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.
Let it starve.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Let it starve.
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.
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Then perhaps we need tax increases.
originally posted by: Aazadan
Then perhaps we need tax increases.
originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Aazadan
Maybe tie the budget to the cola for SS?
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.
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?
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Aazadan
But then, how would we fund the government?
Let it starve.
originally posted by: jacobe001
So that means, upper management and the finance sector would be the ones to take the cut?
Correct?
originally posted by: jacobe001
Do you think Global Corporations should get free welfare protection when they are involved in trade around the world?
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.
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.