• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden’s corporate tax plan is simple, yet revolutionary.

We have been talking about taxes. It would be really helpful if one of you who constantly use the term "fair share" would define what that phrase means in a tangible manner.
Fair share means cutting taxes on the poor and making all rich people ineligibe for tax cuts so everyone pays a flat percentage except those who can't pay at all.
 
Where did you get that lie from? I am only talking about the fact that rich people hate to help poor people. Nothing else. If you hate paying taxes that you know will be spent helping the poor, you want the poor to suffer and die. No ands, ifs, or buts.
The blanket idea that rich people don’t like to help poor people isn’t really true either. It’s a mixed bag. What’s important to me isn’t partisanship, but the reality that we live in a country with a diversity of opinions and we need to constantly balance the system to include all of them. I mean, to greater or lesser degrees. The extremists on both sides are often the noisiest, so they get more coverage in the news because the business model of MSM is “outrage” based.
 
Ha ha, another sloganeer. Slogans are great until you pass them on to people with different ideas of what freedom actually is or try to implement them into a system.
DS does not allow (through disincentives) the kinds of profit making that libertarian capitalism offers, but it creates a more stable system overall. And yes, instability creates more opportunity for profit. You’ve just proven what I said in the post you responded to. Libertarian capitalism also leaves a huge hole for people who would “cheat” the system for personal gain. These are “freedom” loving Americans whose character and moral limits allow them to look at a system and take unfair advantage of its loopholes and shortcomings. If all people were of upstanding morals and character, rules wouldn’t be necessary.

You mentioned something about a zero sum argument.. but this is just another slogan. What does it actually mean when on the ground in reality? It’s true that there is no limit to “intellectual” gains from a free system, but hard resources DO have a limit. Things like oil, minerals, bandwidth, infrastructure, and access to these things are limited or can be made limited by more powerful interests.

There’s a fundamental difference between the temperaments of liberal people and conservative people. Very generally, liberals create more intellectual novelty, and conservatives maximize the utility of these ideas and create stability within those systems. This difference has to be balanced, because both would be disastrous without the other. And this has nothing to do with intelligence or character. There are douchebags on both sides.

"Ha ha, another sloganeer. Slogans are great until you pass them on to people with different ideas of what freedom actually is or try to implement them into a system.
DS does not allow (through disincentives) the kinds of profit making that libertarian capitalism offers"

A country where the government takes more than half your income is simply not a free country. That is a country that is MOSTLY not free actually.

Of course people like you are wont to tell people like me what % of my income I will be allowed to keep and if I disagree and keep more than you think I'm entitled to you'll send the goons out with guns and arrest me, won't you.

Because you and some other schmuck have decided that I shoulnd't be allowed to keep it.

There's gonna be taxes, but when it goes over half, you've gone too far.

"There are douchebags on both sides."

If you make a moral claim to more than half of peoples' incomes, that is morally wrong.

And yes, it ignores incentives

"Libertarian capitalism also leaves a huge hole for people who would “cheat” the system for personal gain."

We're not discussing anarcho-capitalism really. Anarcho-capitalism is like pure socialism, it doesn't exist. Really we're discussing the Anglo-Saxon capitalism versus democratic socialism here, but there are laws, courts and police in fact that was a hallmark of American capitalism is that the rule of law prevailed.
 
The more economic decisions that you allow to be made by the government the more those economic decisions will run into the economic calculation problem.

Congress cannot allocate trillions of dollars efficiently.

That is a top down approach by people making POLITICAL decisions. The reverse are markets driven by individual spending and consumer sovereignty.

And that's the difference between an economy people actually WANT versus an economy that is imposed, top down, by politicians.
 
Fair share means cutting taxes on the poor and making all rich people ineligibe for tax cuts so everyone pays a flat percentage except those who can't pay at all.
The truly poor don’t really pay taxes. I mean, they pay sales taxes, and property taxes, and they pay more for goods and services when countries get into the tariff battles with each other, all that.
The people that pay most of the taxes are the middle and upper middle income people.
the very rich pay very little. And I think this is where conservatives and liberals disagree most: where to draw the line between rich and poor. The real job creators are people like me who run small businesses. I make a decent living, but I’m not rich by any stretch. I’m above the healthcare.gov subsidy, for instance, and so I get none. I pay $36,000 for health insurance per year—it’s also terrible coverage which almost nobody takes. So almost all of the $36,000 goes to pay for others who are less fortunate. Then I pay something like $26,000 in state and federal taxes. Those two things are almost 1/2 my income. Is there enough left for me to live the way I want? Yes. Could I put a tax cut to work hiring more people and growing a business, yes.
 
"Ha ha, another sloganeer. Slogans are great until you pass them on to people with different ideas of what freedom actually is or try to implement them into a system.
DS does not allow (through disincentives) the kinds of profit making that libertarian capitalism offers"

A country where the government takes more than half your income is simply not a free country. That is a country that is MOSTLY not free actually.

Of course people like you are wont to tell people like me what % of my income I will be allowed to keep and if I disagree and keep more than you think I'm entitled to you'll send the goons out with guns and arrest me, won't you.

Because you and some other schmuck have decided that I shoulnd't be allowed to keep it.

There's gonna be taxes, but when it goes over half, you've gone too far.

"There are douchebags on both sides."

If you make a moral claim to more than half of peoples' incomes, that is morally wrong.

And yes, it ignores incentives

"Libertarian capitalism also leaves a huge hole for people who would “cheat” the system for personal gain."

We're not discussing anarcho-capitalism really. Anarcho-capitalism is like pure socialism, it doesn't exist. Really we're discussing the Anglo-Saxon capitalism versus democratic socialism here, but there are laws, courts and police in fact that was a hallmark of American capitalism is that the rule of law prevailed.
Let’s hope “Anglo-Saxon” capitalism was a typo. Beyond that, I guess the rational people will be prying it from your cold dead hands. It’s hard to imagine for any one person to consider there are millions of people who are just as smart or smarter than they are, and are just as moral and driven by good character as they are too. But.. for almost everyone it’s true. Your idea of freedom is selfish, and doesn’t work on a large scale. But you’ll slowly see that as the world goes more and more global. That’s actually happening right now, and reversing it or throwing peanuts at the mechanism won’t do anything but stall the inevitable. I wish you luck. If you were my neighbor I’d still let you borrow my lawn mower, or help you move your couch into your house.
 
The more economic decisions that you allow to be made by the government the more those economic decisions will run into the economic calculation problem.

Congress cannot allocate trillions of dollars efficiently.

That is a top down approach by people making POLITICAL decisions. The reverse are markets driven by individual spending and consumer sovereignty.

And that's the difference between an economy people actually WANT versus an economy that is imposed, top down, by politicians.
The government is ALL of us in a democratic republic, just like a social democracy would be ALL of us. It does no good to play semantics with it.
 
The government is ALL of us in a democratic republic, just like a social democracy would be ALL of us. It does no good to play semantics with it.

Yes, properly LIMITED to certain topics.

But for a whole society made of different individuals with different preferences, if all individuals are to count equally, the collective “we” makes no sense. And I can prove it right here and right now because if we happened to be in a more traditional Muslim society I might say, "Hey,WE will set up an Islamic Republic and we will raise OUR children as proper Muslims" and you might say, "Hey, excuse me, but I'm Christian, or Jewish, or atheist"

And in America you would point to the I Amendment and you'd tell me to go **** myself because the I Amendment LIMITS the governments ability in the US to make a religious theocracy of any sort.

Know your limits. When you think you can take more than half from people? You become my enemy and I don't want to be in the same political community as you. And that's where America is headed by the way because we're divided and I want NOTHING to do with you.

LIMITS
 
Your idea of freedom is selfish, and doesn’t work on a large scale.

Bullshit, you're the one who wants more than half.

I can't be selfish, I have to serve my customers in ways that make them want to do business with me.

" It’s hard to imagine for any one person to consider there are millions of people who are just as smart or smarter than they are, and are just as moral and driven by good character as they are too."

Who's you vote for in 2020? No, not for President.

No, I want to know who you voted for for 'librarian' or the surrogate court or the ballot question.

Without googling it.

Odds are, and the vast majority of Americans do this, a significant percentage of the votes cast are cast for candidates and positions that the voter has no idea one iota about the person, or in many instances what the office even does.

The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies​


People voting their own dollars though is a 'demonstrated preference' -- the person paying the dollar prefers the item he or she receives in exchange for the dollar, the person providing the item prefers the dollar over the item.

I spend ooodles and oodles of time buying, selling, working and trading based on my personal preferences.

Trust me I want LESS to do with you. MUCH less.
 
Last edited:
Bullshit, you're the one who wants more than half.

I can't be selfish, I have to serve my customers in ways that make them want to do business with me.
Why is 50% the cut off line? Just curious why that gets you riled up. If I take what I spend on health insurance (family of 5, no health problems) and compare it to my good friend in Germany, the difference is staggering. He actually pays LESS of his hard earned money for superior medical coverage, child care, college, paid employer leave, maternity leave. The only real difference is I pay a middleman who extracts an exorbitant amount of profit in the middle, and gives worse products and services, with worse outcomes for the money.
 
Yes, properly LIMITED to certain topics.

But for a whole society made of different individuals with different preferences, if all individuals are to count equally, the collective “we” makes no sense. And I can prove it right here and right now because if we happened to be in a more traditional Muslim society I might say, "Hey,WE will set up an Islamic Republic and we will raise OUR children as proper Muslims" and you might say, "Hey, excuse me, but I'm Christian, or Jewish, or atheist"

And in America you would point to the I Amendment and you'd tell me to go **** myself because the I Amendment LIMITS the governments ability in the US to make a religious theocracy of any sort.

Know your limits. When you think you can take more than half from people? You become my enemy and I don't want to be in the same political community as you. And that's where America is headed by the way because we're divided and I want NOTHING to do with you.

LIMITS
Nothing wrong with limits, but the reality for you is probably self-fulfilling. You’re going to have a hard time with the changes coming. Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me. But, it’s a free country (so is every other democratic socialist country in Europe.)
 
Why is 50% the cut off line?

You sow what you reap. Its natural law.


If I take what I spend on health insurance (family of 5, no health problems) and compare it to my good friend in Germany, the difference is staggering. He actually pays LESS of his hard earned money for superior medical coverage, child care, college, paid employer leave, maternity leave. The only real difference is I pay a middleman who extracts an exorbitant amount of profit in the middle, and gives worse products and services, with worse outcomes for the money.

And if you compare the % of your income spent on gasoline compared to Venezuela you'll note Venezuelans were paying for less. Indeed, you probably spend less for corn because of subsidies. But a government price control is a price control and it doesn't reflect the actual cost of something.

When you make up a number and attach it to something it doesn't really mean anything anymore.

You're concerned about health care costs? Guess what? I don't want to be in a health care plan with you.

The #1 expense I face? Its government. I want lower priced GOVERNMENT.
 
Bullshit, you're the one who wants more than half.

I can't be selfish, I have to serve my customers in ways that make them want to do business with me.

" It’s hard to imagine for any one person to consider there are millions of people who are just as smart or smarter than they are, and are just as moral and driven by good character as they are too."

Who's you vote for in 2020? No, not for President.

No, I want to know who you voted for for 'librarian' or the surrogate court or the ballot question.

Without googling it.

Odds are, and the vast majority of Americans do this, a significant percentage of the votes cast are cast for candidates and positions that the voter has no idea one iota about the person, or in many instances what the office even does.

The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies​


People voting their own dollars though is a 'demonstrated preference' -- the person paying the dollar prefers the item he or she receives in exchange for the dollar, the person providing the item prefers the dollar over the item.

I spend ooodles and oodles of time buying, selling, working and trading based on my personal preferences.

Trust me I want LESS to do with you. MUCH less.
You’d be very surprised if you met me. And, yes, both you and I have to live with people we don’t agree with. We can do it the hard way or the easy way.
 
You sow what you reap. Its natural law.




And if you compare the % of your income spent on gasoline compared to Venezuela you'll note Venezuelans were paying for less. Indeed, you probably spend less for corn because of subsidies. But a government price control is a price control and it doesn't reflect the actual cost of something.

When you make up a number and attach it to something it doesn't really mean anything anymore.

You're concerned about health care costs? Guess what? I don't want to be in a health care plan with you.

The #1 expense I face? Its government. I want lower priced GOVERNMENT.
Thanks for your input. I’ll let my government bureaucrat know you’re not happy. Oh, btw, will you be turning in your guns when they become illegal, or will it be the “cold dead hands thing?” I’m asking for an FBI agent friend😜
 
The blanket idea that rich people don’t like to help poor people isn’t really true either. It’s a mixed bag. What’s important to me isn’t partisanship, but the reality that we live in a country with a diversity of opinions and we need to constantly balance the system to include all of them. I mean, to greater or lesser degrees. The extremists on both sides are often the noisiest, so they get more coverage in the news because the business model of MSM is “outrage” based.
When almost every single Republican who speaks publicly is a rattlesnake worshiper regardless of his/her political ideologies, I cannot accept any so-called "moderate" or "slightly conservative" voters in the top tax bracket as being any less extreme in hating the idea of helping very poor Americans than those white supremacists who waste time calling all factual reports "fake news" and openly condone violence.
 
Last edited:
Because we all should care what the distribution of Wealth is. We all contribute to it making. (And its loss.)

People like you without the slightest recognition of historical-fact fail to understand why a booming economy can utterly fail. And not resurrect itself!

It has never happened in the US! But that does not mean it cannot happen ... !
wrong: many people do nothing to create wealth
 
Where did you get that lie from? I am only talking about the fact that rich people hate to help poor people. Nothing else. If you hate paying taxes that you know will be spent helping the poor, you want the poor to suffer and die. No ands, ifs, or buts.
where do you come up with this bullshit? BTW rich conservatives are more likely to contribute to charity than rich lefties.
 
Where do you come up with this bullshit? BTW rich-conservatives are more likely to contribute to charity than rich lefties.
If rich conservatives did not hate helping poor people, they would not complain about being forced to do it via taxation.

I get this from the Bible. Jesus said you cannot love both money and God and if you love God, you want to get closer to Him by helping others - especially the poor, naked, hungry, sick, and disabled.
 
When almost every single Republican who speaks publicly is a rattlesnake worshiper regardless of his/her political ideologies, I cannot accept any so-called "moderate" or "slightly conservative" voters in the top tax bracket as being any less extreme in hating the idea of helping very poor Americans than those white supremacists who waste time calling all factual reports "fake news" and openly condone violence.
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.”
 
ECON 101.... corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them to the consumer. You know, you and me.

That is possible. Corporations will like to pass along the tax increase to consumers. But sometimes they can't. Imagine a global market supplying an homogenous product produced in many nations where many producers in those other nations aren't subject to US taxation. In that circumstance the law of one price will tend to hold and the US firm will be a 'price taker' even if the face of a domestic tax.

Truth is the tax will likely be shared between producers and consumers.
 
If rich conservatives did not hate helping poor people, they would not complain about being forced to do it via taxation.

I get this from the Bible. Jesus said you cannot love both money and God and if you love God, you want to get closer to Him by helping others - especially the poor, naked, hungry, sick, and disabled.
well if you want to believe myths, that's your business but it is a fable =or perhaps you only know rich Liberals because it is they who don't help the poor
 
That is possible. Corporations will like to pass along the tax increase to consumers. But sometimes they can't. Imagine a global market supplying an homogenous product produced in many nations where many producers in those other nations aren't subject to US taxation. In that circumstance the law of one price will tend to hold and the US firm will be a 'price taker' even if the face of a domestic tax.

Truth is the tax will likely be shared between producers and consumers.
Producers who can't pass along costs of doing business eventually go under, or move to a location where the costs, in this case taxes, are more favorable. So the costs eventually get passed along. That's ECON 101. Same thing for tariffs; government gets a windfall, but the consumer pays higher prices. We're seeing that in action currently with lumber prices, which now carry a 20% tariff on Canadian lumber. Be careful what you wish for.
 
ECON 101.... corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them to the consumer. You know, you and me.

Of course they do. On this planet.

Don't know about where you live ...
 
Look, Amzaon paying 0 in taxes is ridiculous. Do something about those loopholes and I would be satisfied.
 
Back
Top Bottom