FundRobot » Funding Sources » Do you see the problem with not charging a corporation taxes, and letting them pay a wage so low, you have to?

Reply
Old   #1 (permalink)
 
Posts: 2,613
Default see the problem with not charging a corporation taxes, and letting them pay a wage so low, you have to

subsidize their employees income?

PrettyHot88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old   #2 (permalink)
 
Posts: 2,546
Default see the problem with not charging a corporation taxes, and letting them pay a wage so low, you have to

It's obvious to some, but for capitalism apologists, witness the institutional distortions they reflexively use to justify capitalism which continues to depend on underpaid, slave-like wages and unenforced bank fraud regulations meant to protect banks from external fraud, yet do nothing to protect depositors from internally generated illegal systematic bankster greed.

Wal-mart is the perfect example for your proposition/inquiry, underpaid employees are given hiring instructions on how to apply for government necessity programs, because Wal-mart knows in advance that their employment model is designed to subsidize their meager "stipend" of a paycheck with readily available government necessity program funds which Wal-mart has agreed in advance that Wal-mart would lose a miniscule profit margin if they ever voluntarily paid a living wage, how sick is that.....
Beauty2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
more..
Old   #3 (permalink)
 
Posts: 2,643
Default see the problem with not charging a corporation taxes, and letting them pay a wage so low, you have to

have to what? I don't understand your question
Happiness45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old   #4 (permalink)
 
Posts: 2,512
Default see the problem with not charging a corporation taxes, and letting them pay a wage so low, you have to

the former has no relation to the latter - the only problem here is with your logic.
PC_4Ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old   #5 (permalink)
 
Posts: 2,578
Default see the problem with not charging a corporation taxes, and letting them pay a wage so low, you have to

If a corporation paid $1 billion dollars in deferred taxes this year and deferred this year's taxes for any number of legitimate reasons, then the corporation will be documented as having paid zero taxes for the fiscal year. It’s called accounting. Take a course it’s not that tough. Companies use deferment for a number of reasons and it is perfectly legal.
Boeing is a prime example. They invested huge sums of capital in equipment and plants and “wrote off” millions as a result of the accelerated depreciation allowance permitted by law. They also hired over 9,000 new workers. This permitted them to dramatically offset their tax liability in the current year but will increase their liability in future years. Why? Because it allows them to stay in business (i.e. stay competitive in a brutal global environment) and keep thousands of Americans employed. And, let’s face it, only employed Americans can pay income taxes.
With regard to who's paying their “fair share” of taxes... The misinformed are screaming that billionaires are not paying their fair share. Fair? Define "Fair" and based on what accounting? Only a moron would compare percentages with actual dollars when it comes to collecting taxes. For example:
Warren Buffet (after write-offs) paid 12% in taxes, but he actually paid over $7 million dollars in taxes last year. Seven million dollars! His secretary paid 24% or… about $15,000. So, let’s be realistic here. Regardless of the percentages, I'm positive Mr. Buffet didn't consume 450 times the services and benefits afforded us through our taxes than his secretary did. And let’s face facts people, … Every single employee of Buffet's or Boeing pays taxes out of their own paycheck, but who really provides that money? The person or the company? The employee cannot generate that revenue without the company , so people should get over worrying about what percentage the corporations and rich are paying. They are paying 100's of times their fair share in actual dollars to support the tax burden of this country and if large corporations are forced to shut down because they are being taxed out of business, then how much in taxes do you think the thousands of unemployed will pay the following year? Oh wait, we're finding that out right now, aren't we?

Think about this: If you could deposit into your bank account 12% of what Warren Buffet earns a year, or 24% of what his secretary makes, which amount would you want? What dollar amount would you choose? Exactly.
Why kids in Junior High School understand this and Leaders in DC don’t is beyond me, but it does explain why we are in the situation we are in now, doesn’t it? Look at your own bills. If you spend more than you make, do you really think borrowing more will solve the problem? Look, John F. Kennedy was correct when he lowered taxes across the board and said:
"Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy."
More taxes means giving more money to people who spend more money. Less taxes means electing those willing to set a budget and spend less while allowing you to save and invest more. Who do you want controlling your checkbook? You, or your government? Talk to anyone who is in debt and then talk with someone who isn't. Who do you think has a problem? Exactly…
CallMeNow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools