't benefit directly by paying for somebody else's brat getting an education, nor for paying whatever benefits to those having fallen upon hard times, but in either case it's not anything having to do with my "feeling better about it" but rather that the whole operation runs more smoothly with such things in place. If you own a home, part of your property value is due to the quality of the school district it's in. Regardless, not sure public schools are the best argument for public use of Federal money, as I don't think we're getting an acceptable ROI there.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:04:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Corporate share of federal tsome ax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013. How much are they paying in taxes compared to 60 years ago? What difference does it make? The greater decline in share of income from corporations the greater the burden on workers. U.S. Corporations have stashed $1.8 Trillion out reach of the tax man as of 2013. Some estimates are higher. Overseas cash hoarding is a disservice to workers and to share holders because the money is neither being taxed nor is it being invested to build out the business. Pretty much just a stagnant cesspool. It is being taxed; just not by the US. Should I have to pay Michigan State taxes because that is where my employer's US HQ is, even though I don't work in MI?

thompsonx -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:23:27 PM)
ORIGINAL: BoscoX You are a fucking loon Tomass the pigphoquer from idaho lives on land stolen from those his kind murdered. White christian, conservative bible thumping punkassmotherphoquers, rapist and murders each and everyone of them.

Edwird -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 5:10:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird It's called -Society-, and every tribe and every government in history has succeeded or failed by how well they were able to serve that ultimate interest. Really? That's all you have? Yes. Recorded history and empirical evidence is all I have. But then some measure of good sense obtained from that venture to recognize what works and what doesn't is some bit of it too. It helps to look outside one's own world, outside one's own country sometimes to see how others go about things. But my experience on this board is that as soon as you point out some other country's better success in doing one thing or another, they are now commie countries. Better education system than the US? They're commies. Better child work leave than the US? They're commies. Better healthcare plan than the US? They're commies. More per capita exports than the US (no, definitely not China for that one)? They're commies. So what we have before us here is that if you have any notion at all of the US progressing enough to at least keep up with natural evolution, then you are a commie and go to sleep with your hand on some book of Lenin's speeches. See the problem, now?

vincentML -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 7:06:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Corporate share of federal tsome ax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013. How much are they paying in taxes compared to 60 years ago? What difference does it make? The greater decline in share of income from corporations the greater the burden on workers. U.S. Corporations have stashed $1.8 Trillion out reach of the tax man as of 2013. Some estimates are higher. Overseas cash hoarding is a disservice to workers and to share holders because the money is neither being taxed nor is it being invested to build out the business. Pretty much just a stagnant cesspool. It is being taxed; just not by the US. Should I have to pay Michigan State taxes because that is where my employer's US HQ is, even though I don't work in MI? Apples and oranges. We are not talking about taxes on workers; we are talking about taxes on corporations. Please, try to address the subject at hand.

BoscoX -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 7:21:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Apples and oranges. We are not talking about taxes on workers; we are talking about taxes on corporations. Please, try to address the subject at hand. Corporations are people, they aren't some lizard race like the Democrats And corporations necessarily pass higher taxes along to consumers and employees.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 8:02:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Corporate share of federal tsome ax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013. How much are they paying in taxes compared to 60 years ago? What difference does it make? The greater decline in share of income from corporations the greater the burden on workers. U.S. Corporations have stashed $1.8 Trillion out reach of the tax man as of 2013. Some estimates are higher. Overseas cash hoarding is a disservice to workers and to share holders because the money is neither being taxed nor is it being invested to build out the business. Pretty much just a stagnant cesspool. It is being taxed; just not by the US. Should I have to pay Michigan State taxes because that is where my employer's US HQ is, even though I don't work in MI? Apples and oranges. We are not talking about taxes on workers; we are talking about taxes on corporations. Please, try to address the subject at hand. Don't be obtuse, Vincent. It's the same fucking idea. What you're bitching about isn't just "earnings stripping" (something I'd bet we'd agree about), but US corporations not bringing profits made oversease (which they paid taxes on overseas) back to the US to get taxed again. While Corporations can deduct the amount of taxes paid overseas from their US tax bill on repatriated money, why would a company want to do that? Drop the Corporate tax rate and the tax bill for repatriated money is greatly reduced (especially after foreign income tax credits). Why do you think the US should get tax money from profits made outside the US, anyway?

Edwird -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 8:33:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Apples and oranges. We are not talking about taxes on workers; we are talking about taxes on corporations. Please, try to address the subject at hand. Corporations are people, Oh christ almighty ... so where do GE and Monsanto and DuPont and ExxonMobile get invited to and partake of thanksgiving dinner, then? You've watched too many Pillsbury Doughboy and Michelin commercials , no question. quote: And corporations necessarily pass higher taxes along to consumers and employees. As they pass every other cost onto customers, to the extent that own-price elasticity allows. Your point?

mnottertail -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 8:36:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Corporate share of federal tsome ax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013. How much are they paying in taxes compared to 60 years ago? What difference does it make? The greater decline in share of income from corporations the greater the burden on workers. U.S. Corporations have stashed $1.8 Trillion out reach of the tax man as of 2013. Some estimates are higher. Overseas cash hoarding is a disservice to workers and to share holders because the money is neither being taxed nor is it being invested to build out the business. Pretty much just a stagnant cesspool. It is being taxed; just not by the US. Should I have to pay Michigan State taxes because that is where my employer's US HQ is, even though I don't work in MI? Apples and oranges. We are not talking about taxes on workers; we are talking about taxes on corporations. Please, try to address the subject at hand. Don't be obtuse, Vincent. It's the same fucking idea. What you're bitching about isn't just "earnings stripping" (something I'd bet we'd agree about), but US corporations not bringing profits made oversease (which they paid taxes on overseas) back to the US to get taxed again. While Corporations can deduct the amount of taxes paid overseas from their US tax bill on repatriated money, why would a company want to do that? Drop the Corporate tax rate and the tax bill for repatriated money is greatly reduced (especially after foreign income tax credits). Why do you think the US should get tax money from profits made outside the US, anyway? Why not tax overseas money from american based corporations at 75% whether they bring it back or not?

Edwird -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 11:13:09 PM)
Bringing It All Back Home

RottenJohnny -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/20/2017 2:46:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Why not tax overseas money from american based corporations at 75% whether they bring it back or not? And what happens to all the small US businesses working outside the borders that don't measure profits in the millions or billions? They're just supposed to accept getting fucked?

vincentML -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/20/2017 8:04:39 AM)
quote: Don't be obtuse, Vincent. It's the same fucking idea. What you're bitching about isn't just "earnings stripping" (something I'd bet we'd agree about), but US corporations not bringing profits made oversease (which they paid taxes on overseas) back to the US to get taxed again. While Corporations can deduct the amount of taxes paid overseas from their US tax bill on repatriated money, why would a company want to do that? Drop the Corporate tax rate and the tax bill for repatriated money is greatly reduced (especially after foreign income tax credits). Why do you think the US should get tax money from profits made outside the US, anyway? The answer is really quite simple. The United States tax code is based upon RESIDENCY. If you reside here and enjoy the liberties available to you, you pay taxes. In addition, U.S. citizens who reside overseas and earn money there are also taxed at the same rates as if they were living at home. General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012. 288 big and profitable Fortune 500 corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of just 19.4% from 2008 to 2012. Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010. U.S. corporations dodge $90 billion a year in income taxes by shifting profits to subsidiaries — often no more than post office boxes — in tax havens. U.S. corporations officially hold $2.1 trillion in profits offshore — much of it in tax havens — that have not yet been taxed here. SOURCE The United States experimented with reparations in 2005 at about 5.5% tax rate on the stipulation that the money was to be used to create jobs here. About 90% of the money went for stock buy backs and increased management compensation. SOURCE Much of this cash is sitting idle in offshore accounts belonging to shell corporations who have established residency for the purposes of tax avoidance . . . . pure lawlessness.

Musicmystery -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/20/2017 8:13:06 AM)
Well, actually the tax code is based not on residency, but on nationality, for US citizens, as your (otherwise accurate) explanation lays out. I think what you mean is that corporations, if they are people and US citizens, should also pay taxes as expatriates. Yes?

mnottertail -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/20/2017 8:16:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Why not tax overseas money from american based corporations at 75% whether they bring it back or not? And what happens to all the small US businesses working outside the borders that don't measure profits in the millions or billions? They're just supposed to accept getting fucked? How are they fucked, if their residence is in the US and enjoy our protections, and all their work is overseas, perhaps they should pay our taxes, and enjoy their protections, I am unclear how that is fucked.

vincentML -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/20/2017 9:43:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, actually the tax code is based not on residency, but on nationality, for US citizens, as your (otherwise accurate) explanation lays out. I think what you mean is that corporations, if they are people and US citizens, should also pay taxes as expatriates. Yes? I grant you it is a contradiction, but: Countries that tax income generally use one of two systems: territorial or residence-based. In the territorial system, only local income – income from a source inside the country – is taxed. In the residence-based system, residents of the country are taxed on their worldwide (local and foreign) income, while nonresidents are taxed only on their local income. In addition, a very small number of countries, notably the United States, also tax their nonresident citizens on worldwide income. SOURCE

Musicmystery -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/20/2017 9:47:09 AM)
I get it. I was just pointing out that the US system treats taxpayers not by residency, but despite it, i.e., by nationality.

vincentML -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/20/2017 9:52:17 AM)
Yes, it seems so. Agreed.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/21/2017 7:18:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Don't be obtuse, Vincent. It's the same fucking idea. What you're bitching about isn't just "earnings stripping" (something I'd bet we'd agree about), but US corporations not bringing profits made oversease (which they paid taxes on overseas) back to the US to get taxed again. While Corporations can deduct the amount of taxes paid overseas from their US tax bill on repatriated money, why would a company want to do that? Drop the Corporate tax rate and the tax bill for repatriated money is greatly reduced (especially after foreign income tax credits). Why do you think the US should get tax money from profits made outside the US, anyway? The answer is really quite simple. The United States tax code is based upon RESIDENCY. If you reside here and enjoy the liberties available to you, you pay taxes. What do you mean by "reside here?" If you mean "have their world HQ's here," you'll have to be prepared for a large exodus of companies' world HQ's. Clear incentive for them to do so. If you mean "have a US presence of any sort," best of luck collecting taxes on corporations like Toyota on sales outside the US.

vincentML -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/23/2017 6:13:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Don't be obtuse, Vincent. It's the same fucking idea. What you're bitching about isn't just "earnings stripping" (something I'd bet we'd agree about), but US corporations not bringing profits made oversease (which they paid taxes on overseas) back to the US to get taxed again. While Corporations can deduct the amount of taxes paid overseas from their US tax bill on repatriated money, why would a company want to do that? Drop the Corporate tax rate and the tax bill for repatriated money is greatly reduced (especially after foreign income tax credits). Why do you think the US should get tax money from profits made outside the US, anyway? The answer is really quite simple. The United States tax code is based upon RESIDENCY. If you reside here and enjoy the liberties available to you, you pay taxes. What do you mean by "reside here?" If you mean "have their world HQ's here," you'll have to be prepared for a large exodus of companies' world HQ's. Clear incentive for them to do so. If you mean "have a US presence of any sort," best of luck collecting taxes on corporations like Toyota on sales outside the US. Really? Have you just awakened to the fact that people who live here are required to pay taxes for the privilege? Breaking news: residency taxation has been a reality for more than one hundred years. Where is the mass exodus?

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625