can anyone honestly keep arguing that corporations are being "overtaxed" anymore?

Dont give them tax breaks. Threaten them with eminent domain and ofer them to sale to those agreeing to meet the obligations. I believe that New London SCOTUS case opens the door, does it not?

{Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.}

 

Kelo v. New London was a travesty in which the Supreme Court allowed a government to take property (from residents, and under a reading of the Takings Clause that essentially rendered it meaningless and potentially opened the door to all sorts of abusive takings) to benefit a corporate entity that ultimately never used the property taken.

Awful decision that ended up actually inspiring/forcing states to modify their own takings practices so as not to end up pissing people off so much and - along with a case in Cincinnati that broke in the favor of the residents - putting the brakes on the more widespread abuse of takings by cities claiming "blight".

 

Shut up. This drivel would make things worse for our deficit and for free speech. Just stop.

 

wouldn't hurt our deficit, as I explained in the previous page.

as for free speech, how does it make things worse? you're only worried because that stops the Democrats major fundraising scheme.

 

Where's your link barrage?

 

Tell ya what conservatives, we'll drop the corporate tax in exchange for personal income taxes to what they were in the 90's and a reversal of that horrible Supreme Court decision that allows them finance candidates.

 

We've never banned a group wholly from free speech in our nation's history...which links would you propose I use?

Okay, so you posted this:

I will make some very difficult assumptions, and post them so that you can understand the very complicated argument I will then make:

1) Taxes are usually in the form of money.
2) Currently, corporations and unions pay taxes as an entity.
3) If we were to eliminate all revenues from corporations and unions, we would reduce overall revenues because those entities would cease to pay money (taxes) into our system.

Those were my assumptions. Now for my extraordinarily complex argument:

If we reduce revenues without reducing spending (which would be unlikely while ramping up a regulatory and judicial system designed to prohibit the free exercise of speech of these entities), it will add to the deficit.

Woof, that took a lot. Now on to free speech.

In the 2010 elections, nine of the top ten spenders were conservative-leaning, outspending liberals seven to one. As a liberal, I would leap at the chance to restrict campaign spending; however, your plan to ban campaigning by corporations and unions without banning those entities entirely would be detrimental to the intent of free speech. Here's how your scheme would work:

1) The CEO of CorporationX/UnionY would hire a 'personal secretary' with great charisma, good looks, and the ability to read a prompter. The CEO would then spend his thirty-million dollar 'Halloween bonus' on advertisements which would feature this 'personal secretary' talking about how he, as an American citizen, felt the country was headed in the right or wrong direction. The ad would not need to feature any claim such as "This was ********ING PAID FOR BY THE CORPORATION/UNION" because the law was written by a dumb GOP troll and signed into law by President Herman Cain.

2) The CEO of Corporation X/Union Y would spend thirty million dollars of their own money ensuring that every member of his organization was registered to vote, had that day off of work, and had a car to get them and their fifteen best friends to the polls. Again, it wouldn't feature any ownership because, well, it was written by a dumb GOP troll and signed into law by President Cain.

Believe it or not, there are a lot of good things that come out of taxing individuals and allowing them to do things legally with restrictions. It's (loosely) like with children and sex. Children who are taught abstinence-only education (while not being taught anything at home by their parents) have higher pregnancy rates than those taught sex ed a) by their parents and b) comprehensively in schools. Knowing about birth control and condoms and stuff. Keeping organizations involved in the political process, rather than releasing them to an unregulated wild, establishes parameters and guidelines for appropriate behavior.

There's a reason why the biggest busts in American economic history have been during relatively unregulated economic periods - you leave imperfect beings to their own devices without anybody watching them and a few - not all, but a few - will find a way to cheat.

But first and foremost, the whole "paying no taxes will not hurt the deficit" argument is so f*cking dumb it's almost impossible to believe it was written.

 

as I noted, I said go to the previous page, and you'll see this post

And for your information, unions are not paying taxes on their dues collected. union workers get to deduct their union dues from personal income and shield that from taxes. so the real drain is coming from your side.

As for talking about "unregulated" times, we have been in an era of over regulation, as I explained in the previous page as well. So have a look.

I HATE and LOATHE 503(c)'s or whatever they are called. Ban them, too. Allow individuals to donate as much as they'd like, as that doesn't restrict their free speech. Every ad that is run will continue to have a "paid for by...", just as they always have. would make the process much neater and more transparent.

 

Your assertions, as are the assertions of all right-wingers, continue to not be backed up by any substantial factual evidence, not from political scientists, nor from economists, nor from sociologists, nor from historians, nor from anyone else. Crony capitalism is higher in states with lower taxation systems such as banana republics. Corruption has been around longer than capitalism, so we know that that argument makes absolutely no sense. Cool for the unions; religious groups do roughly the same thing...are you calling for the end of the religious movement in the country, or are only corporations and unions allowed to be targeted in this crusade?

Then there's your whole-hearted embrace of a bastardization of the Laffer Curve:

This has been largely discredited and abandoned by the economist community, and is laughed at as a policy choice in the political-science and public-policy world. The corporate tax rate is somewhere around, what, 15-35%, with "real" rates much lower. If you reduce the corporate tax rate from 10% to 9%, what the ******** are you getting out of it? Especially since the goal for corporate America the last twenty years has been to try to 'bring labor costs in line with the rest of the world.'

Then you say we live in an era of over-regulation. Unless you have recently arrived from ********ING PLUTO in the last few days, you ought to know that the United States has been deregulating lots and lots since the late 1970s. It's so well-documented that I almost feel stupid having to post a famous example of deregulation. When you say "over-regulation," do you mean in comparison to the 1340s? If so, then yes. But if you compare it to any point in American history after the Great Depression, we are very, VERY relatively deregulated.

So I read your post twice now, and aside from lacking any evidence to back it up, is still filled with dumb, dumb, DUMB DUMB DUMB ideas. I'm sure you're a great guy, but honestly, this shit is pretty simply to discredit and you've done nothing aside from "Well I said it before so it must be true" to make anyone believe it's a good idea.

 

Sorry to be so rude, but it's like nobody on this site has heard of Google Scholar or even Google Search and there's even a group of people here who consider it a badge of honor to not research anything before posting.

 

Yaaay!

 

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/
Further, "the average federal income tax rate on the 400 richest people in America was 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the Internal Revenue Service, down from 26.38 percent when these data were first calculated in 1992. Among the top 400, 7.5 percent had an average tax rate of less than 10 percent, 25 percent paid between 10 and 15 percent, and 28 percent paid between 15 and 20 percent."

 

I'm annoying, sure, but at least I know what I'm talking about here.

 

Yep...your declaration of "ARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!" is about the only thing you have ever said where you seem to know what you are talking about.

 

The part about being annoying was also spot on.

 

If I keep agreeing with Fish I'm gonna have to go in for a checkup...

 

What is all of this Ikeep hearing from the Right about all of Obamas new taxes? Is it like all the new efforts to 'take our guns away'? (ie non-existent hut non-contradicted by anyone in the only place most of those people go for information)

 

As if it bears repeating...

What part about my critique of Wingtips was inaccurate? Sure, it's easy to belittle me for making you think through something, but it's harder to actually think that thing through.

 

If you constantly belittle people, you should expect the same in return...

 

I don't have a problem with them belittling me. In fact, I found the ARFARF thing hilarious (ask Timon, I positive-repped the first instance of it). I have an abrasive personality, and sorry some people around here are thin-skinned enough to take it to heart. When it comes to politics, I'm a 9-5 guy; as soon as the 'political conversation' ends and the soccer starts, we're all on the same team as far as I'm concerned.

What constantly amazes me is that conservatives and libertarians on these boards make outlandish accusations such as "we live in an era of over-regulation" without ANY claims to back it up, and the liberal snots here don't have the gall to just once and for all PROVE them wrong.

So when they come back with personal attacks rather than anything substantial, it doesn't anger me, it's a little disappointing that the right-wing spectrum of today's blogosphere is devoid of even the basic tools to analyze and synthesize information and so I treat it with the respect it deserves.

Again, this is only for politics. Bill Archer's a right-wing troll, but I read his FIFA corruption stuff very intently because his writing on the subject is very good. I have nothing but respect for other Crew fans here because we root for the same team. If anybody here is really personally offended by what I write, it shouldn't be taken that way...it's really just politics.

 

Dude, you cited that Carter had deregulted the airlines. Well, shit, he also deregulated interestate trucking and beer. Thank ********ing God he did. Now we have lots of choice in travel, cheap shipping, and the most diverse beer market in the universe.

That doesn't mean that other sectors aren't regulated to the gills. One of them is the financial sector, where the US is as regulated or more regulated than Europe. Futher, the regs are written such that the industries regulated can cost us more money by exploiting the loopholes they helped lawmakers put in there.

It's not just volume of regulation. It's shitty, slanted-toward-established-companies regulation that the government gleefully engages in.

 

Which sectors? Which companies? I'm not just playing stupid. Can you/will you show everybody on these boards what is over-regulated, what loopholes need to be closed/eliminated? Is the financial sector better or worse off after Dodd-Frank (although we can definitely say it's better off in 2010 than 2008)?

 

I'd love for no organizations to be allowed to donate, as they aren't people. they are able to lobby, so that is their voice in the argument. people are the only ones who should be donating actual, physical monies to politicians.

Corruption is higher in states with no sound rule of law and non-democratic governemnts. The larger the hand government plays in the role of the economy, the higher the corruption levels.
If the US goes to a 10% corp tax tomorrow, corruption will not rise because we cut tax rates. Companies will significantly CUT corporate political donations because there is LESS favor to be gained doing so.

in what "political science world" is limited government laughed at? within the Marxist faculties at universities?
so if the "real" corporate tax rate is 10%, why not lower it across the board and get rid of all loopholes and subsidies and credits? saves the government A LOT of enforcement dollars, and it would save companies A LOT of time and dollars in compliance work. And it would keep a lot of the corporations that you hate from engaging in political donations. Win-win-win, no?

Deregulation and privatisation are two completely different things, you know that right?
As I explained in my post, we currently have more regulations and laws governing our businesses and citizens than we've had at any time in history. Our corporations spend more in compliance and legal costs than ever before.

 

Limited government is not laughed at; the Laffer Curve is. Everywhere.

 

The Laffer Curve is laughed at? Not on this board, hell even SuperDave admits the curve has merit. The debate is always where on the curve we currently lie.