• GOP Agenda: Unions, Lawsuits, Abortion, School Choice
    55 replies, posted
[QUOTE]— Allow people to carry concealed guns without needing permits or going through training.[/QUOTE] I'm pro gun and umm [B]no fucking thanks lol[/B]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51584483]] What the fuck is this?[/QUOTE] "Trickle-down isn't working because corporations can't keep [I]all[/I] of their money so let's try this!"
Oh man, Gilded Age 2.0. I can't wait. [sp]not[/sp]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51584483] What the fuck is this?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zero-Point;51584999]"Trickle-down isn't working because corporations can't keep [I]all[/I] of their money so let's try this!"[/QUOTE] Corporate tax is extremely destructive. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, excluding the United Arab Emirates.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51583375]We Americans love our fantasies, one of which is that we'll be the badass hero that saves the day by shooting a mass shooter while not hitting innocents, not mistakenly shooting another good guy that gets out a gun, and not being shot by another good guy with a gun who sees you shooting and assumes you're the bad guy.[/QUOTE] Personally I just like being able to have a tool that makes me equally as mean as the meanest mother fucker trying to kill me, as unlikely as it'll be to happen. But it happens to someone
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51584484]Prepare for a rise of liberalism. Happens every time after the opposite party has an absolute majority.[/QUOTE] The extreme s after each swing gets more intense. Which is very concerning
[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51585410]Corporate tax is extremely destructive. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, excluding the United Arab Emirates.[/QUOTE] It's one of the few things I've found essentially every economist agreeing upon. Though, what the Republicans are doing is pretty asinine, the argument for axing corporate income taxes is that you go after the rich another way that doesn't hurt corporations for doing business, not that you just give up that money completely. Though, it's not the highest in the world. On paper, yes. But there's a whole series of deductions and whatnots that make the effective rate much much lower, to just slightly below the rest of the world's average (here's a [URL="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41743.pdf"]source[/URL]) [QUOTE=Guriosity;51585500]The extreme s after each swing gets more intense. Which is very concerning[/QUOTE] No more liberalism pls give me some social democracy. [QUOTE=TheTalon;51585420]Personally I just like being able to have a tool that makes me equally as mean as the meanest mother fucker trying to kill me, as unlikely as it'll be to happen. But it happens to someone[/QUOTE] Which is true, and I strongly support gun rights. But on a society-wide level I find the benefits pretty lacking and the shameful thing about this is is that it's ignoring actual causes behind our gun violence problems.
[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51585410]Corporate tax is extremely destructive. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, excluding the United Arab Emirates.[/QUOTE] if you completely ignore how much they dodge, yes
[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51585410]Corporate tax is extremely destructive. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, excluding the United Arab Emirates.[/QUOTE] That's because corporations there use loopholes and lobbying to circumvent them which leads to taxes being raised to compensate which in turns damage small businesses. If their government wasn't chock full of corporate sellouts they would actually do something to enforce the rules and this wouldn't be an issue. Makes sense that those same corporate lapdogs would propose to get rid of the taxes altogether.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51585501]Though, it's not the highest in the world. On paper, yes. But there's a whole series of deductions and whatnots that make the effective rate much much lower, to just slightly below the rest of the world's average (here's a [URL="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41743.pdf"]source[/URL]) No more liberalism pls give me some social democracy. Which is true, and I strongly support gun rights. But on a society-wide level I find the benefits pretty lacking and the shameful thing about this is is that it's ignoring actual causes behind our gun violence problems.[/QUOTE] That's interesting. Seems to me like American tax code needs to be drastically reformed for clarity and effectiveness. [QUOTE=_Axel;51585527]That's because corporations there use loopholes and lobbying to circumvent them which leads to taxes being raised to compensate which in turns damage small businesses. If their government wasn't chock full of corporate sellouts they would actually do something to enforce the rules and this wouldn't be an issue. Makes sense that those same corporate lapdogs would propose to get rid of the taxes altogether.[/QUOTE] [I]Corporate[/I] tax should be gotten rid of all together. If I own a large corporation that provides jobs to thousands of people and all profit is invested back into the company, why should the corporation itself be taxed, limiting growth and competitiveness on the global market? Corporate tax doesn't target the rich, it hurts everyone.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51584483]] What the fuck is this? Then there's this, which could really truly go either way so we really don't know what's going to happen in that regard. That might be anti business, or it might be pro. The jurisdiction limitation is interesting but it's going to be seen how that plays out. I mean who remembers that town in Texas that Samsung built an outdoor ice rink for?[/QUOTE] number 2 is interesting because that cuts directly against the GOP's business interests unless its a double meaning and theyre arguing against allowing cases to be brought against companies outside of deleware where the courts are traditionally business friendly
[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51585560][I]Corporate[/I] tax should be gotten rid of all together. If I own a large corporation that provides jobs to thousands of people and all profit is invested back into the company, why should the corporation itself be taxed, limiting growth and competitiveness on the global market? Corporate tax doesn't target the rich, it hurts everyone.[/QUOTE] Because just like everyone else (and even a lot more than everyone else in some cases), corporations make use of publicly founded services and infrastructure. It's no use for them to have a fleet of trucks for ware transfer if they have no road to drive them on. If a fire breaks out in one of their factories, who goes and control/extinguish the fire if not the local firefighters? Why should individuals bear the entirety of taxes when they aren't the only ones to benefit from public spending? Also I'm kinda tired of the whole "corporations are being generous by providing jobs" narrative. Jobs aren't wares, companies don't give them out like one would give out food. It's the other way around, [I]employees[/I] are the ones who offer their productivity so that companies can turn a profit. Just like there can't be growth without companies, there can't be growth without workers. Would you say the latter should be tax exempt too?
[QUOTE=_Axel;51585787]Because just like everyone else (and even a lot more than everyone else in some cases), corporations make use of publicly founded services and infrastructure. It's no use for them to have a fleet of trucks for ware transfer if they have no road to drive them on. If a fire breaks out in one of their factories, who goes and control/extinguish the fire if not the local firefighters? Why should individuals bear the entirety of taxes when they aren't the only ones to benefit from public spending? Also I'm kinda tired of the whole "corporations are being generous by providing jobs" narrative. Jobs aren't wares, companies don't give them out like one would give out food. It's the other way around, [I]employees[/I] are the ones who offer their productivity so that companies can turn a profit. Just like there can't be growth without companies, there can't be growth without workers. Would you say the latter should be tax exempt too?[/QUOTE] There's other ways to recoup those costs, such as LVT (taxed based on the land you utilize,) other taxes on what businesses do (consumption,) and just making it up elsewhere. Corporate income taxes taxes wind up pushing wages down, costs up, and lower returns on capital investment. Which ties into the idea that by axing the corporate income tax, you create a much more efficient economy due to lower prices, higher wages and capital gains returns, and then you can hit people with the taxes and overall gain more while leaving people better off. So it's also not falling into the myth of the wealthy graciously providing us jobs, because the intent is still to tax them.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51585841]There's other ways to recoup those costs, such as LVT (taxed based on the land you utilize,) other taxes on what businesses do (consumption,) and just making it up elsewhere.[/QUOTE] And? None of these things adequately tax corporations proportionally to their use of public services. LVT? You want to tax owners of parking lots the same as those who own high-tech factories? Mere land ownership covers very little of what a company actually uses in terms of public amenities. Consumption taxes? Then those who make use of domestic services but exclusively export their goods pay nothing. Funny you mention those, by the way. VAT ends up affecting the lower class more than the rest. "Just making it up elsewhere", lol. How does that make companies pay for the services they use? Am I really the only one here who thinks it's pretty fucked that it's the individuals who have to pay in the companies' stead to have a shot at being employed and actually benefit from the growth you all seem to be focused on? [Quote]Corporate income taxes taxes wind up pushing wages down, costs up, and lower returns on capital investment.[/quote] As opposed to not taxing them which puts the entirety of public funding on the shoulders of individuals? Not sure your option is the best choice for actual people rather than companies. [Quote]Which ties into the idea that by axing the corporate income tax, you create a much more efficient economy due to lower prices, higher wages and capital gains returns, and then you can hit people with the taxes and overall gain more while leaving people better off. So it's also not falling into the myth of the wealthy graciously providing us jobs, because the intent is still to tax them.[/QUOTE] Your plan hinges on taxing the rich cunts who secure their shit off-shore? That's some pretty wishful thinking. At least companies are obligated to somewhat contribute if they want to operate domestically. [editline]26th December 2016[/editline] Also, keep in kind I was responding to someone who says we should get rid of corporate tax altogether. There might be a better alternative to income tax, I don't think those you propose are adequate though.
[QUOTE]Lengthen the time women must wait to have an abortion after receiving counseling about its effects.[/QUOTE] Can we not employ trying to [probably] scare people out of doing things as a means to an end?
[QUOTE=Xyrofen;51585989]Can we not employ trying to [probably] scare people out of doing things as a means to an end?[/QUOTE] Eventually they'll lengthen the waiting time enough to the point where it'll be de facto illegal because the fetus would be old enough to have brain activity and thus actually alive. This is going to be such a shitshow these next 4 years and I doubt the majority of Republican voters would vote left next election even if they end up ass raped by corporate first policies.
[QUOTE=SleepyAl;51586039]Eventually they'll lengthen the waiting time enough to the point where it'll be de facto illegal because the fetus would be old enough to have brain activity and thus actually alive. This is going to be such a shitshow these next 4 years and I doubt the majority of Republican voters would vote left next election even if they end up ass raped by corporate first policies.[/QUOTE] That's the part that's depressing about the current state of democracy. Things are so extremely polarized that the number of people who actually examine their voting choices are near nil. It would take an unthinkably massive social upheaval to get people to reconsider.
[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51585410]Corporate tax is extremely destructive. The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, excluding the United Arab Emirates.[/QUOTE] It's higher because we tax our individuals less than we do businesses, also we are only third highest. In Europe corporations are taxed less to keep them from incorporating elsewhere so they tax the citizens more than what we do here to pay for their healthcare and education.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51583099]The only thing on that list that can have any good to it is school choice, seeing how it had some success in Newark and allowed parents to pull their kids out of terrible schools and send them to better ones when before that they had to suck it up and couldn't do anything about it.[/QUOTE] just an excuse not to actually fix the quality of the low funded schools (because that would cost money), especially when part of school choice is the ability to get government help to go to private or chartered schools (usually you don't get enough to pay all of it, just a bit, so you end up getting screwed with debt anyways). The Republican part is trying to systematically destroy free education through underfunding and replacement with charter and private schools
[QUOTE=_Axel;51585787]Because just like everyone else (and even a lot more than everyone else in some cases), corporations make use of publicly founded services and infrastructure. It's no use for them to have a fleet of trucks for ware transfer if they have no road to drive them on. If a fire breaks out in one of their factories, who goes and control/extinguish the fire if not the local firefighters? Why should individuals bear the entirety of taxes when they aren't the only ones to benefit from public spending?[/QUOTE] Corporations [I]are[/I] individuals, often groups of them, that cooperate in organizing resources to create value. Literally everyone who benefits from it are already taxed - employees and shareholders through income tax, customers through sales tax, in turn burdening the profitability and viability of the company. In this, everyone involved pay their share in taxes. Indirectly decreasing salaries, shareholder profit and increasing prices on goods and services through a "corporation tax" is arbitrary and confusing, the increased bureaucracy likely putting smaller businesses at a competative disadvantage. [QUOTE=_Axel;51585787]Also I'm kinda tired of the whole "corporations are being generous by providing jobs" narrative. Jobs aren't wares, companies don't give them out like one would give out food. It's the other way around, [I]employees[/I] are the ones who offer their productivity so that companies can turn a profit. Just like there can't be growth without companies, there can't be growth without workers. Would you say the latter should be tax exempt too?[/QUOTE] Again, your personification of a "company" separate from employees isn't true.
[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51587169] Again, your personification of a "company" separate from employees isn't true.[/QUOTE] That would only be true if all employees of a corporation had a say in it. Otherwise, a corporation can onlybe considered to be an individual, as much as a country could be - only based on their leader(s).
[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51587169]Corporations [I]are[/I] individuals, often groups of them, that cooperate in organizing resources to create value. Literally everyone who benefits from it are already taxed - employees and shareholders through income tax, customers through sales tax, in turn burdening the profitability and viability of the company. In this, everyone involved pay their share in taxes. Indirectly decreasing salaries, shareholder profit and increasing prices on goods and services through a "corporation tax" is arbitrary and confusing, the increased bureaucracy likely putting smaller businesses at a competative disadvantage. Again, your personification of a "company" separate from employees isn't true.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood[/url] Companies in the US are defined as people for better or for worse. If they want to reap the ill gotten gains/rights from being considered a person they better pay their damn taxes too.
[QUOTE=1239the;51586261]That's the part that's depressing about the current state of democracy. Things are so extremely polarized that the number of people who actually examine their voting choices are near nil. It would take an unthinkably massive social upheaval to get people to reconsider.[/QUOTE] Render unto ceaear what is ceasars and render unto God what is gods. This what Jesus said when offered a trick question. Instead of picking choices offered to him, he created a third option. Why this a difficult concept to under stand?
I'm generally (tentatively) okay with eliminating a corporate income tax, so long as it is replaced by high taxes on the wealthy, revocation of corporate personhood, and legislation that mandates that companies reinvest at least x% of their income per year. Apple hoarding their wealth and not reinvesting it actively hurts the economy. Taxation is supposed to be a cure for that, but in global markets companies can just shift paperwork around and dodge that. Make it so that companies who operate in the US must reinvest x% of their profits back into their company, or through charitable donations. Otherwise corporations can just hoard wealth endlessly and we have the same problem we've always had.
[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51587169]Corporations [I]are[/I] individuals, often groups of them, that cooperate in organizing resources to create value. Literally everyone who benefits from it are already taxed - employees and shareholders through income tax, customers through sales tax, in turn burdening the profitability and viability of the company. In this, everyone involved pay their share in taxes.[/quote] Not really, no. A CEO's salary isn't representative of a company's usage of services. Same for shareholders. The proportions of profits that are given as dividend vary from company to company. As a result a company that decides not to give away dividends or didn't sell any shares would pay much less than those who do. While the companies which make such sacrifices should probably be given tax rebates, it shouldn't be to the point of using public services free of charge. I mean technically turnover would be more representative of a company's use of infrastructures, but it's also more fair to tax entities based on the wealth they actually have at their disposal. [Quote]Indirectly decreasing salaries, shareholder profit and increasing prices on goods and services through a "corporation tax" is arbitrary and confusing, the increased bureaucracy likely putting smaller businesses at a competative disadvantage.[/quote] It's not confusing or arbitrary, I just explained why. Any entity that makes use of services and can contribute must do so to some extent. Such taxes only hurt small businesses more when politicians gracefully let large corporations use loopholes to dodge them, effectively puttingore of the burden on them. [Quote]Again, your personification of a "company" separate from employees isn't true.[/QUOTE] It pretty much is if you look at the legal aspects.
[quote]Allow people with concealed gun permits to carry weapons on college campuses. — Reduce the costs for concealed gun permits and ensure that permits from one state are recognized elsewhere. —[B] Allow people to carry concealed guns without needing permits or going through training.[/B][/quote] What. Why would they push for making ccw permits apply to all states if they become basically useless? CCW permits really should have state reciprocity by now, but holy fuck that last bit is a [U]horrible[/u] idea. It would do far more damage to gun rights than any gun control bill which could be feasibly passed. Does anyone have a secondary source on that?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.