Yeah sure, a great example would be companies that do any kind of shipping over the road, whether they do it themselves or go through a postal service. When a company exploits loopholes to avoid paying taxes, they are either putting an incredible strain on the highway infrastructure without paying into the system that would allow them to be repaired or improved, or they're taking advantage of the postal service effectively without paying for it
The only reason we can't afford it is because of the trillions we've blown on giveaways to the already-rich.
This logic doesn't follow at all. Less taxes = more money for large corporations to use to swallow up all the small businesses. Tax cuts sure as hell haven't increased competition in the ISP market.
I don't see what's confusing about it. If you're putting the heaviest vehicles that put the most strain on the infrastructure on the road, then not paying taxes for the upkeep of said infrastructure, you're effectively footing the bill of damage to the rest of the public
How can you say that's out of context, did you actually read the article? His full "statement" (which is to say, two tweets) was included, one of which suggests the death toll was in the double digits? Come on, man, that's absolutely heinous, you can't just excuse that.
Also, I missed this; it's 100% that the system is bad. There's no method of "weaning" someone off of welfare benefits, you either receive them, or if you go over the maximum income threshold then you don't, and you can't go more than (I believe) two years at a time on unemployment without a work-inhibiting disability. Simply put, the current system is practically designed to fuck the people who are meant to benefit from it over, then use the failure as an excuse to further cut welfare benefits because of the "dependency" that's a side effect of the specific way it's implemented. A UBI would not have anywhere near the same negative drawbacks as our current program
To come back to this comment. No one bothered to check the Tax Revenue when ever there was Tax Cuts, which is amazing with something this important to this conversation you would think they would. The few times there was tax cuts we collected more money in taxes. Which was the whole point of tax cuts. The most the government can do is change tax rates. How people will respond to those changes is a different story. If lower tax rates makes it more expensive to place your money in tax havens then people will instead just pay their taxes here.
What are you talking about? Republicans have been pushing trickle down since Reagan and continue to push it to this day. Economists are a different story, but it's not like Republicans listen to what economists have to say unless it's what they want to hear.
Essentially what you're advocating for here is appeasement of the corporate world, which has been going on for far too long already. We shouldn't have to "settle" on a corporate tax rate that doesn't even cover healthcare and food stamps/welfare for the employees corporations refuse to pay a living wage to. We need to simplify the tax code and close all the loopholes at the same time. Enough pretending like corporations are just going to pack up and leave one of the largest consumer nations on Earth. Even if they did, it would mean capitalism gets to work properly for once and small businesses would take their place.
Which is another term for the same basic thing, it's just that the term "trickle down" has too much stigma attached since everybody figured out it was bullshit.
I already posted a link to information on the Laffer curve in this thread, and it suggests 70% is the optimal corporate tax rate. If that's what he's advocating then I'm all for it.
Which should simply mean much harsher punishments. IE if they're found to use tax havens, then they have to pay double the taxes they would've owed on that money. It's been all carrot for like the last 100 years, it's about time to use the stick some.
@
SylverReZ:
@
Sicklyboy:
@
hitorikuroi:
@
Psionic Roshambo:
@
BakerMan:
