• 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!

Dozens of Major Businesses Have Left the US

How about the Walmart family stockholders having billions of inherited dollars while they fight tooth and nail to insure their workers get paid minimum wage and can't unionize? Will that do it for you?


anyone hold a gun to the head of their workers? tie them to the registers?

last time i checked, we are in america

people are free to work wherever they want.....

if they CHOOSE to work at walmart, then they have to abide by rules of that company, including pay and benefits

they can go do something else....no one is forcing them to work there

just as no one is forcing anyone to work at burger king or mcdonalds

these are LOW WAGE, LOW SKILL jobs

i guess if they want to make more money, they need to learn more skills

but somehow, that is the companies fault too.....right?
 
Where in the Bill of Rights does it state you have the right to keep all of your income?

The original draft of the constitiution did not grant the federal government the ability to tax income. That was added later. Under some interpretations of the 10th Amendment (which is part of the bill of rights) the 16th Amendment shouldn't even exist.
 
It is not common sense sense to propose a “solution” to a problem that can obviously only make that problem worse.

Since it would so obviously make the problem worse, please give us a brief tutorial.
 
If a plate of cookies was offered to a small group, and one person grabbed all the cookies, he is not greedy?

That's not really what's going on though.

It's more like a politician has decided everyone deserves cookies, so a law gets passed that taxes everyone to provide cookies for everyone. The cookie factory owner (who donated the most funds to elect the politician) won the no-bid contract to provide the cookies, at whatever cost he chooses. The other wealthy donors decide on the flavor that must be provided. All you have to do is foot the bill.
 
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. [...]
More simplistic talking points. Next thing we know you'll be writing your own dictionary ;)
 
A company has more responsibilities than just to its shareholders. The shareholder-driven, short-term-profit-obsessed mindset is one of the big things driving our modern economic problems.

I said primary. And that mindset also drives success.
 
Amen. And amen. And amen. You have to forgive me. I'm not familiar with the local custom. Where I come from, you always say "Amen" after you hear a prayer. Because that's what you just heard - a prayer. Where I come from, that particular prayer is called "The Prayer for the Dead." You just heard The Prayer for the Dead, my fellow stockholders, and you didn't say, "Amen." This company is dead. I didn't kill it. Don't blame me. It was dead when I got here. It's too late for prayers. For even if the prayers were answered, and a miracle occurred, and the yen did this, and the dollar did that, and the infrastructure did the other thing, we would still be dead. You know why? Fiber optics. New technologies. Obsolescence. We're dead alright. We're just not broke. And you know the surest way to go broke? Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market. Down the tubes. Slow but sure. You know, at one time there must've been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw. Now how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company? You invested in a business and this business is dead. Let's have the intelligence, let's have the decency to sign the death certificate, collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future. "Ah, but we can't," goes the prayer. "We can't because we have responsibility, a responsibility to our employees, to our community. What will happen to them?" I got two words for that: Who cares? Care about them? Why? They didn't care about you. They sucked you dry. You have no responsibility to them. For the last ten years this company bled your money. Did this community ever say, "We know times are tough. We'll lower taxes, reduce water and sewer." Check it out: You're paying twice what you did ten years ago. And our devoted employees, who have taken no increases for the past three years, are still making twice what they made ten years ago; and our stock - one-sixth what it was ten years ago. Who cares? I'll tell you. Me. I'm not your best friend. I'm your only friend. I don't make anything? I'm making you money. And lest we forget, that's the only reason any of you became stockholders in the first place. You want to make money! You don't care if they manufacture wire and cable, fried chicken, or grow tangerines! You want to make money! I'm the only friend you've got. I'm making you money. Take the money. Invest it somewhere else. Maybe, maybe you'll get lucky and it'll be used productively. And if it is, you'll create new jobs and provide a service for the economy and, God forbid, even make a few bucks for yourselves. And if anybody asks, tell 'em ya gave at the plant. And by the way, it pleases me that I am called "Larry the Liquidator." You know why, fellow stockholders? Because at my funeral, you'll leave with a smile on your face and a few bucks in your pocket. Now that's a funeral worth having!

Other People's Money (1991) - Quotes - IMDb

people for the most part dont open businesses to make friends, or influence other people

they do it to make money

it is the one standard that you can count on from every GOOD businessman/woman i know....they are there to make money

profit is NOT a dirty word.....

you think you can do it better....great......open your own, and show the world that those of us currently doing it are all wrong
 
The original draft of the constitiution did not grant the federal government the ability to tax income. That was added later. Under some interpretations of the 10th Amendment (which is part of the bill of rights) the 16th Amendment shouldn't even exist.

It didn't allow women or blacks to vote either. Who told you that it even matters what the origional constitution permitted? Times change, and so does the constitution. If our founding fathers didn't want it to change with the times, they wouldn't have created a procedure for it to be amended.
 
That's not really what's going on though.

It's more like a politician has decided everyone deserves cookies, so a law gets passed that taxes everyone to provide cookies for everyone. The cookie factory owner (who donated the most funds to elect the politician) won the no-bid contract to provide the cookies, at whatever cost he chooses. The other wealthy donors decide on the flavor that must be provided. All you have to do is foot the bill.

So are you saying that the middle class is always the class that get's screwed? If so, then I agree.
 
So are you saying that the middle class is always the class that get's screwed? If so, then I agree.

No more so than any other non-ruling class. I'd say the middle class screwing over can only be construed as "worse" simply because it usually involves the subjugation of some amount of skill coupled with some amount of hard work, i.e. no matter how hard the poor work, it's hard to break out of that situation without some intelligence and freedom to maneuver, whereas the middle class may be moderately skilled and hard working and be PROMISED advancement to higher earning quintiles that never comes. But there isn't a grand conspiracy keeping them where they are. They just seem more prone to believe in promises of deliverance whereas the poor have figured it out long ago that they are not likely to rise much higher. Human nature tends to aggregate power. This is just a simple fact. Those without power usually don't enough power to amass more.
 
Last edited:
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. You are apparently on the side of the wolves.

For very good, wise reasons, this nation was not founded to be a democracy. It is an important feature of the founding principles of this nation to protect the rights of all—even of a minority against the tyranny of a majority.

There you go -- it didn't take long to expose your real agenda. You just don't like democracy and all those unwashed poor people governing themselves.
 
anyone hold a gun to the head of their workers? tie them to the registers?

Yes, those with capital did, since people have to eat and if you don't have capital, you have to work for greedy monsters like the Walmart family
 
The original draft of the constitiution did not grant the federal government the ability to tax income. That was added later. Under some interpretations of the 10th Amendment (which is part of the bill of rights) the 16th Amendment shouldn't even exist.

You act as it the amendments to the Constitution aren't the Constitution. That's rather thoughtless, if not odd. But I'll trade you the 2nd Amendment for the 16th.
 
You act as it the amendments to the Constitution aren't the Constitution. That's rather thoughtless, if not odd. But I'll trade you the 2nd Amendment for the 16th.

First of all, I was responding to an argument that said the Bill of Rights did not include the right to keep income. This is a problematic argument because the Bill of Rights is a set of rules for what the government cannot do to the people more than it is a set of permissions granted to the people. The original wording of the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) did not include any language specifically protecting income from taxation simply because the original wording of the Constitution did not allow the federal government to tax income, i.e. income was already protected by the 10th Amendment since no power to tax income so was granted to the federal government. And by this token, some interpretations of the 10th Amendment claim the 16th Amendment should not be, any more so than a hypothetical amendment granting the government the right to arrest a citizen for political speech.
 
First of all, I was responding to an argument that said the Bill of Rights did not include the right to keep income. This is a problematic argument because the Bill of Rights is a set of rules for what the government cannot do to the people more than it is a set of permissions granted to the people. The original wording of the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) did not include any language specifically protecting income from taxation simply because the original wording of the Constitution did not allow the federal government to tax income, i.e. income was already protected by the 10th Amendment since no power to tax income so was granted to the federal government. And by this token, some interpretations of the 10th Amendment claim the 16th Amendment should not be, any more so than a hypothetical amendment granting the government the right to arrest a citizen for political speech.
And this is referred to as....wait for it...libertarian mental masturbation.

office-space-05_l.jpg
 
First of all, I was responding to an argument that said the Bill of Rights did not include the right to keep income. This is a problematic argument because the Bill of Rights is a set of rules for what the government cannot do to the people more than it is a set of permissions granted to the people. The original wording of the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) did not include any language specifically protecting income from taxation simply because the original wording of the Constitution did not allow the federal government to tax income, i.e. income was already protected by the 10th Amendment since no power to tax income so was granted to the federal government. And by this token, some interpretations of the 10th Amendment claim the 16th Amendment should not be, any more so than a hypothetical amendment granting the government the right to arrest a citizen for political speech.

By "some interpretations" you mean crank rightwing interpretations. Noted.
 
By "some interpretations" you mean crank rightwing interpretations. Noted.

I was just offering conjecture. I don't necessarily cleave to the idea that the 10th overrules all following amendments. But the notion that the Bill of Rights "doesn't grant the right to keep stuff" fails on several levels, which is important to note. (Which is why I noted it.)

Consider prohibition. The 18th Amendment outlawed alcohol. Why? Why an amendment? Why not just pass an act? The Volstead Act put in place the provisions to enforce the 18th Amendment, but apparently the amendment itself was necessary to give the federal government the right or the power to outlaw something. In other words, it took two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three quarters of the State Legislatures to make booze illegal, because that was not a right the federal government (Congress itself) possessed. Where the 10th Amendment interpretation comes into play is whether or not the 18th Amendment gave the right to outlaw alcohol to the government, or took away the right to possess alcohol from the people. Congress was allowed to pass acts and obtain funding to enforce this amendment, but the actual act of outlawing alcohol was not in Congress's power. Various interpretations - ranging from rational to borderline insane - suggest anything from "it's all groovy" to "the 16th destroyed the first 10". I'm somewhere in the middle, which is the "Founder's Intent" argument.
 
I was just offering conjecture. I don't necessarily cleave to the idea that the 10th overrules all following amendments. But the notion that the Bill of Rights "doesn't grant the right to keep stuff" fails on several levels, which is important to note. (Which is why I noted it.)

Consider prohibition. The 18th Amendment outlawed alcohol. Why? Why an amendment? Why not just pass an act? The Volstead Act put in place the provisions to enforce the 18th Amendment, but apparently the amendment itself was necessary to give the federal government the right or the power to outlaw something. In other words, it took two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three quarters of the State Legislatures to make booze illegal, because that was not a right the federal government (Congress itself) possessed. Where the 10th Amendment interpretation comes into play is whether or not the 18th Amendment gave the right to outlaw alcohol to the government, or took away the right to possess alcohol from the people. Congress was allowed to pass acts and obtain funding to enforce this amendment, but the actual act of outlawing alcohol was not in Congress's power. Various interpretations - ranging from rational to borderline insane - suggest anything from "it's all groovy" to "the 16th destroyed the first 10". I'm somewhere in the middle, which is the "Founder's Intent" argument.

Fair enough and well put
 
I see you won't answer...
Guess what libertarian Paul who would give up his voting rights so as not to be taxed.....this is a thread about corporate taxes.

Apparently, no individual taxes...or corporate taxes.....is your desire. Write me a postcard when you get to Somalia.
 
Guess what libertarian Paul who would give up his voting rights so as not to be taxed.....this is a thread about corporate taxes.

Apparently, no individual taxes...or corporate taxes.....is your desire. Write me a postcard when you get to Somalia.

Actually I have no problem with individual income taxes as long as they are evenly applied, but I do wonder why we would tax businesses that provide the income to individuals...
 
Back
Top Bottom