 |
Jl that is crap and you know it a person who doesn't get vaccinated not only puts themselves at risk, they put their family at risk, their friends and associates but this is the sort of stupid crap we have come to expect from you, give me liberty or give me death, well death is closer than you think
and as Franklin said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Nope. They only put themselves at risk. The family members can get vaccinated. The friends can get vaccinated. The associates can get vaccinated. Anyone who wants to, as I have said, can get vaccinated. You simply don't know what you're talking about.Quote:
Jl that is crap and you know it a person who doesn't get vaccinated not only puts themselves at risk, they put their family at risk, their friends and associates but this is the sort of stupid crap we have come to expect from you, give me liberty or give me death, well death is closer than you think
Wearing a mask is about safety not freedom. The same as cops wearing a vest and fireman with helmets and oxygen tanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Did that apply before the vaccine?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
that would be mandated by the job requirement .Quote:
The same as cops wearing a vest and fireman with helmets and oxygen tanks.
Up until recently, the homebound didn't. Finally county health departments and fire-department EMTs are going to homes to give shots. Unfortunately, only the one-shot vaccine is given.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Exactly. Don't want to wear a vest? Find another job. Job requirements are very common. Requiring people to take a vaccine that is unproven and could have negative side effects not yet discovered is a totally different story.
https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid...t-inflammation
So in that case, don't allow visitors who are not vaccinated. Makes perfectly good sense in that situation, but not in the general pop.Quote:
Up until recently, the homebound didn't.
Quid's bold move @ G7 is as follows
Already discussed giving 500 million doses away to other nations
Bullying the world of lesser economies to tax American corporations at least 15% The world's richest economies readily agree since they all have higher corporate taxes already . Which world government will enforce this tax on Americans ?
Announced today they he will not appear in a joint presser with Putin after their summit . He knows he would get shown up .
So what is the compliant press reporting ? That Quid was smiling at the G7 group photo .
one more thing .... he announced a $ 40 trillion "build back better for the world " global infrastructure " plan
FACT SHEET: President Biden and G7 Leaders Launch Build Back Better World (B3W) Partnership | The White House
does the "big guy " get his 10% ?
Whoever owns Monopoly better start printing the money faster.Quote:
he announced a $ 40 trillion "build back better for the world " global infrastructure " plan
He thinks the 15% world wide global tax on American corporations will cover it . (consumer beware ) I've noticed how he couches Euro-socialist ideas into his radical leftist agenda . He is not a radical progressive socialist .He is just a globalist .
The math will jot even come close to adding up. It never does.
These corporations have been tax evaders for years and only a concerted effort can rein them in, so applaud the ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
so this is the american belt and road plan, a plan to follow China, definite proof america no longer leadsQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Corporate tax rates should be $0 . All taxes paid are passed on to the consumer . The corporation just becomes the government collection agent . Quid and Yellen are full of sh+t . The US charges a 35% rate (or will charge that if Quid reverses Trump's cuts ) and wonders why US corporations set up shop in Ireland . This is just the G7 punishing nations that can't afford to drive businesses away . I ask again ;who is going to collect this world tax ?
A world tax. We should all be terrified. Either that or fighting mad.
The problem is one that no one wants to touch. Our fed government is on a spending spree which we, the American people, have allowed. In 2000 the budget was 1.8 tril. Our wonderful pres has now suggested we spend over 6 trillion. So in only a little over 20 years, we are to believe that we now need to spend over three times more than in 2000. And in 2000 we actually had a surplus of nearly 100 billion dollars.
We have lost our minds.
I hear the sheep bleating, they are about to be sheared, and who are bleating the most, those with the thickest coats but why should an individual care what these monopolistic, multinationals are taxed, they are just tax evaders and their time has comeQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
A corporation is not a personally owned business. Corporations are owned by shareholders (usually MANY) who receive the profits and can then be taxed on those. And as Tom said, they only receive money by selling something. Tax the corporation and prices automatically go up. The money has to come from somewhere.
yes if you want to tax corporations the better plan would be to tax cap gains as regular income . There is where the real tax evasion is happening legally .
Quote:
The problem is one that no one wants to touch. Our fed government is on a spending spree which we, the American people, have allowed. In 2000 the budget was 1.8 tril. Our wonderful pres has now suggested we spend over 6 trillion. So in only a little over 20 years, we are to believe that we now need to spend over three times more than in 2000. And in 2000 we actually had a surplus of nearly 100 billion dollars.
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,(Kipling 'The Gods of the CopybookHeadings')
No George Bush available to declare mission accomplished, The Biden infrastructure initiative, let's call it the BII is another way of getting the third world indebted to pay for US workers to Build US infrastructure in their countriesQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Several myths are contained in the above posts.
Myth # 1. "All taxes are passed on to consumers".
There is an ongoing debate among economists over the incidence of the corporate income tax. TPC assumes that 80 percent of the burden falls on capital and shareholders, while labor bears about 20 percent. This view is roughly shared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxv...-them-and-when
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tax-t...orati_b_541709
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/econ101e.html
Myth # 2. "Non vaccinated people only put themselves at risk".
Hard to believe such a statement could be made after a year of constant info re the Covid-19 pandemic. The risk from non-vaccinated people threatens any other non-vaccinated individuals whether family, friends, or strangers. Pandemic 101.
Myth # 3. "A corporation is not a personally owned business".
A corporation is a limited liability form of organization. It can be owned by one person, few persons, or many persons. They may or may not receive taxable profits. Corporations often do not declare dividends (profits).
Let's discuss another myth corporate tax rates should be zero, now if corporations were required to distribute all profits as income to individuals this might be feasible but corporations do not
What about Otis?Quote:
There is no American who does not have access to vaccines
If they don't allow Otis (my American Bulldog) the vaccine, then I don't want any part of it!...same with Snubs, my pet pigeon.
Wonder why anybody would think that (https://vinepair.com/articles/govern...oison-alcohol/)?Quote:
They think it's a plot to insert tracking devices into arms.
WAIT! You think they'd insert Snubs? Ain't nobody gonna vaccinate Snubs!!!
It's worth discussing.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
If corporations were required to distribute all profits to individuals, the distributed profits can come in the form of dividends to shareholders or in the form of reduced prices for consumers. Reducing consumer prices would result in higher income for consumers and a corresponding increase in taxable income. Does this compensate for the loss of corporate tax revenue? Perhaps distributing the price reduction over a far wider base than captured via corporate pre-price-reduction prices would generate far less tax revenue. E.g., $100,000 taxable income of a single entity at its marginal rate produces far more tax revenue than the same $100,000 distributed over 10,000 consumers.
No taxes for corporations would also stop the creative ways corporations have of evading taxes, thereby putting a lot of lawyers out of work. The reduced income for lawyers would reduce the tax revenue from the lower income. But tax revenue from consumers, not being as clever as corporations in evading taxes, would show an increase in tax revenue.
The effect on competition might drive prices down as tax planning would no longer be necessary, eliminating another expense. But a new expense must be approved - the expense of current and/or future expansion, and research and development to stay competitive while eliminating the need for depreciation.
Your thoughts?
A significant amount of corporate taxes fall on the consumers through prices . Governments that want out of control spending will make the argument that taxing corporations is a painless way to fund the pork . Nothing could be further from the truth .
w27058.pdf (nber.org)Quote:
This paper provides evidence that corporate taxes impact retail product prices, and that a significantportion of corporate tax incidence falls on consumers.
The fact that corporate taxes affect product prices, as well as payouts to shareholders andwages, has important implications for tax policy. In particular, models used by policymakerslike the CBO and US Treasury may underestimate the incidence of corporate taxes on consumers
If corporate taxes are partially incident on consumers, ratherthan primarily being borne by shareholders and workers, There remain several fruitful avenues for further exploration. First, our analysis necessarilthese taxes may be much less progressive than is commonly asserted. This is especially true since we find that lower priced goods and goods purchased by low income households are the ones most sensitive to changes in corporate taxes.
delivery.php (ssrn.com)Quote:
Using granular gas price data and rich variation in corporate tax rates, we find that corporate taxes increase consumer prices, especially when consumer demand is less elastic and markets are less competitive. The tax incidence on consumers is also stronger when tax avoidance opportunities and other tax shields are limited. We additionally show that shifting taxes to consumers reduces the impact of taxes on organizational form choice and growth. Our results suggest that firms reduce their tax burden by shifting taxes to stakeholders, which is rooted in firms’ market power and the unavailability of other strategies reducing the tax burden
Using census data on the gas prices of nearly all German gas stations and local variations in business tax rates in 4,507 municipalities, we show that higher local business taxes increase consumer prices. Hence, part of the corporate tax incidence appears to fall on consumers. We further show that the effect of business taxes on gas prices increases when gas stations have greater market power and when tax avoidance opportunities or other tax shields are limited. Finally, the results of our supplemental tests further suggest that shifting taxes to consumers reduces the impact of taxes on organizational form choice and growth and could result in greater pre-tax profitability
That's kind of the whole point. If you don't want risk from Covid, then get vaccinated. If another person chooses to forego vaccination, then that is his or her personal choice. It does not put the vaccinated person at risk at all. It only generates risk for those who choose not to be vaccinated, which is exactly what I said to begin with. Choosing not to be vaccinated only puts yourself and others who choose to be non-vaccinated at risk in an area with widespread access to the vaccine. Pandemic 101 for those who think.Quote:
Hard to believe such a statement could be made after a year of constant info re the Covid-19 pandemic. The risk from non-vaccinated people threatens any other non-vaccinated individuals whether family, friends, or strangers. Pandemic 101.
That's only partially true. An S corporation can be owned by one person. It's done, as I understand it, largely to limit liability and save money on social security taxes, but they operate under different tax regs than other corporations and are treated, again as I understand it, as a private business for the purposes of taxation. But the great majority of large corporations are owned by many, many people.Quote:
A corporation is a limited liability form of organization. It can be owned by one person, few persons, or many persons.
Saying corporations do not pass out all profits to the corporate owners is a strange comment. Then what is done with it? You might say that some of it is reinvested into the corporation in the form of purchasing new equipment or building a new plant. If so, then in what sense was that money a profit? Wouldn't those be considered legitimate business expenses?
The G7 dipped their toes into the China problem.
about China's aggression against it's neighbors , they wrote of “the situation in the East and South China Seas,” without specifying that the "situation " was take over of other nations territory and turning the atolls into military bases to further enforce their premise that the whole South and East China seas are Chinese lakes . They talked of Hong Kong and Taiwan as “human rights and fundamental freedoms,” and “the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait” instead of saying that China is in violation of treaty in it's suppression of Hong Kong liberties and that they repeatedly threaten to invade Taiwan.
About the growing evidence of covid's origins in the Wuhan research lab they write
“We also call for a timely, transparent, expert-led, and science-based WHO-convened Phase 2 COVID-19 Origins study including, as recommended by the experts’ report, in China,”
So they want WHO ;the organization that carried the water for the Chinese false narrative about covid to take the lead in another cover up investigation. Some of the same investigators have clear conflicts of interest because they were involved in funding the Wuhan lab.
The best way to reform an institution/organization/group is to be a part of it. Go Joe Go!!
so You want to reform China by being part of it, good luck with that, you want to reform Antifa by being part of it? you want to reform BLM by being part of it? perhaps you want to reform the Taliban by being part of it, Sometimes you make ridiculous statements
Well said.Quote:
so You want to reform China by being part of it, good luck with that,
My reference was to the WHO an institution but it does extend to even the groups you mention as an effort to engage and form a basis of co operation like you do with China and us through trade agreements. So not so ridiculous in that aspect. Because that hasn't been done in many cases doesn't mean you rule it out all together, forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
and how could you being part of the WHO improve it? do you have superior medical knowledge? Trump took the US out of the WHO because of its alignment with China, before then you were part of it and it didn't change anything
The dufus playing drama queen didn't help the cover up(?) either Clete. Nor his own cover up of the real scale and scope of the virus, or any of his antics. Nothing to do with the WHO repeating the party line which was the only line at the time.
He should have stayed and pressed for the truth instead of being an incompetent petulant big mouth beetch.
Yahda, yahda, yahda, shouldda, wouldda, couldda, Is Trump the only person who could have taken action over there? without him everything is frozen? well I think your demonrat obstruction in Congress might have a case to answer tooQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
True, there's a new Dufus in town. I trust he will make a lasting impression, much the same as our previous prez.Quote:
The best way to reform an institution/organization/group is to be a part of it. Go Joe Go!!
got it in one the role of dufus has been pick up by another, see tal, not everyone thinks there is only one dufus at the top there
Quid made a bold move . He used an oversized cue card at a Michigan shop to answer a simple question about the recent ransomware attack . He is dangerously feeble and unfit to be the President .
Joe Biden struggles & forced to refer to notes when asked about alleged Russian cyber hack - YouTube
This is not the 1st time he has done this . He has been seen using cheat sheets at press conferences and at the meeting with Putin.
So he isn't on top of everything, good reason why he should remain in the background
So what? After 4 years of the lying cheating blithering idiot old Joe is a welcome change. He doesn't have to be perfect, like the dufus claimed to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I, along with most of the world's population, have no clue what ransomware is. But ask Joe and me about who was on Saturday morning cowboy shows or to rattle off a nursery rhyme, no problemo!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:19 PM. |