Dozens of Major Businesses Have Left the US

[Gimmesometruth]

I posted two links deliberately. The line was an artifact of the "copy" function. The "not moving" claim was the headline of the Politifact article, which was useful for sorting out reasons for the inversion.

You are admitting that my previous accusation is true, it was a complete falsehood to claim that the polifact article was contained in the businessweek article.

Lies and non-sequiturs.

Good job.

 

[Jack Hays]

You are admitting that my previous accusation is true, it was a complete falsehood to claim that the polifact article was contained in the businessweek article.

Lies and non-sequiturs.

Good job.

Sorry, but it was your error not to understand there were two links. Again, no one else made that mistake.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Sorry, but it was your error not to understand there were two links. Again, no one else made that mistake.

Jeez, and now you are putting words in my mouth, I understood there were 2 links, that was not the original point, the original point is that the "moving" link had nothing to do with the response I made to tw.

So we have, you losing track of my point, responding to posts not directed to you and then lying about the post, putting words in my mouth...and still never addressing the original counterpoint to you.

Next up, working the ref.

 

[FaceofBachmann]

That was a quote in the link, not a point I was making. Everyone else understood the difference. Here's a thoughtful presentation.

[h=3]The Progressive Case for Corporate Tax Reform - New ...[/h]newamerica.net/.../Stokes,%20Bruce.%20%20T...New America Foundation


GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney advocates cutting the corporate tax rate, ... Nevertheless, the case for cutting the corporate tax rate remains compelling.

The New America Foundation is centrist at best (with lots of corporate types on its board). Nothing wrong with that, but for them to claim to tell progressives what to do on tax policy is a bit overbearing.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jeez, and now you are putting words in my mouth, I understood there were 2 links, that was not the original point, the original point is that the "moving" link had nothing to do with the response I made to tw.

So we have, you losing track of my point, responding to posts not directed to you and then lying about the post, putting words in my mouth...and still never addressing the original counterpoint to you.

Next up, working the ref.

I suggest you move on to my #591. You're only embarrassing yourself on this tangent.

 

[Jack Hays]

The New America Foundation is centrist at best (with lots of corporate types on its board). Nothing wrong with that, but for them to claim to tell progressives what to do on tax policy is a bit overbearing.

The label "centrist" is not a negative in this discussion. Their ideas seem practical and productive to me. Certainly an improvement over our current laws which drive businesses out of the US.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I suggest you move on to my #591. You're only embarrassing yourself on this tangent.

Now...it is comedy.

Actually, I suggest you address my original point, that corporate Big Box schemes writ large are not in the interest of citizens.

 

[FaceofBachmann]

The label "centrist" is not a negative in this discussion. Their ideas seem practical and productive to me. Certainly an improvement over our current laws which drive businesses out of the US.

You'll note I didn't say it was negative. I said the opposite. What is a bit galling, however, is for NAF to advise progressives on tax policies. They should stick with making their centrist (corporate) proposals as centrist proposals, and not pretend they are progressive.

 

[Jack Hays]

Now...it is comedy.

Actually, I suggest you address my original point, that corporate Big Box schemes writ large are not in the interest of citizens.

Your point is too trivial to be interesting.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Your point is too trivial to be interesting.

I know Jack, to you and coporations, the best interests of citizens...is trivial. This is why it is ridiculous to equate corporations to citizens.

 

[Jack Hays]

I know Jack, to you and coporations, the best interests of citizens...is trivial. This is why it is ridiculous to equate corporations to citizens.

It's dealt with at some length in my #591.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It's dealt with at some length in my #591.

That post contains nothing supporting the idea that the interests of citizens is trivial.

 

[Jack Hays]

That post contains nothing supporting the idea that the interests of citizens is trivial.

No. It doesn't. The interests of citizens are paramount. Your posts are trivial.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Now...it is comedy.

Actually, I suggest you address my original point, that corporate Big Box schemes writ large are not in the interest of citizens.

Your point is too trivial to be interesting.

I know Jack, to you and corporations, the best interests of citizens...is trivial. This is why it is ridiculous to equate corporations to citizens.

It's dealt with at some length in my #591.

That post contains nothing supporting the idea that the interests of citizens is trivial.

No. It doesn't. The interests of citizens are paramount. Your posts are trivial.

Twisting again. First, the point I made (citizens interests) was trivial, now it is "paramount"....even though it was in my posts...which now are "trivial".

Flop-flip-flop.

 

[Jack Hays]

Twisting again. First, the point I made (citizens interests) was trivial, now it is "paramount"....even though it was in my posts...which now are "trivial".

Flop-flip-flop.

Your inability to follow a discussion (or focus on the point) is disappointing. My #591 takes up in some detail the perspective you mentioned (citizens interests) without discussing. Your treatment of it was thus trivial. I invite you to step up to the level of substantive exchange.

 

[Karl]

Re: Picking winners or losers

How does this choose a winner? Anyone who earns more after paying for essential government should be able to keep what they earn. Who is choosing the winners? [...]

You are. You just said that rich people should pay a lower tax rate than poor or middle-class people. Like, duh :doh

Please don't think that I'm trying to change your mind, I'm just pointing out the factual results of your position (which you share with most conservatives). It's okay if you want to do that (you have a right to espouse your position), it's just that I don't think it's fair -- that's the argument. The fairness of having rich people pay a lower rate than poor people, compared to the fairness of having everyone pay the same rate (or at least everyone above the poverty line).

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Picking winners or losers

You are. You just said that rich people should pay a lower tax rate than poor or middle-class people. Like, duh :doh

Please don't think that I'm trying to change your mind, I'm just pointing out the factual results of your position (which you share with most conservatives). It's okay if you want to do that (you have a right to espouse your position), it's just that I don't think it's fair -- that's the argument. The fairness of having rich people pay a lower rate than poor people, compared to the fairness of having everyone pay the same rate (or at least everyone above the poverty line).

You are then not in favor of progressive tax rates? You favor a flat tax?

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Re: Picking winners or losers

??? So non smokers should have to pay tobacco tax? And people who don't drink should have to pay alcohol tax?

This one is interesting.

It is in the public interest for people without children to pay taxes that go toward public education, simply because it is in the public interest to have everyone's children educated.

Excise taxes like the ones you describe have the effect of disincentivizing certain behaviors, so naturally it appears as though the only ones who should pay this tax are those engaging in the behavior... but what would happen if society collectively had to pay for a certain behavior? Take smoking for example - we DO pay for the effects of smoking, through Medicare and Medicade. But just imagine the public outcry against the sale of tobacco products if there was a line item bill due every April for every citizen in the country to pay for the smokers and their expensive health care.

 

[MTAtech]

Re: Picking winners or losers

This one is interesting.

It is in the public interest for people without children to pay taxes that go toward public education, simply because it is in the public interest to have everyone's children educated.

Excise taxes like the ones you describe have the effect of disincentivizing certain behaviors, so naturally it appears as though the only ones who should pay this tax are those engaging in the behavior... but what would happen if society collectively had to pay for a certain behavior? Take smoking for example - we DO pay for the effects of smoking, through Medicare and Medicade. But just imagine the public outcry against the sale of tobacco products if there was a line item bill due every April for every citizen in the country to pay for the smokers and their expensive health care.

The argument could be made that smoking lowers Medicare and Medicaid costs, since much of the higher cost is concentrated in old age. Since smokers are less likely to reach old age, they are subsidizing the rest of us by paying taxes they will not receive benefits.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Re: Picking winners or losers

The argument could be made that smoking lowers Medicare and Medicaid costs, since much of the higher cost is concentrated in old age. Since smokers are less likely to reach old age, they are subsidizing the rest of us by paying taxes they will not receive benefits.

Old age is relative in this case. Smokers tend to live into their late 60s or early 70s, into the window of eligibility of Medicare. So instead of being a relatively healthy low drain on Medicare for a number of years before poor health and advanced age set in, they are instead a large drain on Medicare immeditely.

 

[Misterveritis]

Re: Picking winners or losers

"How does this choose a winner? Anyone who earns more after paying for essential government should be able to keep what they earn. Who is choosing the winners? [...]"

You are. You just said that rich people should pay a lower tax rate than poor or middle-class people. Like, duh :doh

You have failed to make your case. You said the government is picking winners and losers. Tell me who and tell me how.

Please don't think that I'm trying to change your mind,

To change my mind you will have to make a convincing argument. I have been encouraging you to do so.

I'm just pointing out the factual results of your position (which you share with most conservatives).

The result of my position is that everyone has increased incentives to work more instead of less. It also prevents an evil and greedy government from taking property in a Marxist fashion (from each according to his abilities).

It's okay if you want to do that (you have a right to espouse your position),

I was not seeking your permission.

it's just that I don't think it's fair -- that's the argument. The fairness of having rich people pay a lower rate than poor people, compared to the fairness of having everyone pay the same rate (or at least everyone above the poverty line).

You keep saying that but have yet to make an argument showing that there are different tax laws for those the government has chosen to be losers versus those the government has selected to be winners.

How does the government notify the winners? Does someone from the government drive up in a van labeled "You may already be a winner"? And, if the government is choosing winners and losers why is the government selecting so many people to lose?

 

[Karl]

Re: Picking winners or losers

[...] To change my mind [...]

:lamo​

 

[Karl]

Re: Picking winners or losers

[...] The result of my position is that everyone has increased incentives to work more instead of less. It also prevents an evil and greedy government from taking property in a Marxist fashion (from each according to his abilities). [...]

Your position is unrelated to the argument. In other words, you have created an argument that supports your existing position (a strawman). Now I'm glad that, when arguing with yourself, you can win an argument.... but in the real world, that win doesn't count.

Now I am fairly sure of the reason you will not address the actual argument that you keep replying to: namely, that it would be fair and equitable for the rich to have the same tax rate as the poor and the middle class instead of the current unfair/inequitable lower tax rate, which is not only championed by hard right conservatives but one that they would like the government to lower even more. The reason is that no one could win against that argument. But I would suggest that it would be wiser to simply ignore that argument and not reply to it altogether, rather than be observed repeatedly dodging it and coming up with strawmen.

 

[Karl]

Re: Picking winners or losers

[...] You [...] have yet to make an argument showing that there are different tax laws for those the government has chosen to be losers versus those the government has selected to be winners. [...]

Since there is no reason to explain the obvious I will presume your point is intended to deflect and dissemble. However, since you provide the opportunity to make your post look foolish, I will do just that:

The Earth is round... must that be demonstrated?
People breath air... must that be demonstrated?
The rich benefit from tax treatments/rates for certain income that are much lower (or even absent) than personal income tax rates that the average worker is subject to... must that be demonstrated?

 

[Misterveritis]

Re: Picking winners or losers

Since there is no reason to explain the obvious I will presume your point is intended to deflect and dissemble. However, since you provide the opportunity to make your post look foolish, I will do just that:

The Earth is round... must that be demonstrated?
People breath air... must that be demonstrated?
The rich benefit from tax treatments/rates for certain income that are much lower (or even absent) than personal income tax rates that the average worker is subject to... must that be demonstrated?

You are not a serious person. Understood. You cannot prove your assertions. I knew that before we started. You can be safely disregarded.