Westboro members' tires slashed, town shops refuse to repair

[Wild Cobra]

Mandatory military service leapt out at me too, but let's not forget WC may construe it as an "egalitarian" plank. All serve equally, regardless of social status.

You should read my words again and not interject your bias. I said "incentive." There was no implication of it being mandatory.

[Wild Cobra]

My favorite part is not taxing corporations. Give them all the rights of a person but none of the responsibilities.

The shareholders will get taxed on what would be their stock income. As it is, they get taxed twice. They get taxed on their property (percentage of the corporation) then they get taxed on their dividend and/or capital gains income.

This taxation of corporations is one thing that keeps us from being compe ive in the world marketplace. This cost must be passed onto the consumer, making both our prices and exports more expensive. We need to take every step we can to compete better in this global marketplace.

[Wild Cobra]

At what point does the business begin to show discrimination against the Westboro Church? It's a fine line, not sure I'd celebrate it with a beer summit. But hey, you'd buy him a beer anyway? Maybe that shop owner should run for President!

Many businesses display a sign that reads to the effect: "We reserve the right to refuse anyone service." To force a private business to service anyone would be to take away the business' rights.

PS: WTF @ "radical changes that would bring us to more equal status." Please explain, WC, because that sounds mighty collectivist. Change? Why undo 20 years of awesomeness?

I'm not going to get more into that in this thread. It's a tangent. Start a new thread if interested. I'll just address short points that are of what I said, but not many more of them either.

[Wild Cobra]

WalMart for fixing their tires. Looks like I won't be doing any Christmas shopping there this year.

At least write them a letter explaining why, else your lack of purchases will go unnoticed.

[Drachen]

WC if you advocate 0% taxes for corporations under the "twice taxed" argument, do you advocate taking away their rights as a person?? After all, the owners are people and get those rights, therefore they should not be "twice personed".

[coyotes_geek]

My favorite part is not taxing corporations. Give them all the rights of a person but none of the responsibilities.

Corporate taxes either get passed along to consumers or corporations move operations (read: jobs) elsewhere to avoid paying them. So what are we really accomplishing with high corporate tax rates? If it's little more than a warm fuzzy over some perception that we're punishing those big meany corps then it's not worth it IMO. Granted I'm not in favor of going all the way to 0% like WC is, but I do think cutting the corporate tax rate significantly is more than justified.

[Duff McCartney]

Corporate taxes either get passed along to consumers or corporations move operations (read: jobs) elsewhere to avoid paying them. So what are we really accomplishing with high corporate tax rates? If it's little more than a warm fuzzy over some perception that we're punishing those big meany corps then it's not worth it IMO. Granted I'm not in favor of going all the way to 0% like WC is, but I do think cutting the corporate tax rate significantly is more than justified.

Do you really believe that a corporation..whose sole purpose is to make a profit is really going to bring jobs here if we remove the tax "burden" they have? no they won't. They will just keep their jobs in a place where there is no tax burden AND they don't have to adhere to a minimum wage like they do here.

The classic capitalist example of lowering costs is to slash wages, or to look for lower wages elsewhere.

[coyotes_geek]

Do you really believe that a corporation..whose sole purpose is to make a profit is really going to bring jobs here if we remove the tax "burden" they have? no they won't. They will just keep their jobs in a place where there is no tax burden AND they don't have to adhere to a minimum wage like they do here.

The classic capitalist example of lowering costs is to slash wages, or to look for lower wages elsewhere.

Corporations are going to structure their operations in whatever way is most advantageous to them. So the question relative to corporate tax rates is what can the government do with corporate tax rates to make the U.S. a more advantageous place to do business in? Especially considering how whatever taxes corporations do pay are in fact paid by consumers.

[Wild Cobra]

WC if you advocate 0% taxes for corporations under the "twice taxed" argument, do you advocate taking away their rights as a person?? After all, the owners are people and get those rights, therefore they should not be "twice personed".

I'm not sure what you mean. A corporate en y shouldn't be treated like a person, but at the same time, you cannot violate what is inherently the stock owners rights.

[LnGrrrR]

Maybe just me..... I'm not ok with someone else destroying the property of law abiding citizens exercising their rights.

Understandable, and you're the better man for it. However, I can't have much sympathy for assholes like that.

[LnGrrrR]

But I want to remove the authoritarian programs. There's the difference.

And replace them with others just as authoritarian, like "incentivized" military service and trade protection laws.

Edit: Changed "forced" to "incentivized". Although, there are already incentives to join the military, so not sure what else you'd add.

[Wild Cobra]

And replace them with others just as authoritarian, like "incentivized" military service and trade protection laws.

Edit: Changed "forced" to "incentivized". Although, there are already incentives to join the military, so not sure what else you'd add.

We disagree on what authoritarian is. I'm not going to argue that in this thread.

[LnGrrrR]

We disagree on what authoritarian is. I'm not going to argue that in this thread.

You mean to say that you disagree with what the majority of the world has determined is authoritarian.

[Duff McCartney]

Corporations are going to structure their operations in whatever way is most advantageous to them. So the question relative to corporate tax rates is what can the government do with corporate tax rates to make the U.S. a more advantageous place to do business in? Especially considering how whatever taxes corporations do pay are in fact paid by consumers.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. On one hand you say that corporations are going to structure their operations in what is most advantageous to them. But yet you want the government to not tax them or reduce the rate at which they do.

But as I said before, why would they bring jobs here even if we do remove taxes when the wages are high? Why wouldn't they go somewhere where the wages are low and there are no corporate tax rates? The answer is they most definitely would.

I don't think it's fair to say that lowering or eliminating corporate tax rates would be an incentive to bring jobs here when they still have to pay higher wages than most of the developing world.

Corporations are going to structure themselves in what is most advantageous to them. And that's going to be not paying taxes AND paying low wages for labor. That's just the nature of capitalism.

[ElNono]

This taxation of corporations is one thing that keeps us from being compe ive in the world marketplace. This cost must be passed onto the consumer, making both our prices and exports more expensive. We need to take every step we can to compete better in this global marketplace.

That doesn't make sense. Did you actually think before writing that?

[ElNono]

But I want to remove the authoritarian programs. There's the difference.

By being authoritarian...

[Wild Cobra]

That doesn't make sense. Did you actually think before writing that?

Yes.

Apparently you don't understand that the business cost of taxation is passed on to the consumers.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. On one hand you say that corporations are going to structure their operations in what is most advantageous to them. But yet you want the government to not tax them or reduce the rate at which they do.

But as I said before, why would they bring jobs here even if we do remove taxes when the wages are high? Why wouldn't they go somewhere where the wages are low and there are no corporate tax rates? The answer is they most definitely would.

I don't think it's fair to say that lowering or eliminating corporate tax rates would be an incentive to bring jobs here when they still have to pay higher wages than most of the developing world.

Corporations are going to structure themselves in what is most advantageous to them. And that's going to be not paying taxes AND paying low wages for labor. That's just the nature of capitalism.

I'm saying that high corporate income tax rates serve no purpose. The funds used to pay those taxes come from us anyways, and all they do is incentivize companies to look for ways to avoid them. Lowering corporate tax rates isn't the cure-all that's going to bring all our manufacturing jobs back (sadly, there isn't one). But lower corporate tax rates certainly stand a much better chance of achieving something positive than high ones do. Maybe it's a few jobs, maybe it's freeing up cash for R&D, maybe it's even incentivizing some overseas company to move their HQ here to avoid higher corporate tax rates from somewhere else. Given the definitive trend domestically of companies relocating out of high tax states like California and into low tax states like Texas, I don't see why something similar couldn't be achieved on an international level.

[Duff McCartney]

I'm saying that high corporate income tax rates serve no purpose. The funds used to pay those taxes come from us anyways, and all they do is incentivize companies to look for ways to avoid them. Lowering corporate tax rates isn't the cure-all that's going to bring all our manufacturing jobs back (sadly, there isn't one). But lower corporate tax rates certainly stand a much better chance of achieving something positive than high ones do. Maybe it's a few jobs, maybe it's freeing up cash for R&D, maybe it's even incentivizing some overseas company to move their HQ here to avoid higher corporate tax rates from somewhere else. Given the definitive trend domestically of companies relocating out of high tax states like California and into low tax states like Texas, I don't see why something similar couldn't be achieved on an international level.

I think because state to state movement is different than country to country. A company moving from California to Texas would still pay the same wages so it would be beneficial to them. However a company moving from China to the U.S. would pay higher wages and corporate taxes.

I don't think having lower corporate taxes would do much of anything. I'm willing to argue that the cost of labor is more important than any taxes. That's why I think no matter if you get rid of the taxes, the more important aspect is the cost of labor.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't think having lower corporate taxes would do much of anything. I'm willing to argue that the cost of labor is more important than any taxes. That's why I think no matter if you get rid of the taxes, the more important aspect is the cost of labor.

If we're speaking strictly to manufacturing jobs, I agree.