Post deleted by User.
Random Arguments & Strawmen #15 |
||
Random Arguments & Strawmen #15
Offline
Posts: 2442
Valefor.Sehachan said: » Hardly anyone even knew what was trying to change in the constitution. And since the population gave a *** you to Renzi personally, he basically gave a *** you too in return and resigned(you don't want my reforms then it's not my place to be here). I wonder if his decision was the right one in this case, or maybe there is no black and white here. Sounds like if he wanted real change then he would have stuck to his guns. Ramyrez said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » At any rate, the point is that people are going out of their way to bemoan Trump for acting on a campaign promise and saving hundreds of jobs. It sent a message to the people that matter, the people who won him the election in rust belt states. Whining that some jobs are going anyway (jobs that you didn't care about in the first place) and wildly speculating about what the negative implications will be when it's literally just been one company so far seems counterproductive. Why is the bolded assumption being made? Let's be fair. It's presuming a bit much. Just because someone opposes Trump's methods doesn't mean they want to see the jobs go away. And just because you think their ideas about the terms on which those jobs should stay are incorrect/long-term problematic doesn't automatically mean they don't care about those jobs. Eh, it was a bit of an assumption, but the Democrat politicians as of late seem more interesting in dinging corporations with taxes than figuring out how to save the jobs of the workers. Let's take Obama, for example: Quote: As the Gateway Pundit reported: On June 1, 2016, Barack Obama held a town hall event on PBS News Hour. Carrier employee Eric Cottonham stated to Obama “My name is Eric Cottonham and I’m representing the Steelworkers Union, Local 1999. And I’m trying to find out, what do we have left far us — all of our jobs are leaving Indianapolis. I see here you’re doing a lot of things, but in Indianapolis, there’s nothing there for us. I mean, what’s next? I mean, what can we look forward to in the future as far as jobs, employment, whatever? Because all of our jobs has left or in the process of leaving, sir.” Obama responded by mocking Trump, stating “when somebody says, like the person you just mentioned who I’m not going to advertise for, that he’s going to bring all these jobs back, well how exactly are you going to do that? What are you going to do? There’s — there’s no answer to it. He just says, “Well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal.” Well, how — what — how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually, the answer is he doesn’t have an answer.” On a side note, I just got this ad:
Quote: Just a wee bit late there. Shiva.Nikolce said: » We should break the new mods in by discussing abortion... or vaccines... Bahamut.Ravael said: » that skeleton looks kinda racist. Offline
Posts: 2442
My body is ready.
Asura.Vyre said: » My body is ready. Offline
Posts: 35422
Shiva.Nikolce said: » We should break the new mods in by discussing abortion... or vaccines... Abortion should be illegal. Vaccines cause autism. Discuss ! Offline
Posts: 35422
Actually FFXIAH causes autism...which leads to abortions...which causes autism...etc !
Offline
Posts: 35422
Let's ask an expert on autism:
YouTube Video Placeholder Offline
Posts: 35422
Bahamut.Ravael said: » How dare you make a reference to Dante's Inferno on a Monday ! fonewear said: » Let's ask an expert on autism: YouTube Video Placeholder Offline
Posts: 35422
You can believe Jenny though she is attractive how could she be wrong !
Hmm...don't know what the point of that article is.
Is it to show how intelligent these businesses are? I mean, if I were in their positions, I would do the exact same thing, which is to keep already taxed (at foreign levels) income in the country they are in instead of bringing it back to the states where they will be taxed again for no other reason but to be taxed. It's like making a few dollars in one state, paying the state taxes in that state, and going home in your main state and being taxed just because. How again is that fair? The whole liberal argument against the wealthy is that the rich and businesses "aren't paying their fair share." How can being double taxed be considered fair at any point, where most of the population isn't double taxed (unless you have stock, but that's another story)? Any update on Pennsylvania? Haven't seen jack diddly squat on the internet regarding the supreme court thing.
Yatenkou said: » Any update on Pennsylvania? YouTube Video Placeholder Offline
Posts: 2442
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Hmm...don't know what the point of that article is. Is it to show how intelligent these businesses are? I mean, if I were in their positions, I would do the exact same thing, which is to keep already taxed (at foreign levels) income in the country they are in instead of bringing it back to the states where they will be taxed again for no other reason but to be taxed. It's like making a few dollars in one state, paying the state taxes in that state, and going home in your main state and being taxed just because. How again is that fair? The whole liberal argument against the wealthy is that the rich and businesses "aren't paying their fair share." How can being double taxed be considered fair at any point, where most of the population isn't double taxed (unless you have stock, but that's another story)? I was using it to imply that they currently don't really have a tax "burden" and they certainly don't need a tax "relief" But to play with your argument a bit there are several arguments about the wealthy and taxing them. First we can look at Pews research which suggests that taxes are fair based on income and tax returns. I think that is honestly a fair assessment but on the other hand: Second we can look at Americans for tax fairness They state that the Top 1% own 35% of the wealth but only pay 24.7% federal income tax rate. This tells me their their wealth is stored in other assets that allow them to avoid taxes. At least given what limited knowledge I have on the subject. Further more a progressive tax isn't about necessarily being "fair" % wise but rather fair $$$ wise. The aim is about more income equality and about give more money to the less fortunate. The wealthy have more money and only a certain amount of money is required to live a comfortable lifestyle, therefore they have more money to give. So "fair" in this regards is actually in relation to individuals and flat $$$ amounts. Going even further the wealthy take advantage of Tax loopholes, which we can't blame them for doing that but that doesn't mean we can't fix the loopholes. Namely the tax havens. I think the pharmaceutical industry is the worst though because most of their drugs are paid for by tax payers and they then turn around and sell them for a huge profit and avoid tons of taxes through tax havens and other loop holes. Yatenkou said: » Any update on Pennsylvania? Haven't seen jack diddly squat on the internet regarding the supreme court thing. *looks around* It's still here. Allegheny County and the Philadelphia region are still the only places that voted for Hillary and I'm sorry, I just don't see that changing on a recount. Trump cleaned the *** up in rural districts. Maybe. Maaaaaybe if Erie County flips. But I really doubt it. Erie, like a lot of the Great Lakes port cities, has been hemorrhaging industrial jobs for decades. Too many late middle age, high school-educated voters in those areas that need work for Hillary's message to resonate. It's hard to worry about how other people are doing when your own life's lookin' kinda dicey. eliroo said: » I was using it to imply that they currently don't really have a tax "burden" and they certainly don't need a tax "relief" Let's use some of the examples used in the article: Apple, $19 billion in income taxes. Microsoft, $19 billion in income taxes. Pfizer, $2 billion in income taxes. Mind you, these are direct income taxes. Not property taxes, not payroll taxes, not royalty/capital/other taxes, but pure income taxes. Which would have increased if they repatriated foreign income. Income that, you know, already been taxed at the foreign source. So, yes, they have a tax burden. A very large one, in fact. Offering these companies tax reliefs in order to keep manufacturing in the US is a smart move, and one that states have been doing for decades. Attributing Trump to this particular one is a little silly, but if he really negotiated it, then kudos for him. eliroo said: » First we can look at Pews research which suggests that taxes are fair based on income and tax returns. I think that is honestly a fair assessment but on the other hand: eliroo said: » Second we can look at Americans for tax fairness They state that the Top 1% own 35% of the wealth but only pay 24.7% federal income tax rate. This tells me their their wealth is stored in other assets that allow them to avoid taxes. At least given what limited knowledge I have on the subject. What this tells you is what it exactly means. While the top 1% of the US owns 35% of the total US wealth (I heard so many differing values to this, ranging between 25 to 60%), and their average rate is 24.7% rate, that means that most of their income is considered capital in nature, which is taxed at 23.8%. No illegal "tax evasion" done. It also shows that most of the income from the top 1% of the nation in terms of wealth is investment. Investment with money that has already been taxed before, and only the income from the investment is being taxed (and not the principle). There is nothing wrong with any of that at all. eliroo said: » Further more a progressive tax isn't about necessarily being "fair" % wise but rather fair $$$ wise. eliroo said: » The aim is about more income equality and about give more money to the less fortunate. The wealthy have more money and only a certain amount of money is required to live a comfortable lifestyle, therefore they have more money to give. So "fair" in this regards is actually in relation to individuals and flat $$$ amounts. eliroo said: » Going even further the wealthy take advantage of Tax loopholes, which we can't blame them for doing that but that doesn't mean we can't fix the loopholes. Namely the tax havens. eliroo said: » I think the pharmaceutical industry is the worst though because most of their drugs are paid for by tax payers and they then turn around and sell them for a huge profit and avoid tons of taxes through tax havens and other loop holes. "Most of their drugs are paid for by tax payers..." I'm assuming you mean government grants given to companies for R&D. In which case, you are right. "avoid tons of taxes through tax havens..." Actually, the pharmaceutical industry is one of the few industries that cannot hold offshore accounts at all by regulation. So, nice try. "...and other loop holes." Can you name some? What erks me the most is people claiming a loophole without knowing what a loophole is. Taking advantage of what tax law specifically states is not a loophole. Taking advantage of what tax law (or any law) doesn't intend is. Section 179 is commonly referred to as a tax loophole, but it's a specific law detailing expending capital investment (mainly machinery and equipment) fully with limitations. That was specifically created to expense specific expenses instead of doing a modified schedule for expending them (aka depreciation). Not a loophole as that is what the law intends to do. Offline
Posts: 35422
I found where the money FFXIAH makes from ads goes:
Offline
Posts: 35422
Whatever little money leftover after taxes website goes to funding terrorists in Syria.
fonewear said: » I found where the money FFXIAH makes from ads goes: Scragg blew it all on a Tesla... there is a pic of it somewhere... |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|