It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism Doesn’t Pay: Britain is Poorer Than Any US State But Mississippi

page: 17
22
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Now we see "Corporate" welfare is at all levels of government.


"We" do?

'Splain it to us Xuenchen anyway, just for fun.




posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Now we see "Corporate" welfare is at all levels of government.


"We" do?

'Splain it to us Xuenchen anyway, just for fun.


Well he said tax breaks (assuming Federal income tax, but maybe not)

And property tax breaks are local I thought.

But then again, property tax not being "written off" (becomes profit) would be subject to income taxes.

Confusing.




posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Now we see "Corporate" welfare is at all levels of government.


"We" do?

'Splain it to us Xuenchen anyway, just for fun.


Well he said tax breaks (assuming Federal income tax, but maybe not)

And property tax breaks are local I thought.

But then again, property tax not being "written off" (becomes profit) would be subject to income taxes.

Confusing.



But you make the comment that "we see corporate welfare at all levels of government."

What do you mean by that?



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

well um but uh gee.

I'm not sure what your definitions are.

What do YOU classify corporate welfare as at any level?




posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: pikestaff

Most 'working' Brits average £12.000 per year, and pay 43 percent of that in direct and indirect tax per year.




The first 10k is tax free for each earner, with a greater allowance for dependents etc.

Besides, the average wage is £26,500.

And lets not even start on house prices. Even in the 90s, my terraced house in South London would buy me a 40 acre ranch in Michigan...


That simply isn't true. Only the poor (less than 100k per year) get the 10k tax free.

As you point out a lot of the taxes go to subsidizing land-owners which pushes the price of your home to that ridiculous level. This has caused the standard of living to drop in the uk and pushed the economy to the brink of collapse.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Xuenchen, I'll be glad to answer your question in a minute even though I've already given several examples.

Back to you though, and your statement: "Now we see 'Corporate' welfare is at all levels of government."

You had something in mind when you said this. I'm just asking what that something was.

PS: Did you have a chance to review the two Nelson articles that are the basis of this thread? Did you notice that neither article uses the word "socialist" or "socialism" but that those terms were added on in the misappropriation in the Publius' blog post you cited?

I really want to hear how you intend to amend the misrepresentation in your title and OP on that basis.

Cheers!



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Morg234
a reply to: xuenchen

"Wow" what? This is all nonsense.

Another person who thinks the United Kingdom is "socialist", funny and ironic given it founded modern capitalism.

Poor in terms of what? GDP or Per capita? Neither would obviously compare it as poorer then almost all US states.


Britain is much more socialist than the US,


No it isn't. Not sure what planet these users are on.


I don't understand why all the criticism of the OP calling Britain Socialist. We had a Labour government who (I think) most people would describe as either socialist or wanting to be socialist.

These were replaced by a coalition government who raised both taxes and spending to higher levels than the Labour government. doesn't this make them more socialist than Labour were?

I think government spending is higher than supposedly socialist/communist like China (I am probably wrong about this,otherwise why would everybody be denying that Britain is under socialism).

So, why the doubt about Britain being socialist? Do the people who think Britain isn't socialist also think that France, China, Cuba etc. aren't either?



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: supermouse

You seem to have directed the question in general, so allow me to answer from my perspective.

The OP (original post) cites an article at Publius' Forum. That article purports to be commenting on an article published at The Spectator by Fraser Nelson who cites another related article of his in The Telegraph.

Neither of those articles uses either the words socialism, or socialist. Nelson makes a (questionable comparison) about the relative wealth of the UK as compared with US states. He does so, in both articles, in reaction to demonstrate that issues in the US, like the matter in Ferguson, are not a reason for citizens of the UK to look down on US.

The problem is not whether any of us consider the UK socialist. Some obviously do, most Brits (and Scots) who have spoken up here do not agree. That is an entirely different thread and question than has been posed here.

No one (including the Publius' article and Xuenchen's original post) has thrown up the question for discussion, "Is the UK Socialist?" but has rather stated that it is and that the (questionable) economic ranking of the UK versus individual American states in some way proves that "socialism" is a failure AND has stated that Mr. Nelson's articles make that same assertion.

The assertion is fraudulent in every way I understand the word, as I've outlined here ad nauseum.
edit on 19Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:59:08 -050014p072014866 by Gryphon66 because: Clarification.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

listen clearly...where Britain goes, the usa soon follows. Britain gets cameras on street corners, usa does next. Britain is a pilot-program for what will happen to the usa. listen, the usa economy will be diluted and imploded like Britain, until you cant tell a 3rd world economy from a former 1st world western economy...and the same failing, wrong scum will still be in charge, but with more of the world grid-locked under their psychopathic world-view..

this isn't conspiracy theory. where Britain goes...the usa follows, historically that stands unquestionably, except with gun control, which will some day come in british standards.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


By definition, corporate welfare includes allowing companies to skirt by paying little or without paying any of their fair share of taxes, their contribution to government is nil.


All of a corporation's income comes from customers. To a corporation, taxes are costs like payroll and raw materials. Corporations don't pay taxes, corporations only have costs that are passed on to the consumer. Taxing a corporation is taxing the customers.

Like inflation, corporate taxes are a hidden tax that is paid by consumers.


edit on 28-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I agree. American corporations do not pay their taxes, and yet, book billions in profits, thus stealing money from the American people.

Any corporation that does not run efficiently enough to pay its taxes should have it charter revoked.

Let the market resolve the greed and inefficiency of those corporations that do not pay their fair share.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Any corporation that does not run efficiently enough to pay its taxes should have it charter revoked.


Corporations don't pay taxes because all of the cost of taxes is passed on to the consumer.


edit on 28-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Since when is the UK a socialist country? Load of garbage in my opinion and his so called number crunching is ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Many corporations (and businesses) operate at a loss.

Thus pay no income "taxes".

And yet many of those public corporations that have stock often trade above value.

What is that phenomenon called?



[ starts with a "C" ]



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just thought I'd swing by to see what was going on in this delightful stew pot. Imagine my surprise when I saw someone still trying to use Obama's idea that Corporations aren't paying their fair share in taxes. I though that had been dropped some time ago. Ah, well.

"Fair" is a digusting pile of cherry Jell-o in the world of economics. It has absolutely no meaning or substance, but leaves a hard to clean trail where ever it goes.

I got a jay walking ticket with a fine of $10. I paid the city $10. Fair? Not really fair, but legally correct. I had an overdue library book, fine $1. Paid, $1. A parking meter that asked for a quarter. I put in a quarter. Is any of that fair? What the blazes does "fair" mean in situations like that? The law said I owed it, so I paid it.

A corporation's accountants tell the CEO that the business owes a billion dollars in taxes. He writes a check and mails it in. "Fairness" has nothing to do with it. It is legally correct. (Unless the accountants fouled up, but the government will let them know about it.)

A corporation's accountants tells the CEO that the business owes four dollars in taxes. The CEO says "Really?" The accountants tell him, "That's the way the numbers work out this year." The CEO writes out a check for four dollars and mails it in. Legally correct? Sure.

But now, people start saying "It isn't fair! It isn't fair that you followed the law! We hate you!" The CEO has got to be scratching his head going "WTF?" and calling out "Smithers did we file our taxes properly this year?" "Yes, Sir, I had an independent accounting firm check every line." "Then, what," the bewildered CEO asks, "is everybody shouting about?"

Smithers tries to explain, but gives up as the objection is clearly nonsensical. The business has paid what the government asked it to pay. The CEO turns to Smithers and asks "Do most Americans throw in an extra 10% on their tax payments every year?" "Oh no, Sir, Americans buy software and accounting services to get every deduction they're entitled to. They never throw in a little extra. In fact half of Americans don't pay anything at all."

"Smithers, take a note for the next board meeting. Consider buying a Canadian coffee shop and moving our headquarters there. I hear they're not as crazy as those 'Fair share' people."

"Will do, Sir, and, uh, Mr Horton, sir? Did you have any company in mind?"

"No, just pick one you think I'll like."

edit on 29-8-2014 by charles1952 because: remove a word

edit on 29-8-2014 by charles1952 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Many corporations (and businesses) operate at a loss.

Thus pay no income "taxes".

And yet many of those public corporations that have stock often trade above value.

What is that phenomenon called?



[ starts with a "C" ]



A bit off topic but I heard on the radio

Many businesses can operate at a loss because of cheap credit and they seem to be doing so intentionally to avoid taxes.

On topic, socialism is implied by any reference to the economy because the government is interfering in every aspect of the economy on the principle of collectivism/progressivism/socialism.
edit on 29-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Many businesses can operate at a loss because of cheap credit and they seem to be doing do intentionally to avoid taxes.


Yup.

the "C" is credit.

That's one way.

"Credit" can be loans and bonds.

[ but I think Gryphon66 would have come up with a different "C" ]



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   
So Charles, honestly didn't make it all the way through what I'm sure was your very charming anecdote after the ever-present "It's Obama's fault;thanks Obama!" bromide popped up so early on, but do I take it that the gist of your comment is that you're complicit with corporate tax evasion in the US? You're just fine with this contribution to the deficit, I take it? Fair enough.

~~~~~

Semi ... you just keep on redefining "socialism" until you find one you like. We'll wait.

~~~~~~

Xuenchen: As always avoiding the subject like a trooper! And with such wit and panache, too.



posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sounds like you're stymied.

Many Progressives are.




posted on Aug, 29 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sounds like you're stymied.

Many Progressives are.



You can't answer simple straightforward questions about your own statements, and I'm the one that's stymied?

Impeccable wingnut logic there, X. No really, top drawer stuff.

And I was worried about you, you hadn't sputtered about "progressives" (*shakes fist at sky*) in several posts ... I thought something was wrong.

Glad you're back on schedule.

edit on 1Fri, 29 Aug 2014 01:20:56 -050014p012014866 by Gryphon66 because: Formatting.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join