Most firms pay no income taxes
Study finds that the majority of domestic and foreign corporations in the United States avoid paying federal income taxes.
This is just too easy ...
That's because you are an idiot.
Most firms pay no income taxes
Study finds that the majority of domestic and foreign corporations in the United States avoid paying federal income taxes.
This is just too easy ...
That's because you are an idiot.
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,839
- 2,625
- 136
Let me see, the GOP bringing up the spector of Dems raising taxes? Does the GOP have a cycle of talking points they move through-inexperience-liberal-terrorist-character flaws-taxes-soft on crime-godless anti-family values that they rotate through, hoping to find one will be the talkng point of the day?
It's especially humorous considering the underlying episode was totally bogus on its face-Joe the Plumber isn't a plumber he's a contractor, he has no plans to buy the business, the business nets $100k and Joe nets $40k (nowhere near the $250k net income that would incur increased taxes) and is a tax deadbeat who has the gall to complain about paying taxes. And he's apparently not even registered to vote. Joe the Plumber is a freeloader leeching off this society and that's the kind of person the GOP holds up as a role model? Give me a break.
It's especially humorous considering the underlying episode was totally bogus on its face-Joe the Plumber isn't a plumber he's a contractor, he has no plans to buy the business, the business nets $100k and Joe nets $40k (nowhere near the $250k net income that would incur increased taxes) and is a tax deadbeat who has the gall to complain about paying taxes. And he's apparently not even registered to vote. Joe the Plumber is a freeloader leeching off this society and that's the kind of person the GOP holds up as a role model? Give me a break.
boomerang
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
Redistributing the wealth is not going to give the common man what he really needs, craves and deserves.
Power
When a politician leads you to believe that he is going to redistribute the wealth in this country, he is manipulating you on a very basic level. You're being played. He has diverted you from what you really need. You know from day to day life that those with money have power. The people that are in power are never going to turn that power over to you. But they can distract you from that. By dangling dollars in front of your eyes.
I don't believe that our system of government was designed to have so few dictating to so many. It's going to take something very, very big to change this. Neither of these candidates is the answer.
Believe what you will. But you'll not see the changes you're hoping for.
Another election and we're arguing to high heaven which candidate, which party is the best. We've been diverted again from the true nature of the problem. That the people that are running for office are owned lock, stock and barrel by the powers that be. Whichever one gets the job is going to owe a whole lot of favors. The tide needs to be turned so that they owe us, the people of the United States.
The people need the Power.
Power
When a politician leads you to believe that he is going to redistribute the wealth in this country, he is manipulating you on a very basic level. You're being played. He has diverted you from what you really need. You know from day to day life that those with money have power. The people that are in power are never going to turn that power over to you. But they can distract you from that. By dangling dollars in front of your eyes.
I don't believe that our system of government was designed to have so few dictating to so many. It's going to take something very, very big to change this. Neither of these candidates is the answer.
Believe what you will. But you'll not see the changes you're hoping for.
Another election and we're arguing to high heaven which candidate, which party is the best. We've been diverted again from the true nature of the problem. That the people that are running for office are owned lock, stock and barrel by the powers that be. Whichever one gets the job is going to owe a whole lot of favors. The tide needs to be turned so that they owe us, the people of the United States.
The people need the Power.
We've been "spreading the wealth around" since the income tax started in 1913. It's called progressive tax rates. Even at the height of the red panic, people weren't stupid enough to call taxing the rich at a higher level than the poor communism. It's just common sense.
There were lots moments in that debate, but one of the most interesting was McCain's sudden lurch at Obama about the latter's encounter with Joe The Plumber. With his shoulders haunched, his face red, and his eyes bulging, McCain began spitting and whistling over the "we need to spread the wealth around".
Just moments before, McCain had blurted out his plan (if a 24-hour improvisation can be called a plan) to pay mortgages for people who can't or won't pay them. Now, set aside the fact that he also had promised to freeze spending, but it isn't "spreading the wealth around" when you take money from the people who paid their mortgages and give it to people who didn't?...McCain's a joke.
There were lots moments in that debate, but one of the most interesting was McCain's sudden lurch at Obama about the latter's encounter with Joe The Plumber. With his shoulders haunched, his face red, and his eyes bulging, McCain began spitting and whistling over the "we need to spread the wealth around".
Just moments before, McCain had blurted out his plan (if a 24-hour improvisation can be called a plan) to pay mortgages for people who can't or won't pay them. Now, set aside the fact that he also had promised to freeze spending, but it isn't "spreading the wealth around" when you take money from the people who paid their mortgages and give it to people who didn't?...McCain's a joke.
So much history lost on this one. The concentration of wealth is something humanity has been fighting for an extremely long time. Even our founding fathers would've recognized the dangers of aristocracy.
?I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the laws of our country? - Thomas Jefferson
As for Jefferson's view of the United States and how he viewed labor and land:
With respect to Aristocracy, we should further consider that, before the establishment of the American states, nothing was known to History but the Man of the old world, crouded within limits either small or overcharged, and steeped in the vices which that situation generates. A government adapted to such men would be one thing; but a very different one that for the Man of these states. Here every one may have land to labor for himself if he chuses; or, preferring the exercise of any other industry, may exact for it such compensation as not only to afford a comfortable subsistence, but wherewith to provide for a cessation from labor in old age. Every one, by his property, or by his satisfactory situation, is interested in the support of law and order. And such men may safely and advantageously reserve to themselves a wholsome controul over their public affairs, and a degree of freedom, which in the hands of the Canaille of the cities of Europe, would be instantly perverted to the demolition and destruction of every thing public and private. The history of the last 25. years of France, and of the last 40. years in America, nay of it's last 200. years, proves the truth of both parts of this observation.
Jefferson certainly didn't view a country who's government and existence was dominated by the wealthy elite. He felt all men were entitled to a comfortable life where they could save for retirement.
As for John Adams, "Mr. John Adams observed that the numbers of people were taken by this article as an index of the wealth of the state, & not as subjects of taxation, that as to this matter it was of no consequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of freemen or of slaves. That in some countries the labouring poor were called freemen, in others they were called slaves; but that the difference as to the state was imaginary only."
Or maybe we can look at Jefferson's draft constitution for Virginia in 1776.
"Every person of full age neither owning nor having owned [50] acres of land, shall be entitled to an appropriation of [50] acres or to so much as shall make up what he owns or has owned [50] acres in full and absolute dominion. And no other person shall be capable of taking an appropriation."
Our founders recognized the importance of equality in a democracy. From John Adams,
"The only
possible Way then of preserving the Ballance of Power on the side of
equal Liberty and public Virtue is to make the Acquisition of Land easy to every Member of
Society: to make a Division of the Land into Small Quantities, So that
the Multitude may be possessed of landed Estates."
Even James Madison understood the dilemma of freedom vs equality.
"Nor will accumulations of Capital for a certain time be precluded by our laws of descent & of distribution; such being the enterprize inspired by free Institutions, that great wealth in the hands of individuals and associations, may not be unfrequent. But it may be observed, that the opportunities, may be diminished, and the permanency defeated by the equalizing tendency of the laws."
He understood that in such cases, laws would inevitably be changed to promote a more equal distribution.
The bottom line is that all of the founding fathers recognized the danger of wealth accumulation as it leads to aristocracy. No one is saying that all wealth should be equal, simply that too much wealth (power) in the hands of too few would be the downfall of democracy.
Money is power because money is influence. Money means that government is owned by those who have it. Money means one controls the means of production. Money ensures that people who don't have will bend to your will.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Wealth redistribution and socialism are NOT the same things. The former is just an inevitability in any economic system (if wealth wasn't constantly on the move, there would be no economy), the latter is an economic system which proposes public ownership of production (which I am very opposed to BTW). Take an econ or polisci class someday, maybe finish your GED finally, and see a doctor about your stress levels.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
I strongly oppose the bailouts, the "stimulus" packages, nationalized healthcare, AND the forceful redistribution of wealth.
But, I still think Obama is the right person for the job... especially given our apparent lack of better options. McCain blew any chance he had of winning the day he picked that retarded wench Palin to be his running mate...
But, I still think Obama is the right person for the job... especially given our apparent lack of better options. McCain blew any chance he had of winning the day he picked that retarded wench Palin to be his running mate...
ABitTooSpicy
Senior member
- Jun 30, 2004
- 922
- 0
- 76
This is whats wrong with America right now... it doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or a Replublican. You have to realize that both parties treat American's as Idiots. Over and over again both sides have been proven to stretch the truth, make up stuff about their opponents, make claims about plans that we know are ridiculous. Seriously, no matter who we elect there will be NO CHANGE in our lives as we know it. The richest of the rich will still get richer and the poorest of the poor will still get poorer and the middle class will keep on keepin on...
/rant
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
Another lame post by projo...
Anyhow, "redistribution of wealth" is not exactly whats going on here... We are talking about lowering taxes slightly on those that make less than 250k per year and raising tax slightly on those that make more than 250k, back to the levels they were at during the Clinton years. Its hardly a major move, much less a game changer.
Anyhow, "redistribution of wealth" is not exactly whats going on here... We are talking about lowering taxes slightly on those that make less than 250k per year and raising tax slightly on those that make more than 250k, back to the levels they were at during the Clinton years. Its hardly a major move, much less a game changer.
You seem to ignore reality, theres a reason these programs have to be created in the first place. People need assistance. It's not hte other way around, if the private sector was actually addressing these problems then the government would have no excuse to step in.
Obama makes those gains in the working poor by offering refundable work credits. That means if somebody pays 0 dollars in federal income taxes this year. Under an Obama plan he gets 500. It is redistribution of wealth by taxing the rich to pay the working poor.
Unless Obama has another plan I havent read from his website. All he plans to do is leave the current tax break in place for couples making under 250K while raising the rates on those above 250K to pre-bush tax cuts. Then add in his refundable make work credits for those under 250K. Those credits are paid for by the revenue generated from the tax increase on the top 5%.
I just want the opportunity to purchase affordable health insurance that doesn't exempt me from my pre-existing conditions.. no insurance in my state will cover my family... if this is socialism, so be it. Is that so much to ask?
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
I wasnt aware of the details thanks... I like that plan, all the more reason to vote for Obama! =)
PJ -- Thanks for yet another of your typical attempts to spread the FUD.
Buahahaha!!! I guess you didn't get the memo. Like you, "Joe the Plumber" is a Republican plant and a full blown political fraud.
So, "Joe" is not who he said he is, he's not a plumber, he earned far less than he claimed, and even if he did, he would be better off under Obama's tax program than under McCain's... but he didn't, and he would actually better off because "around" would include "Joe's" own neighborhood.
The good news is, not in your dampest, stickiest wet dreams will this turn the election. On November 6, John McCain will go from "has been" to full blown WAS, and after her upcoming appearance on Saturday Night Live," his lipstick dipstick's 15 minutes of fame will be on hold at 14:59 until then.
Now, THAT is "Change we can believe in." :thumbsup:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter