... and ignoramuses because they are too dumb to comprehend the fact that regardless of where you levy them ALL TAXES are ultimately paid by consumers.

And with that nugget, you're undercutting your standard spew regarding income taxes being paid only by "producers." I won't call you an "ignoramus" because you already did that for me. :)

Yes, sir. This "offer" is a dang cartoon containing a round push-pin representing the "I" in "Republican"... tacky.

There is just no way this group of supposedly-moderate Republicans are ever going to get to any sort of figure the White House will be able to accept.

The Republican Party we once knew is bereft of ideas, unable to govern, and quite literally represented by a pinhead.

I guess I'm inclined to respond to that, why wouldn't everBODY, and everyTHING, have the right to free speech??? What the hell possible reason would there be to deny frees speech right to anybody, individual, big group, little group, whatever? Just seems unamerican.

Evidently you feel that the fact that corporations can afford more TV ads than can most individuals, so what? Nobody is forced to heed the pleas of the rich guys as to how to vote. Evidently you credit advertising with far more power and influence than I feel is justified.

That doesn't make sense. Individuals have the right of free association; and they have the right of free speech. But why does the association in itself, rather than the individuals involved, also have a right to free speech? In mid-sentence, you switched from they as a collective for individual investors, to they as a plural for corporations.

I get that corporations have been allowed to be 'persons' under the law for some reasons but not for others. It's important to maintain the distinction.

Surely it's arguable, even if it's not the current law, that corporations have no constitutional right to free speech, while their shareholders as individuals of course still do and always will.

Of course a corporations is not "a person", it is rather a collection of persons, is it not? But, having the right of free association, why should they not have the right of free speech?

i'd have no problem removing taxes from corporations, as long as we also remove the benefits. if it's not a person, it's not a person. that goes for paying taxes, and it also goes for having free speech rights, or engaging in politics. move all those taxes from the fictional people who pay them to the real people who own them. enough of all this fakery, income is income is income, and the more goes into your bank account, the higher percentage of it should be used to fix the roads we all drive on and pay the cops and firefighters who protect us.

JL

OK, mostly agreed, I get it that everybody who works is a 'producer' (in the sense of being 'producTIVE'), however for purpose of this discussion, (where to levy taxes), it just confuses the issue to define 'producers' thusly, because corporate taxes are paid only by the corporation itself. Nobody suggests levying corporation tax on the employees, only on the collective owners (shareholders), right?

Doesn't that go both ways? Everyone is a consumer; everyone is a producer. The question about various tax plans comes down to which consumers will pay how much. Consumer A, who makes five figures 'producing' widgets or widget services for other consumers? Or Consumer B, who makes 8 figures 'producing' capital (aka investing) for companies to consume?

If you marginally increase taxes on a corporation who actually cannot raise prices infinitely without losing customers, the taxes will get paid by consumers of class B, in the form of smaller dividends.

Reminders that all taxes are paid by consumers are kind of like reminders that America is not a democracy, it's a republic.

Re "more corporate tax cuts . ."

Politicians, foreigners, and ignoramuses all advocate financing the U.S. Federal gov't by means of producer (corporate) taxation: Politicians, because it deceives the voters (about the magnitude of, and about who pays) the taxes, foreigners because it makes U.S. producers less competitive in the global marketplace, and ignoramuses because they are too dumb to comprehend the fact that regardless of where you levy them ALL TAXES are ultimately paid by consumers.

This type of language reminds me of the high speed rail that Brightline is building here in Florida that everyone is touting because it is being built only through a private sector company. Except for the fact that it's NOT:

1) It doesn't just stop at the major cities, like Miami and West Palm Beach, but at several smaller towns along the way. This makes it more like a commuter rail.

2) It doesn't avoid railroad crossings with roads or streets. No really high speed rail in the world does that. Even Amtrak eliminated all railroad crossings on it's northeast corridor Acela line years ago in order to increase speed.

3) They are also relying totally on diesel power. All high speed rail in the rest of the world uses electric power with overhead wiring.

4) This is what makes the California much criticized high speed rail project really on world class standards, and so expensive. California is building straight track with almost no curves with no railroad / road crossings on brand new track not share with slow lumbering freight trains but dedicated to high speed electric passenger trains only on elevated track on viaducts etc. to avoid hills, valleys and roads and so will be both smooth and level all the way.

"Encourage private sector investment and the utilization of financing tools"

Sounds an awful lot like the GOP wants to propose some more corporate tax cuts!