So if you were to sell your 80% if the market started to free fall like 2008 you wouldn't mind declaring any gains as regular income and paying that tax rate?
They can pressure all they want but that has been a very unsuccessful tactic. They pile up cash hordes all around the globe because they don't want to pay it out. They use the fact that they'd have to pay taxes on it if they brought it back here as an excuse to keep piling it up. That gives them a lot of power with foreign banks and governments. It's hard to say exactly who's going to win this Wall St. war of greed but it's not going to be "the people."
Prove it. Some of our laws now involve corporations or service by a corporation. Some of our laws were brought in by lobbyists, who in turn work for corporations.
Tell me that they can't "influence" a law they helped write (or completely wrote themselves) and reap the benefits when it passes?
Technically, the law is "implemented" by those that enforce the law. Legislation is made law by our elected officials. Draft legislation is typically written by staffers that are influenced by many sources, to include corporations.
I don't have a problem paying income taxes for my income. I don't mind paying capital gains taxes for my capital gains. If taxes on my capital gains increase because corporations are worth more without tax liabilities, hence more value for owners, then I'm ok with it. Once again, I support taxing the money where it's earned/received, not the passthrough.
They pile up cash hordes all around the globe because they don't want to pay it out.
Because they don't want to pay the US government taxes on money that wasn't earned in the US. All the more reason to not tax corporations' incomes. It's horribly inefficient and can be detrimental to our economy in this situation. Give corporations a tax holiday and see how quickly the overseas money comes home
That's full bs, you tout economic concepts that are full of bias towards the current system that hordes wealth at the top.
How so? If we tax where the money goes, not the corporations that funnel it, how does that benefit "the top"? The wealthiest individuals will be the hardest ones hit as a large portion of their income tends to be derived from their investments.
If it's the law, then your opposite definition can be right. Legally, corporations are entities, not much different than individuals. Argue all you want, but until the law changes, the definition doesn't.
I see your point, and would suggest that the public roads are exactly the reason we don't want the government building the network infrastructure. In the small city where I live, a few major streets are wide and well-maintained. Most of the streets, though, are in disrepair with places that are worn down to the original brick pavement. The poorer the neighborhood, the worse the streets tend to be.
The biggest problem with the city building a fiber network is that the network will only be as good as the city wants to make it... and can afford to make it.
The city where I live debated endlessly about whether or not to allow vending machines on the sidewalk and finally decided to temporarily table the idea in favor of more study. Do I really want them in charge of a fiber network?
Well I will say this, you have way more control or influence on the quality of network your municipality/county deploys than you would one the feds did.
I mean we can take something like Detroit and say that anything they did would have been garbage, but that was a failure of leadership, policies and political ideology, not necessarily a display that all city government cant work.
Besides I think you'd find that maintaining physical fiber connections should be a fairly mundane task if installed correctly. Do you have constant trouble with your municipalities water or sewer systems?
And remember, I in no way want the government to be the ISP. That would be done by private, for profit entities.
People are not corporations, you're right, but people can form corporations very easily, that doesn't negate the Bill of Rights for those people. Sorry but the government(notice small g) has only limited powers given to it by the people, government cannot be God.
Its not a matter of right or wrong dude. The LAW states a corporation is an artificial person. So Legally speaking Walmart is a person. That's why corporations are treated like people.
I disagree that the government should be in charge of running fiber to every home. If that were the case, you might as well bow down to the NSA, the CIA, the DOJ and every gutless piece of Congress trash walking the halls of Congress.
Well, we don't have municipal water here... our water company is privately owned. As far as sewer goes, we did have a problem with capacity some years back... if a new business wanted to open they had to buy "sewer credits" from another company... it was a real mess for several years.
Harrisburg, the state capital of PA, is just about as dysfunctional as Detroit, and the other cites in the mid state aren't far behind.
The other question I have is how comparable is a fiber system to a water system? I don't know much about fiber to the home, to be honest. A water system does pretty much one thing. But, when Comcast wanted to add telephone service, changes had to be made to the HFC system. So, if some cable company wanted to introduce a new service that required changes to the fiber infrastructure, wouldn't that possibly create a legislative swamp? Instead of Comcast (or whatever company) just doing the project, would it be up to the municipality to decide whether to go along with the project?
Tell that to the Koch brothers and their tactics to elect their own hand picked officials and try to dictate policies by creating "think tanks' "alecc" etc etc
How is it illegal? Let me guess you are one of those that think President Obama should be impeach because you think so? and not because is a made up Right wing idea.
I don't denied you statement but lately if you notice the policies enacted in the south 99% of then are from Alecc and Koch founded like the abortion ideas etc etc