Challenge Match: titorite vs Maxmars : “Give All of Us a Break, Will Ya?”

The topic for this debate is “Corporate Tax Breaks are the Backbone of a Strong and Healthy Economy”.

titorite will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Maxmars will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Each debater must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.



[edit on 10/3/2008 by semperfortis]

First to dispense with all the pleasantries let me thank all who have helped with this. For with out the help of others this debate would not be here. So to those that deserve the credit THANK YOU!

Now I shall be arguing for corporate tax breaks as the back bone of this economy from the pro position.

To that end let me share a few definitions.

Webster's Encyclopedic dictionary defines a corporation as : an association of individuals that become able, legally , to act as one entity under a common name. A corporation constitutes its existence even though its membership may change. It may engage in business, or it may be a charitable enterprise or a social religious organization. It can own property, can sue or be sued. The extent of its activities are shown in a charter that is given by the federal or state government.

The new dictionary of thoughts has this to say : Today it is generally recognized that all corporations possess an element of the public interest. A corporation director must think not only of the share holders but also of the laborer, the supplier, the purchaser, and the ultimate consumer. Our Economy is but a chain which can be no stronger than any one of its links. We all stand together or fall together in our high industrialized society of today.


A corporation can provide charity to hurricane victims and make profit from providing the service of waste management. When people come together to incorporate a company, then a great many things can be accomplished. By providing Tax breaks or incentives to said corporations even greater things may be accomplished. More people may be employed, more victims helped, more good done for the public interests. By freeing up a corporations budget it enables a corporation to reinvest into the communities and markets it serves.


My screen name is titorite and I approve this message.

I offer my thanks to all involved. And especially to you, the readers and judges, may you find wisdom, knowledge, and perhaps a little entertainment in my esteemed opponent's research, as well as mine.

I will be taking on the con position of: “Corporate Tax Breaks are the Backbone of a Strong and Healthy Economy.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it somewhat ironic that my opponent looks to the products of incorporated entities for the definition of the word “corporation”. Much like asking a scoundrel what his or her occupation is, you are more than likely not going to receive a definition that would call into question his or her true nature.

The corporation is a legal contrivance of exploitative mercantilism. One that was foisted upon the common markets of the world by those who stood to gain from the vagaries of the definition provided by those ‘corporate’ scholars empowered to define them, like the people who publish books with definitions, or those who pen the law.

Imagine, if you will, the scene behind the first truly successful business that could be rightly considered to be owned and operated by more than one person. Can you see the difficulties that someone seeking to sue their business must, by definition face, as each owner says "Not me!" If a judge makes them all split the cost of satisfying a 'transgression', it would surely represent an injustice, had only one of the business owners actually been responsible for the act. But even more so, had that one person in fact been operating in customary good faith on behalf of the whole business entity, how can he rightly be singled out? The risk belongs to the business, not the owners. Such was the birth of what we call "(in)corporation."

It has gone downhill ever since that moment, culminating in the ultimate "Taxation without representation" on the people of the United States, the "Corporate tax breaks" -a slap in the face to American already bleeding wealth for the benefit of, to put it most kindly, anyone but themselves.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the end of the analysis, the ultimate goal is to maximize corporate revenue; and I often find myself wondering what has that to do with my benefit?

I ask because, you see, I am paying for it; (in their place.) Whatever they offer me in return, be it a societal benefit or not, they are effectively, being paid for it. That is not charity, that is not corporate citizenship, that is not social consciousness.., that is BUSINESS. Tax benefits for BUSINESS, not for the citizen who bears the financial burden, defies redefinition into 'a break'.

Unless of course you say it thusly, "Corporate Tax Break (the backs of the citizen)."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There have been confrontations between the market and the corporation, and at times it has become clear exactly what the ‘true nature’ of a corporation is. Much of the corporate communities efforts are geared towards changing what is evidenced in reality, into what is desired by the market as a best case scenario.

Corporate engineers of the past have encountered difficulties which have stopped them from taking advantage of the aforementioned vagaries. In fact, the United States of America in particular, had been, for a short period, the bane of brutal corporate exploitation – which is the corporations’ ultimate effect within any free market. Famous industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller refused to set up their businesses as corporations, opting instead for ‘limited partnership’ and ‘trust’ respectively, later we shall see why.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It will become necessary to understand what the difference is between what we have been told MUST be the functioning of the free market economy and the arbitrary controls and axiomatic dogma the corporatists have described as the necessity of business.

But the first point of understanding should be this:
Corporations are persons, yet they are immortal
Corporations are not actually ‘owned’ by their shareholders,
Corporations have no real liability since they cannot be ‘punished’ as a person,
Corporations are effectively a way to remove guilt from the actions of those directing its operation,
Corporations are not required to be loyal or commit allegiance to the nation or state that charters them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corporation structure is one aspect of the problem, but more than that, it is the natural goal of self-serving aggrandizement and increasing wealth and power that drives it to engage the government, to control or change policy, and finally, to control the people’s wealth and resources.

As they are forced by common demand or circumstance to actually participate as a member of society they ‘recast’ the action as a favor to society and expect compensation or consideration of an extraordinary nature – such as “tax-breaks”. Nearly every tax-break offered to a corporate entity is a clear demonstration of the status this legal ‘person’ has extending its benefits beyond those of the living citizens, while burdening the citizens with the cost of its’ ‘break’.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thank you for taking the time to read my opening post.

ask for the extra 24 hours at this time.

“Corporate Tax Breaks are the Backbone of a Strong and Healthy Economy.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to paraphrase this assertion. I believe that the crux of any argument supporting such a contrivance as a ‘’tax break” must depend on false or misconstrued understandings of the reasoning behind the statement. The more important unspoken inference I get from this statement is that we are not limited to discussing a particular state, or sovereign entity. Instead we are discussing, without limitation, that “tax breaks” are a critical component of any economy. Because I believe this is patently impossible to justify within such a limited venue (given the wide variety of economic applications and governmental forms), I would like to propose, we impose a limitation of the discussion to the United States. Lacking explicit agreement on this point, I will proceed in this first post do operate under that limitation. Should my opponent wish to expand the debate I will follow suit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legally limited liability is the cornerstone of incorporation, the status of the business in question, is that of an immortal citizen, which has the right to sue (or be sued) for redress of grievances, while shielding its principle beneficiaries from personal accountability for the actions or impact of the conduct of its business. It creates a legally recognized entity or person to shield the ‘living citizen(s)’ who control it.

Taxes are a form of levy, imposed by the government on its citizens in order to secure revenue for the operation of the government in pursuit of its mandate. In the case of the states within the US, these revenues are primarily applied (generally speaking) for the services that each state provides to its citizens. At the Federal level, we can demonstrate that taxes levied are accumulated and applied solely to pay interest on the debt the Federal government has incurred with the Federal Reserve Bank.

The notion of the economy is one that embraces the creation of currency and the amount of revenue flowing within our markets and between citizens, as well as the rate of interest imposed by lending institutions. Economics may, or may not, address the structural relationships of production and consumption; but according to our friendly Wikipedia:

An economy is the realized social system of production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other area. A given economy is the end result of a process that involves its technological evolution, civilization's history and social organization, as well as its geography, resource endowment, and ecology, among other factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have highlighted certain words in the above excerpt to bring them into context with the assertion that:

“Corporate Tax Breaks are the Backbone of a Strong and Healthy Economy.”

…social system of production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services

How could the financial benefit, in the form of tax avoidance, of any corporate entity have such far reaching goals as to positively affect the “social system of production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services?”

…end result of a process..

To assert that somehow the process itself benefits from by reducing the tax burden on a particular citizen or class of citizens, particularly a corporation, is a long way from a well-founded concept. The implication that corporate well-being equates to economic well-being defies acceptance unless the state itself is THE corporation, operating on a limited liability business model, and more importantly, for profit.

…in which an economy functions…

Evidently the contextual aspect of the economy is defined by factors which exist as separate and apart from the corporate citizen. Which is to say the corporate citizen is not a NECESSITY of the economy, but instead an element of one sub-component of the society which provides its framework.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on this alone I can state that since the corporation is an irrelevancy to a strong economy the assertion flies in the face of logic. It is akin to stating that the well being of the King is the backbone of a strong and healthy economy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But there are certain paradigms and ‘givens’ that we might challenge which further diminishes the notion of the necessity of ‘tax breaks’ for corporate entities.

"Tax Breaks" are often the result of tireless lobbying by people who's vocation is to use financial resources to influence government to change the rules, and extend special considerations to a particular corporate interest. The purpose is to benefit the corporate agenda. In a capitalist market, free or otherwise, the goal is profit.

These 'breaks' are touted as efforts to make attractive to businesses to operate within the state, thus increasing revenue flow, tax contributions, employment (leading to more tax revenue in the US), and increasing the well-being of the community in general. Yet none of those goals are consistent with the purpose of the corporation to increase profit.

What the 'breaks' do is increase profit by reducing the amount of tax a corporation must contribute. Interestingly, who ultimately bares the actual tax "burden" is a function of the marketplace, as corporations roll their tax liability into costs that are passed on to the consumers.

The break is just "icing on the cake" so-to-speak. And does nothing to help the economy other than move the burden away from corporations (the few) and pass it to the living citizens (the many).

I will not belabor the numbers, but the proof is in the pudding. Tax breaks may be a reason for a corporations to establish themselves within a certain state as opposed to another, but beyond that, their net effect is tax avoidance, and not corporate citizenship, as most trade associations and conglomerate entities strive so diligently to have us accept as true.

reply to post by Maxmars



......In todays unsteady financial world the proof has been in the pudding of the last few days. With the Corporations getting the LARGEST tax break bail out ever and everything still tanking.....All I can say is I forfeit. My apologies, but my heart just isn't in it.

Debate Closed:

Forfeit goes to Maxmars

Semper