Reply Sat 10 Nov, 2018 12:42 pm
What if in lieu of paying (part) of their taxes, corporations were allowed to provide direct benefits to public institutions, like schools? E.g. Teachers, police and other public servants could receive part of their pay as Amazon credit, or Walmart gift cards, etc.

Wouldn't that ease the tax burden of these businesses as well as easier the budget stress of governments by allowing them to pay less money out to employees?
 
laughoutlood
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2018 07:35 pm
Not to be too crypto but someone's either token or they're off their block and chain.
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2018 07:43 pm
@laughoutlood,
Who decides who gets how much? The corporations themselves? What if they choose an agency that isn’t “popular” and the public protests. I could go on and on. Sounds overall like a recipe for disaster.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Sun 11 Nov, 2018 09:31 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
What if in lieu of paying (part) of their taxes, corporations were allowed to provide direct benefits to public institutions, like schools?
That would be a horrible idea.

Quote:
E.g. Teachers, police and other public servants could receive part of their pay as Amazon credit, or Walmart gift cards, etc.
Another bad idea.

Quote:
Wouldn't that ease the tax burden of these businesses as well as easier the budget stress of governments by allowing them to pay less money out to employees?
It would be better if the greedy wealthy corporations simply paid their fair share in taxes.
It would definitely be better If the 2017 tax cut that primarily benefitted the rich and wealthy, were to be repealed.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2018 09:59 am
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:
It would be better if the greedy wealthy corporations simply paid their fair share in taxes.
It would definitely be better If the 2017 tax cut that primarily benefitted the rich and wealthy, were to be repealed.

The problem is that paying taxes in money allows for all sorts of inefficiencies and waste to go on. E.g. let's say a store can produce and distribute certain products very efficiently and others not so. So if the store pays taxes and the government distributes the money out as salaries, the people who end up spending the money can buy inefficient products, which cost more because of the relatively high resource-waste that goes into them, and then the people have wasted their money so they feel they need more income to afford a cost of living that they've driven up themselves by choosing relatively expensive, inefficient products.

Let's take an even more specific example: Let's say recreational drugs and alcohol are popular in some area. Now, the rents go up in that area because of the drug culture, landlords spending rent money on drugs and drug dealers making the money and being able to pay higher rents, etc. Now, government has to hire employees like teachers, police, fire fighters, paramedics, etc. etc. and those people have to afford rent prices that are inflated by the drug money. In that case, it would be good to be able to pay those teachers, police, etc. in direct contributions of food, gift-cards, etc. so that landlords would have to charge less for rent. They can afford to reduce rent by giving up some of their drug/alcohol spending, but as long as their tenants are getting paid 100% in money, they will try to get as much of that money as they can, i.e. because they spend too much on inefficient products like recreational drugs and alcohol.
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2018 01:30 pm
@livinglava,
Except that your example is ass backwards.

High crime/drug use = lower rents, not higher.

Why would you assume a landlord uses drugs because s/he owns a property in an area where drug use/crime is higher? Why do you assume the landlord even lives in that area? Why would you assume if you were a drug dealer who makes a lot of money, you would live in that neighborhood?

Again, who is going to decide where the money goes? Citizens will have very different ideas as to where and how much gets spent in various areas.

You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2018 07:18 pm
@livinglava,
theTRUTH: Trickle Down Economics Don't Work.

According to the International Monetary Fund there's a major problem with trickle-down economics:
it not only doesn't work, but it ends up backfiring by actually shrinking a country's GDP.

Published on Oct 28, 2015
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2018 07:20 pm
@livinglava,
Four years ago, businesses in Kansas went from paying over 6 percent taxes to paying nothing at all, as part of a Republican experiment to boost the limp state economy. But when the massive drop in tax revenue destabilized the economy lawmakers started slashing the budget and social programs and underfunding schools. Economics correspondent Paul Solman reports on what happened next.

Published on Dec 7, 2017
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Nov, 2018 09:42 pm
@livinglava,
The latest Republican Tax Scam is going to cost YOU 1.5 trillion dollars.
The 2018 Tax Bill is just the tip of the iceberg though.
Republican Trickle Down Economics is a scam and not based in reality.
This is 5 ways Republicans are stealing your money.

Published on Aug 13, 2018
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2018 05:53 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:

Except that your example is ass backwards.

High crime/drug use = lower rents, not higher.

Maybe with stigmatized drugs like crack and meth, but middle-class drugs like marijuana, etc. cost money so landlords have to make more money to spend more on recreation, entertaining friends who expect to be spoiled at parties, etc.

Quote:
Why would you assume a landlord uses drugs because s/he owns a property in an area where drug use/crime is higher? Why do you assume the landlord even lives in that area? Why would you assume if you were a drug dealer who makes a lot of money, you would live in that neighborhood?

I don't. I just assume that a lot of people buy recreational drugs because of all the media hype over legalization in all these different places; i.e. I assume they're popular. I know they aren't cheap, and so all the Democrat nonsense about raising minimum wages and wages in general is because people spend too much of their income on things like drugs and rent, and the rent costs more if the landlords also need more money to buy these expensive non-necessities.

Quote:
Again, who is going to decide where the money goes? Citizens will have very different ideas as to where and how much gets spent in various areas.

Which money?
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2018 06:10 pm
@livinglava,
P
livinglava wrote:

Real Music wrote:
It would be better if the greedy wealthy corporations simply paid their fair share in taxes.
It would definitely be better If the 2017 tax cut that primarily benefitted the rich and wealthy, were to be repealed.

Now, the rents go up in that area because of the drug culture, landlords spending rent money on drugs and drug dealers making the money and being able to pay higher rents, etc.


I guess your directly saying above that landlords would spend the money they earn in rent on drugs made me think that you believe the landlord would spend the money on drugs.

Even though the landlord probably doesn’t live in the neighborhood he rents units in.

Also you can’t suddenly go from saying “drugs” to, I didn’t mean certain drugs, only particular ones. I didn’t mention any particular drugs either. In any event, the use of any drugs in any area doesn’t make rents go up.

What money? I guess the money you’ve been talking about.

You’re obviously just being a troll, coming up with more and more ridiculous ideas, with no evidence to back any of it up.

It’s not even worth reading your next comment.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2018 06:43 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:

I guess your directly saying above that landlords would spend the money they earn in rent on drugs made me think that you believe the landlord would spend the money on drugs.

Even though the landlord probably doesn’t live in the neighborhood he rents units in.

What does it matter where the person lives? They might be spending money on marijuana or wine or both or prescription pills or cocaine or who knows what. It all costs a lot of money, which means raising rents to cover a higher cost of living.

Quote:
Also you can’t suddenly go from saying “drugs” to, I didn’t mean certain drugs, only particular ones. I didn’t mention any particular drugs either. In any event, the use of any drugs in any area doesn’t make rents go up.

Recreational drugs are just the most obvious example of a big waste of money that's totally unnecessary. There are other wastes of money that are somewhat less unnecessary.

Quote:
What money? I guess the money you’ve been talking about.

The money people are complaining they're not getting paid enough of, which they want the government to stimulate the economy more and cause more inflation, at the expense of people who save up money, especially those who make less money and thus work harder to save up smaller amounts of money at a slower rate.

Quote:
You’re obviously just being a troll, coming up with more and more ridiculous ideas, with no evidence to back any of it up.

It’s not even worth reading your next comment.

Don't respond to my posts anymore if you are going to pick fights like this.
0 Replies
 
laughoutlood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2018 05:45 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
... all the Democrat nonsense about raising minimum wages and wages in general is because people spend too much of their income on things like drugs and rent ...


Sáncta María, Máter Déi,
óra pro nóbis peccatóribus,
nunc et in hóra mórtis nóstrae. Ámen.
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2018 01:26 pm
@laughoutlood,
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Corporate tax alternative
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/19/2018 at 04:45:37