BGFalcons82;742616 wrote:YESSSS!! No corporate taxes.
No income taxes.
No phone taxes.
No capital gains taxes.
No Death Tax.
No Gas Tax.
No FICA Tax.
No employer match of the FICA tax.
No FEDERAL TAXES WHATSOEVER!!

Everybody is flailing about regarding GE paying no taxes, yet making tens of billions in profits. Dig deeper. Why? The answer lies in the hundreds of people GE employs to look at ways AROUND paying taxes. They are legally doing what the tax code drafters, i.e. the IRS, have FORCED them to do. Do NOT be mad at GE, they are merely living by the rules given to them by our elitist rulers, whom designate who wins (pays no taxes) and loses (pays taxes as penalties). There are only a couple solutions to win this class war that has been raging since 1913. One is the flat tax, wherein everybody pays the same rate across the board with no deductions, no credits, no qualifications, and no protected classes. The other way is to tax consumption through the...

www.fairtax.org

I think you just want no Federal government at all. In which case why have the United States?

And I don't think a flat tax would work.

I do agree on the bolded though.

BGFalcons82;742616 wrote:YESSSS!! No corporate taxes.
No income taxes.
No phone taxes.
No capital gains taxes.
No Death Tax.
No Gas Tax.
No FICA Tax.
No employer match of the FICA tax.
No FEDERAL TAXES WHATSOEVER!!

Everybody is flailing about regarding GE paying no taxes, yet making tens of billions in profits. Dig deeper. Why? The answer lies in the hundreds of people GE employs to look at ways AROUND paying taxes. They are legally doing what the tax code drafters, i.e. the IRS, have FORCED them to do. Do NOT be mad at GE, they are merely living by the rules given to them by our elitist rulers, whom designate who wins (pays no taxes) and loses (pays taxes as penalties). There are only a couple solutions to win this class war that has been raging since 1913. One is the flat tax, wherein everybody pays the same rate across the board with no deductions, no credits, no qualifications, and no protected classes. The other way is to tax consumption through the...

www.fairtax.org

And how would we pay for our crumbling roads, bridges, electric lines, police, fire, hospitals, etc.?

Come on, there has to be some sort of tax in today's world. Does the system need reformed, yes of course. It hasn't been updated since the 1980s. It is really outdated and needs simplified. But, a fairtax or flat tax is not the way to go as that is too radical a shift to the system.

I Wear Pants;742638 wrote:I think you just want no Federal government at all. In which case why have the United States?

And I don't think a flat tax would work.

I do agree on the bolded though.

No, Pants, I am in complete favor of the federal government providing what they are Constitutionally-mandated to provide, such as the common defense and a sovereign nation (a/k/a border security). I also believe someone needs to provide public safety and protection. This would include making our waters safe to drink/swim/fish/navigate/drill for oil. It would include making our air safe to breathe. It would include making the workplace safe for employees and patrons. It would include fire, police, and public protections not otherwise available. Essentially, provide a safe country, with clean vital resources necessary to live, and protection from those whom would do harm unto others. That's about it.

ALL OTHER THINGS which we've become beholden upon the federal government to provide SHOULD BE done by the states. This is how it was set-up. The states were NOT supposed to be equal, but to be individual members of a union. The union was to provide things that the states cannot, such as border security for everyone. These are things included in the "Commerce Clause" that has been bastardized by the Progressives and statists over the past century. You are absolutely correct in that we were the United States of America at one time.

I heard this morning on a news program that the 1913 federal income tax was originally set up to only be 3 or 4% on those making over $5,000,000 per year and that's all that was needed. That's $5 million in 1913 dollars...what would that be today??? For those that advocate just adding a percent or two to rates to balance deficits...that is exactly how we got to 2011 from 1913. Just a little incremental increase here and there along the way and now the feds spend nearly $4,000,000,000,000 per year.

Ptown says a radical shift wouldn't be plausible, eh? To me, we better make radical changes right now or the radicals will change us...permanently.

BGFalcons82;742730 wrote:No, Pants, I am in complete favor of the federal government providing what they are Constitutionally-mandated to provide, such as the common defense and a sovereign nation (a/k/a border security). I also believe someone needs to provide public safety and protection. This would include making our waters safe to drink/swim/fish/navigate/drill for oil. It would include making our air safe to breathe. It would include making the workplace safe for employees and patrons. It would include fire, police, and public protections not otherwise available. Essentially, provide a safe country, with clean vital resources necessary to live, and protection from those whom would do harm unto others. That's about it.

ALL OTHER THINGS which we've become beholden upon the federal government to provide SHOULD BE done by the states. This is how it was set-up. The states were NOT supposed to be equal, but to be individual members of a union. The union was to provide things that the states cannot, such as border security for everyone. These are things included in the "Commerce Clause" that has been bastardized by the Progressives and statists over the past century. You are absolutely correct in that we were the United States of America at one time.

I heard this morning on a news program that the 1913 federal income tax was originally set up to only be 3 or 4% on those making over $5,000,000 per year and that's all that was needed. That's $5 million in 1913 dollars...what would that be today??? For those that advocate just adding a percent or two to rates to balance deficits...that is exactly how we got to 2011 from 1913. Just a little incremental increase here and there along the way and now the feds spend nearly $4,000,000,000,000 per year.

Ptown says a radical shift wouldn't be plausible, eh? To me, we better make radical changes right now or the radicals will change us...permanently.

I absolutely agree that the state governments should be responsible for the vast majority of governmental affairs. I have a good deal of vitriol for the feds. But, the notion that they knew in 1787 what the scenario for government would be today is a bit of a joke. They didn't have that much prescience. I guess what I'm saying is adhering solely to a strict interpretation of the Constitution is pretty unrealistic.

Tobias Fünke;742735 wrote:I absolutely agree that the state governments should be responsible for the vast majority of governmental affairs. I have a good deal of vitriol for the feds. But, the notion that they knew in 1787 what the scenario for government would be today is a bit of a joke. They didn't have that much prescience. I guess what I'm saying is adhering solely to a strict interpretation of the Constitution is pretty unrealistic.

Why not? The Constitution was not set up for every individual item that was going on. The framers knew the country would evolve, there would be improvements to everyday life, and that they could not possibly foresee any and all things. If you read it, the framers wrote it in fairly general terms, so that it could be interpreted in the future. To me, the majority of the latitude set up in the original documents is for the states to decide. The states were intended to be in competition with each other, IMO. For example, if one state chooses to provide free health care, then people would decide to move there or not. Of course, these people would note the exhorbitant tax structure associated with free health, and thus be able to decide where they want to live. States would be, in essence, marketing themselves to businesses and people to decide where they want to live. The only function for the feds was to make sure the country was safe, people were protected, and everyone is given an equal opportunity.

I suppose we are eventually headed for a constitutional crisis of some magnitude, especially if the SCOTUS upholds ObamaKare.

sleeper;742603 wrote:If the shareholders are okay with it, then what is the problem?

If you think the shareholders are OK with some of the shit the CEO's make,you need to take some remedial business classes. Jesus. The BOD cut deals.

I Wear Pants;742586 wrote:Again, so you think there should be no corporate taxes then?

Correct. The individual rates would be higher, but offset (actually slightly more than offset) by overall lower price levels.

BGFalcons82;742730 wrote:No, Pants, I am in complete favor of the federal government providing what they are Constitutionally-mandated to provide, such as the common defense and a sovereign nation (a/k/a border security). I also believe someone needs to provide public safety and protection. This would include making our waters safe to drink/swim/fish/navigate/drill for oil. It would include making our air safe to breathe. It would include making the workplace safe for employees and patrons. It would include fire, police, and public protections not otherwise available. Essentially, provide a safe country, with clean vital resources necessary to live, and protection from those whom would do harm unto others. That's about it.

ALL OTHER THINGS which we've become beholden upon the federal government to provide SHOULD BE done by the states. This is how it was set-up. The states were NOT supposed to be equal, but to be individual members of a union. The union was to provide things that the states cannot, such as border security for everyone. These are things included in the "Commerce Clause" that has been bastardized by the Progressives and statists over the past century. You are absolutely correct in that we were the United States of America at one time.

I heard this morning on a news program that the 1913 federal income tax was originally set up to only be 3 or 4% on those making over $5,000,000 per year and that's all that was needed. That's $5 million in 1913 dollars...what would that be today??? For those that advocate just adding a percent or two to rates to balance deficits...that is exactly how we got to 2011 from 1913. Just a little incremental increase here and there along the way and now the feds spend nearly $4,000,000,000,000 per year.

Ptown says a radical shift wouldn't be plausible, eh? To me, we better make radical changes right now or the radicals will change us...permanently.

Explain the postwar tax rates.

It was spending, not high taxes that got us in this pickle. It's going to be spending cuts that have to get us out. I just disagree with the notion that lower taxes are always inherently better.

Footwedge;742753 wrote:If you think the shareholders are OK with some of the shit the CEO's make,you need to take some remedial business classes. Jesus. The BOD cut deals.

Who elects the BOD?

queencitybuckeye;742759 wrote:Correct. The individual rates would be higher, but offset (actually slightly more than offset) by overall lower price levels.

I don't buy it. Corporations would just take those profits. Why would they ever lower prices?

I Wear Pants;742913 wrote:I don't buy it. Corporations would just take those profits. Why would they ever lower prices?

Competition.

There's a lot of markets where competition doesn't and can't truly exist anymore. One of the more glaring examples is in telecommunications. There cannot be a viable competitor to the likes of ATT, Verizon, and Sprint.

I Wear Pants;742919 wrote:There's a lot of markets where competition doesn't and can't truly exist anymore. One of the more glaring examples is in telecommunications. There cannot be a viable competitor to the likes of ATT, Verizon, and Sprint.

ATT, Verizon, and Sprint don't compete with each other? News to me.

sleeper;742923 wrote:ATT, Verizon, and Sprint don't compete with each other? News to me.

Didn't you hear, Sleeper? All the phone companies are in bed with each other. They are, after all, just eeeeeevil corporate profit-making companies.

I Wear Pants;742913 wrote:I don't buy it. Corporations would just take those profits. Why would they ever lower prices?

You don't believe that my competitors and I take taxes into account when pricing our products and services, and that our pricing structure wouldn't change if the taxes were eliminated? How I wish that were true.

sleeper;742868 wrote:Who elects the BOD?

Actually....in corporate America, the Board is more or less selected....not elected as your business professors have led you to believe. Or perhaps "appointed" would be an even better term. If you actually think that the share holders en masse are happy with the comp packages for CEO's of entities that are losing money for the investors, well then....you are mentally challenged on the subject.

But have fun and best of luck to you in making your "big cash money". LOL.

queencitybuckeye;742933 wrote:You don't believe that my competitors and I take taxes into account when pricing our products and services, and that our pricing structure wouldn't change if the taxes were eliminated? How I wish that were true.

You actually think corporate conglomerates have real competitive forces in play? Seriously? Well....they don't. I was in the pharmaceutical cartel for 10 years. If there was even a sniff of free markets in place, then sales reps would not be paid packages of 150K....for doing nothing more than feeding office staffs....on a daily basis.

Footwedge;742969 wrote:Actually....in corporate America, the Board is more or less selected....not elected as your business professors have led you to believe. Or perhaps "appointed" would be an even better term. If you actually think that the share holders en masse are happy with the comp packages for CEO's of entities that are losing money for the investors, well then....you are mentally challenged on the subject.

But have fun and best of luck to you in making your "big cash money". LOL.

You didn't answer the question. Fail.

sleeper;742923 wrote:ATT, Verizon, and Sprint don't compete with each other? News to me.

The lack of a pure monopoly doesn't mean there is optimal competition. However, I think those companies compete well enough.Even if the price doesn't drop per se, the technology gets better and better so you get more bang for your buck in my opinion. Could be wrong.




I also find it interesting that I haven't seen too many people responding to the unbiased posts I put on here. Either everyone hates me or they don't disagree.

sleeper;742923 wrote:ATT, Verizon, and Sprint don't compete with each other? News to me.

To an extent.

I mean, if there were real competition there'd be actual differences in their offerings and pricing.

Plus I'd wager our country wouldn't be so far behind the curve in the telecommunications realm either.

I Wear Pants;742772 wrote:Explain the postwar tax rates.

It was spending, not high taxes that got us in this pickle. It's going to be spending cuts that have to get us out. I just disagree with the notion that lower taxes are always inherently better.

Explain what? Did we have another world war I missed? Coming together as a nation to defeat the most evil powers ever known to mankind took efforts from all sources...taxes, jobs, rare metals, and anything else you can name. The economic crisis we are now facing is of our own doing and we can't shoot ourselves....can we?

The rich and powerful have attorneys and accountants employed to legally escape paying taxes. If our tax code wasn't so incoherent, corrupt, and biased, then tax collections would be better. Alas, our tax code is beyond repair and there are far too many millions of tentacles wrapped around it. Flat tax or fairtax.org are the solutions, but they'll never happen. We'll continue down our vortex until we go straight down the shitter. Then people will be asking, "what happened?" SMH.

What I was saying is that there have been times when we've grown rapidly as an economy with quite high taxes so acting like lower taxes is some magical salve that soothes ill economies is untrue.

I agree the tax code is utter shit though I don't think the flat tax or fairtax are perfect solutions. Some good things in them sure but not perfect IMO.

I Wear Pants;743219 wrote:To an extent.

I mean, if there were real competition there'd be actual differences in their offerings and pricing.

Plus I'd wager our country wouldn't be so far behind the curve in the telecommunications realm either.

How much lower could they go? Maybe they have competed so heavily that no company, with current technology, can offer a cheaper rate. There's no doubt in my mind if ATT thought by cutting prices they could gain market share and increase revenue that they would do it.

believer;742925 wrote:Didn't you hear, Sleeper? All the phone companies are in bed with each other. They are, after all, just eeeeeevil corporate profit-making companies.

lol'd.

Tobias Fünke;743113 wrote:The lack of a pure monopoly doesn't mean there is optimal competition.

Ok. How many companies do you need for "optimal competition"? Do you really expect there to be 1,000 telecommunications companies? 3 is fine.

There isn't a set number of companies you need to have real competition, but it does need to exist.

The problem with the cable/telecom companies is that there is no way for a new competitor to enter the market.