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.

 

Huge Corporate Profits- so Why do They Need a Tax Cut?

page: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
But then, how would we fund the government?


Let it starve.




posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What portion of the govt do you want to see starve? I also think there is massive waste in the govt and it ability/motivation to control costs.


Let it starve.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
What portion of the govt do you want to see starve? I also think there is massive waste in the govt and it ability/motivation to control costs.


Most of it.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Let it starve.


There's nothing in the budget left to cut. Starvation will only lead to the government growing it's own food by printing money. That's not a fiscally responsible solution for anyone involved.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
There's nothing in the budget left to cut. Starvation will only lead to the government growing it's own food by printing money. That's not a fiscally responsible solution for anyone involved.


It already has being doing that for decades and selling the bonds it used to generate that cash to us. We're one giant walking IOU to ourselves.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then perhaps we need tax increases.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then perhaps we need tax increases.


I think it is time for a very adult conversation to what we need to do as a nation to get into a solid financial footing. And this could mean tax increases.


And for the love of God stop the automatic annul growth of government budgets.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Baseline budgeting makes a lot of sense because of inflation, dollar values aren't constant from year to year. That said, I wouldn't mind the creation of some sort of incentive system that rewards government offices for spending less money, rather than punishing them with a lower budget in future years when they don't spend it all.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Maybe tie the budget to the cola for SS?



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
Then perhaps we need tax increases.


Not unless there was a complete and total budget overhaul and some sort of hard cap was placed on increases yearly increases. The more you give them the more they spend, even to the point of spending what they don't have.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A balanced budget?

That's a good one.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
A balanced budget?

That's a good one.


Well I do have a reputation for making jokes.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Aazadan

Maybe tie the budget to the cola for SS?


That would likely just stop the declining value of SS payouts, not actually curb the growth rate of government budgets.

I actually think the answer to this problem is to get a few more STEM graduates in congress, get them on committees, and let them make structural changes. Some senior software architects would be great at developing a system that can revamp government and make it run faster for less money.

That said, it's not the only way. I would like to see the incentive system myself. Tell each office that for every dollar they can reduce in their budgets each year (that doesn't involve cutting services to citizens), half the amount saved times 10 (to represent 10 years of savings) will be given directly to the office involved as a tax free bonus to the workers. Apply that to city, state, and federal offices.

So if 50 person office trims $2 million out of their budget, we budget that out for a decade, or $20 million, take half that for $10 million and distribute that $10 million as a tax free bonus to the workers in that office which would give them all $200,000. I have no doubts that that would spur all kinds of innovation to make government run more efficiently.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: seasonal
We (the consumer) also pay for raw materials. I fail to see why a corp that enjoys all the benefits of being a person should be deprived of paying their taxes.


Precisely, you pay for all of it, including the taxes. Asking corporations to pay taxes only means you want to pay more taxes since it is a pass through charge.


Yep
Corporations pass the taxes to the consumer of what they can...
So much for the notion that 50% don't pay taxes then, right, considering the poor are major consumers.

It can also be deduced, from the above case, that the consumer is also paying for all the profits to the finance sector and upper management.

Now one may think, why would consumers not be ok with cutting taxes then?
Because if taxes are cut, the business is still going to charge the customer the same amount since the market can afford it. They will send the excess to upper management and the finance sector, not to consumers and workers.

BUT, raising taxes on them means the money has to come from somewhere right?
They cannot cut worker wages more, they are not a charity.
They cannot pass tax increases onto the consumer, they are already charging the maximum.
So that means, upper management and the finance sector would be the ones to take the cut?

Correct?



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: seasonal
We (the consumer) also pay for raw materials. I fail to see why a corp that enjoys all the benefits of being a person should be deprived of paying their taxes.


Precisely, you pay for all of it, including the taxes. Asking corporations to pay taxes only means you want to pay more taxes since it is a pass through charge.


Yep
Corporations pass the taxes to the consumer of what they can...
So much for the notion that 50% don't pay taxes then, right, considering the poor are major consumers.

It can also be deduced, from the above case, that the consumer is also paying for all the profits to the finance sector and upper management.

Now one may think, why would consumers not be ok with cutting taxes then?
Because if taxes are cut, the business is still going to charge the customer the same amount since the market can afford it. They will send the excess to upper management and the finance sector, not to consumers and workers.

BUT, raising taxes on them means the money has to come from somewhere right?
They cannot cut worker wages more, they are not a charity.
They cannot pass tax increases onto the consumer, they are already charging the maximum.
So that means, upper management and the finance sector would be the ones to take the cut?

Correct?


This is closer to the truth than any other post.

Corps will not lower prices if taxes are cut.

Corps will not hire US workers to manufacture the goods they pay pennies on the dollar in 3rd world countries.


Corps effective tax rate is around 19%. Is that too high? They are people too.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Aazadan
But then, how would we fund the government?


Let it starve.


Do you think Global Corporations should get free welfare protection when they are involved in trade around the world?
Why do you think income tax payers should foot the bill for their security?



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001

So that means, upper management and the finance sector would be the ones to take the cut?

Correct?


When you say the 'finance sector' are you referring to shares? If so, the bulk of those are held by regular citizens as part of their 401K or pension funds.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001
Do you think Global Corporations should get free welfare protection when they are involved in trade around the world?


I am against corporate welfare of any type. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jacobe001

So that means, upper management and the finance sector would be the ones to take the cut?

Correct?


When you say the 'finance sector' are you referring to shares? If so, the bulk of those are held by regular citizens as part of their 401K or pension funds.



Less than 50% of Americans have a 401K or pension fund.
Of those 50%, the median amount of money they have in their 401k is less than 24,000.
The main beneficiaries of the finance sector are the top wealthy, not your average American than has a 401k.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jacobe001
Do you think Global Corporations should get free welfare protection when they are involved in trade around the world?


I am against corporate welfare of any type. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.



Unfortunately they do.
A global corporation that has their widgets made in China with the cheap labor you can get under Communism where workers have no rights is the chosen winner.
While Joe Corp the American cannot compete with communist labor.

Mega Corporations lobbied for Trade Pacts with cheap labor nations while stuffing the coffers of politicians and the politicians chose them as the winner.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join