Businesses do not pay any taxes

I have, however and unfortunately, lost any patience I might have had with his unsupported assertions and unjust claims of "lying". I hope the voters understand my frustration at Pro's behavior throughout this debate. As to arguments:". .. as authorities on the matter, they sure would not lie would they? "Pro continues to like the term "lie". He really thinks that, rather than even saying SCOTUS is incorrect in their assessment, that the Supreme Court of the United States was LYING? "The Supreme Court also said that requiring people to buy health insurance is a tax. That is not a tax no matter how they slice it. .. "Pro shows here he doesn't actually KNOW what the Justices said. What SCOTUS said was that enacting a tax penalty for something was a tax. And it is. The mandate is essentially a tax break, that is lost if not fulfilled. Or one can see it as a tax penalty; but either way, it's a tax. "A subsidy is an actual payout which means a company would have to get more back from tax dollars that they pay in. "No. Pro is flatly wrong. I have sourced this. His definition is not correct, and I urge him to ACTUALLY KNOW something about this subject before making pronouncements about it. "I never said the first thing about taxes being unnecessary. "Never said that Pro SAID it. "You just do not get it. A corporation's taxes are the people's taxes but you are just blind to that. "Pro has failed to justify this. A raise in taxes does not necessarily mean a raise in prices. And his argument can be applied equally well to individuals. "You simply do not understand that the government does not require X in revenue. If so, what is X? "As I noted, that would rather depend on your politics, and is irrelevant here. "The government does not decide "We need 5 trillion in tax dollars this year to fund our insane spending. " They do not tax like that. They tax on percentages. "Pro thinks that they do not base those percentages on income projections? Really? "Do you think that is how it works? That is the problem with the liberal sites you visit. They too think that is how it works and so therefore, you think so too. "I urge Pro to learn about the issues at hand rather than bandy about attempts at insults. He's shown a clear ignorance on basic subjects here, yet a willingness to make sweeping, incorrect statements. He has yet to rebut with anything other than his own bare assertion. Contrary to his claim, how "liberal sites" think does not translate into my "think[ing] so too". Pro, on the other hand, seems to take an opinion piece which makes factual assertions on face value with no support. .. I could rather more accuse him of assuming anything he reads from a conservative must be true. But such accusations are simply not productive. "The government would still tax you and me and everybody else the same and have an extra few trillion to waste on yet another government program. They do not limit themselves to an X amount of money. Just by you thinking that, you are thinking that that is how they get subsidized when Exxon gets a "tax break. " You need a better understanding as to how this government taxes. "The irony here is that Pro has demonstrated he has NO IDEA how this government taxes. As I noted before, EITHER the government will continue to spend the SAME amount of money, or they will spend MORE, with more revenue. He dismisses "yet another government program", yet that is what they use ALL tax money for. In theory, these government programs make things better, therefore, as I noted, if they got more money EITHER other taxes will go down, OR the system will provide more overall good. Of course, not all money is spent wisely, I've agreed with this. My point is a general one, while Pro seems to be arguing that ALL government money is wasted, therefore businesses shouldn't pay taxes. It's absurd. "If they did, they would get a huge tax break because they are paying way more than individuals even by using your line of thinking. "No, some are not. I already sourced this. I could source more, if Pro had offered any ACTUAL REBUTTAL ARGUMENT, but he did not. "I know what you are going to try to say about percentages and it is senseless. "Despite Pro's noting above that THAT'S HOW THE GOVERNMENT TAXES? "You are never going to look at the statistics that show that the top 1% earners send about 38 cents for every dollar the government takes in. "Pro ignoreS proportionality and percentages. If everyone else pays 30% of their income, but rich people pay 1%, that their one percent is greater than the average person's 30% is immaterial to the fact they're paying less percentage-wise. "Let me introduce you to the federal government. They will spend it. They do spend it. "And, we must presume, Pro thinks every single dollar is wasted. Because I said the system would benefit in some way, not that the tax burden would go down. Pro then goes on to make an assertion about the government's spending he doesn't bother backing up in any way. "You said about 3 times that I said businesses "shouldn't" have to pay taxes when the question of whether they should or not had nothing to do with this debate and my opinion was never given. "I urge Pro to take a reading comprehension class. It will teach him how to read. Otherwise, I'm done responding to this clearly wrong point. The voters can read where I never claimed he said anything he didn't, merely that certain things were the consequences or inferences of his position. Much like if you're claiming someone's "subhuman", someone can say about you that "you're saying they're less than human! ", it is perfectly appropriate to analyze your position. "Okay, they are not quotes but you said that I said. .. .and you lied multiple times. I already pointed out the lies in the last round so don't ask me to repeat. "Pro, I pointed out to you that it was NOT a lie. You don't get to just say "Yeah huh! " "Wow, business should be as responsible? Newsflash; they are! "Does Pro have any evidence of this? Apparently not. "They spend tons of money just on compliance alone"Compliance with regulations? That doesn't have anything to do with taxes. "in addition to the taxes they (their customers) pay. "And I showed that some businesses paid NO taxes. "I am tired of people like the writers at your favorite websites using the word "fair" like some child on a playground when they have no idea"Considering Pro's utter lack of reading comprehension, and utter lack of actual warrant for his position, and CLEARLY WRONG statements, I will say (with, perhaps, annoyance) that it is pretty clear that Pro has "no idea". Pro then closes his case with a rant that has no justification whatsoever. I'm sorry that Pro seems to have such a hatred of liberals; it's clearly affected his ability to rationally discource on the subject of business tax. The point is that Pro's original resolution clearly fails, and the argument he moved on to regarding business tax ALSO fails for lack of warrant. Pro has failed to establish that higher taxes necessarily entail higher prices. He has failed to show how businesses are already paying the same taxes as individuals, despite asserting it. He has failed to engage in rebuttals to his position, preferring instead to claim "lies" were said, when they were clearly not. But that Pro has trouble with reading comprehension (the charitable view, here, considering I explained exactly how he was wrong), or is uneducated about both economics and the legal system, is not my problem. Pro had the BoP to establish his original point, and he failed to do so. He made further assertions that I have shown he has no warrant for. Whether taxes are misspent is immaterial to whether businesses should pay a "fair share". To argue for businesses while ignoring the individual is special pleading. [1] . http://www.scotusblog.com...