The President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, April 3, 2025 11:52
VIEWED: 2971
PAGE 4 of 5
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Raising taxes on corporations may end up costing the people who make up the corporation, but that does not make corporation equivalent to people, even in this regard. That is the problem.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
It's SignyM who's talking about corporations as equivalent to people. Gov. Romney is saying corporations are made up of people. Quite a difference.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
It's SignyM who's talking about corporations as equivalent to people. Gov. Romney is saying corporations are made up of people. Quite a difference.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
"corporations are people"
That statement is saying corporations are equivalent to people. Now he may have ment something else, but that is not what he said. You can't remove "made up of" and keep the same meaning.
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I guess I'm going to have to start saying "You're trying to communicate with GEEZER. You might want to look to that". He's as bad as Wulf and Raptor when it comes to twisted logic and attempts to justify what isn't justifyable. Romney said "Corporations are people, my friends". Period. what he meant is up to interpretation, but it's hard to interpret it to mean "corporations are made up of people", given the Supreme Court's decision. That really should have been all there was to it, posts ago.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What an idiot. First of all, I can imagine a graduated corporate tax. Secondly, if you are paying no tax at all, up front, it's the same as 100% tax breaks across the board.
Of course, it would sort of end the concept of a graduated income tax, since all workers would in effect pay the same rate, and would get no tax breaks for dependents, mortgage interest, medical expenses, etc.
Since you're not making any sense at all, I have to ask: What's your REAL problem with the idea, then? Must be because it DOES make a difference when you tax corporations instead of people, so your original point (the taxes get passed on anyway so it doesn't make a difference) just fell pretty flat. Logic, Geezer.
Quote:Indeed, if that is what Romney said, then it WOULD be quite a difference. Also, what Niki said about the Supreme Court.
Gov. Romney is saying corporations are made up of people. Quite a difference.
One of the thrusts of the so-called tea Party has been to grant corporations ALL of the rights of actual people (privacy, freedom of speech etc.) with none of the responsibilities*... or taxes, I might add.
*When was the last time you say a corporation put to death for mass murder?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Oh, Sig, you could go on FOREVER on that one! Like thievery (legal, of course, but not for US),
ALL of the rights of actual people (privacy, freedom of speech etc.) with none of the responsibilities
How about the things they get AWAY with that ordinary "people" don't, like tax loopholes, pollution, subsidies, and on and on and on. I'd like some of those, since I'm a "people"...well, not the pollution part, but the rest of it...
One of the important of these privileges corporations have is called limited liability, which means that the corporation shields its owners (yes — the actual people) from liability when engaging in risky business endeavors. How do we get that, I'd LOVE to know?
Do a search for "responsibilities corporations as people", and virtually everything that comes up on the first page talks about them having the rights of people with few if any of the responsibilities. That IS the crux of the Supremes' incomprehensible decision.
The fact is, corporate decision making is like a machine and is incapable of making moral or rational decisions because the profit motive will override all moral considerations. Individuals within corporations can be morally responsible, but that doesn’t mean a corporation, an abstract social construct, can be morally responsible.
Is there a death penalty for corporations? Of course not. And the fact is, if a corporation breaks the law or does something else requiring punishment, many of the people who were in charge of the those acts (You know, the actual PEOPLE running the "corporate peronhood") would be the first to jump ship and go to other corporations to try again with more stealth. The entire idea is bizarre, and to me is merely a reflection of how far to the right our entire government has been pushed; it can ONLY be via a Supreme Court with a majority of right-wingers which could come up with such a concept.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Posted by Geezer:
Besides, if you read the whole statement from Gov. Romney, instead of taking a snippet out of context (which I'm sure you'd never do)...
This is particularly hilarious, coming on the heels of Geezer telling us to google "hoffa" and "sons of bitches" in order to prove that his taking snippets of a speech out of context really isn't something he does.
Wingnuts are usually of the "Do as I say, not as I do" ilk.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
"corporations are people"
That statement is saying corporations are equivalent to people. Now he may have ment something else, but that is not what he said. You can't remove "made up of" and keep the same meaning.
If you purposely pull one sentence out of the whole quote and out of context, maybe.
Once again, try reading the whole statement.
“I told them, corporations are people…Raising taxes on corporations is raising taxes on people.”
Try it in the context of the statement it was in response to. - something like "We should just raise taxes on corporations".
You can keep quoting the snippet and ignoring the whole statment all you want, but that just shows your bias.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
"corporations are people"
That statement is saying corporations are equivalent to people. Now he may have ment something else, but that is not what he said. You can't remove "made up of" and keep the same meaning.
If you purposely pull one sentence out of the whole quote and out of context, maybe.
Once again, try reading the whole statement.
“I told them, corporations are people…Raising taxes on corporations is raising taxes on people.”
Try it in the context of the statement it was in response to. - something like "We should just raise taxes on corporations".
You can keep quoting the snippet and ignoring the whole statment all you want, but that just shows your bias.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
So when you keep using the out-of-context snippet from Hoffa, you're doing so in order to show your bias?
Thanks for clarifying that.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, I can imagine a graduated corporate tax.
I can too, but it wouldn't have the same effect as the progressive income tax rates we have now.
If one corporation is taxed at any rate, all the employees and investors of that corporation would (or should) lose an equal amount of their income. If the tax rate were 20%, everyone from the janitor making $7.50 and hour to the CEO making millions would lose 20%. Now if you were a flat tax fan, that might appeal to you, but it's a lot rougher on the janitor than the CEO.
Of course, you could go back and give the folks on the lower end of the income scale rebates, credits, etc., but that'd end up being as complicated as the current tax system, and probably more prone to fraud and abuse.
Quote:
Secondly, if you are paying no tax at all, up front, it's the same as 100% tax breaks across the board.
But, if your income comes from working for or investing in a corporation, you DO end up paying since there's less money after the corporate tax for salarys or dividends. And you'd get kind'a pissed off at those folks working for cooperatives, small businesses, or themselves, who'd pay no taxes.
Quote:
What's your REAL problem with the idea, then?
See above. It loses the benefits of a progressive tax unless a rebate/credit system much more complicated than the current one is implemented, and it pretty much puts the entire tax burden on the backs of corporate employees and investors. You're pretty much suggesting that corporate wage-slaves support the rest of us.
Quote:
Indeed, if that is what Romney said, then it WOULD be quite a difference.
If you read all of Gov. Romney's comments in context, that is pretty much what he said.
Quote:
One of the thrusts of the so-called tea Party has been to grant corporations ALL of the rights of actual people (privacy, freedom of speech etc.) with none of the responsibilities*... or taxes, I might add.
Oh, I get it. You think I'm defending corporate personhood. Okay, calling you an idiot is now appropriate.
You're the one who kept proposing that businesses are like people:
"My reasoning is that if businesses are also people, they should be taxed like people."
"if businesses are also people ... with privacy rights, and "free speech" ... they should be taxed like ordinary wage earners"
My only objection to that was that, if this was so, they should be taxed like the people they most resemble, the self-employed.
Then you tried to conflate Gov. Romney's statement into support for corporate personhood, which it obviously isn't.
And with the doctrinaire illogic you so love, you take my attempts to correct your misapprehension as support for corporate personhood.
The concept of corporate personhood is as silly as your idea of taxing corporations only.
The concept that what happens to corporations affects the people connected with it, as employees and investors, is valid. This is not to say that corporations shouldn't be taxed, regulated, etc., but that there should be an awareness that these actions have an impact on pensioners and working people and their families, not just the executives and big investors.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So when you keep using the out-of-context snippet from Hoffa...
If I'm indicating that I think calling your political opponents "sons of bitches" is inflamatory and stupid, and I include Hoffa calling his political opponents "sons of bitches" in my quote, I fail to see how I've left anything out.
If you want to argue a point I'm not trying to make, go right ahead. You and SignyM can form a club.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME