The Instigator
brett.winstead
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Businesses do not pay any taxes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,846 times Debate No: 35190
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (1)

 

brett.winstead

Pro

I will debate that no business pays taxes, whether they are small, medium or giant corporations. This is based on the premise that many people think that ABC Big Company needs to pay more taxes because they are not paying their "fair share." It does not matter if own a business or not to accept this debate. First round is for acceptance but please do not accept the debate unless you are going to finish it. Thanks.
bladerunner060

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
brett.winstead

Pro

I know it sounds a little crazy to say that businesses do not pay taxes. This entire debate is based and spawned by the liberal idea that the rich don't pay their fair share and if you believe or do not believe that, this debate should be at least a good education on those who choose to read it.

In a way, you are correct in that it is a bit of wordplay. Do businesses write checks to the IRS every quarter? Of course they do. They write giant ones in some cases. However, there is a large faction of this country (USA) that believes the rich businesses get all of these "tax breaks," and "subsidies" and do not pay their "fair share." I am frankly sick of hearing it.

Businesses are entities. They are not people. They do not pay taxes out of their pockets at all. They collect taxes. Let me back up a second. For a business to decide how it can competitively price anything it sells, it has to figure out its cost for producing that product which would include:

1. advertising
2. production
3. overhead
4. cost of acquiring all products and machinery to produce the product
5. labor
6. business fees, licenses, regulation compliance, etc.
7. taxes

All of these things and more together determine what a business's costs are. They have to pay these things out of their profits. In other words, these things are part of the cost of doing business. If any of these things go up, their cost of business goes up and eventually, the cost of their products, depending on the level and amount of competition there is for their products. Any business would tell you this. If the costs are too high and the cost of the product gets too high and customers do not buy, we all know what happens. The business goes under. Happens every day.

The point is that customers pay all of a business's bills. Without a customer buying their product, there is no money to pay for overhead, labor and taxes. When you hear someone say that Walmart or Exxon or whatever need to pay more money in taxes, you know you are hearing someone speak out of sheer ignorance on this subject and I don't care if they have 10 master's degrees in economics. Why do I say that? Because when the ignorant speaker says the rich businesses need to pay more taxes (no amount is ever enough for this mindset), what they are really saying is:

"I want XYZ corporation to raise their prices and so we consumers can pay higher prices at the cash register and so they can in turn pay the government more money in taxes."

No one realizes they are saying that but they surely are. Presidents, Congressmen and talk show guests plus all sorts of well-known people keep echoing this idea that we need to raise taxes for the rich and that is code for raising taxes on me and you and yet so few actually see it.

When a business has its taxes increased, it has its cost of business increased. When its cost of business increases, they have to raise the cost of their products to hopefully survive. The business does not pay taxes. The end consumers pay ALL TAXES in every business. Voting for someone wants to raise taxes on anyone eventually finds it way as a tax increase on every consumer.
bladerunner060

Con

"In a way, you are correct in that it is a bit of wordplay. Do businesses write checks to the IRS every quarter? Of course they do. They write giant ones in some cases. However, there is a large faction of this country (USA) that believes the rich businesses get all of these "tax breaks," and "subsidies" and do not pay their "fair share." I am frankly sick of hearing it. "

Whether Pro is sick of hearing it or not, the fact remains that, as Pro notes, businesses do pay taxes. Thus the resolution stands negated already. But let's see what else he's got to say.


"Businesses are entities. They are not people. They do not pay taxes out of their pockets at all."

Pro then goes on to show how a business must take in X amount of money in order to pay Y expenses.

This is, of course, identical to what people do. Perhaps Pro's conception of "out of pocket" is flawed; perhaps he sees everyone as having a trust fund from which they draw.

This is some good-natured ribbing from me to Pro, of course, but my more serious response point to him would be that individuals do the same darn thing. Money doesn't magically "appear" in a person's pocket. They, too, must take in X amount of money in order to pay Y expenses. By the logic he employs, no one pays taxes, everyone just collects them. It's a semantics game that no reasonable person would believe.



"All of these things and more together determine what a business's costs are. They have to pay these things out of their profits. In other words, these things are part of the cost of doing business. If any of these things go up, their cost of business goes up and eventually, the cost of their products, depending on the level and amount of competition there is for their products. Any business would tell you this. If the costs are too high and the cost of the product gets too high and customers do not buy, we all know what happens. The business goes under. Happens every day."

As does bankruptcy of individuals, if costs of living go up and they can't find a wage to meet their costs. In this sense, individuals are, to repeat, no different than businesses.

The point is that customers pay all of a business's bills. Without a customer buying their product, there is no money to pay for overhead, labor and taxes. When you hear someone say that Walmart or Exxon or whatever need to pay more money in taxes, you know you are hearing someone speak out of sheer ignorance on this subject and I don't care if they have 10 master's degrees in economics. Why do I say that? Because when the ignorant speaker says the rich businesses need to pay more taxes (no amount is ever enough for this mindset), what they are really saying is:

"I want XYZ corporation to raise their prices and so we consumers can pay higher prices at the cash register and so they can in turn pay the government more money in taxes."


Pro makes a sweeping generalization here. As with most sweeping generalizations, it lacks validity.

There are corporations who paid ZERO taxes.[1] Corporations are entities which spend money on more things than simply the necessities. That Pro argues that raising taxes would necessarily raise prices is absurd. It could just as easily cut into the millions of dollars CEOs get paid per year. Especially considering the US has such a wild difference between CEO and average worker pay, as compared to other countries. [2]

There is, of course, a point at which companies must raise prices in order to pay their bills. But that point is not any amount whatseover. Such a mindset presumes that every company spends money only on absolute necessities, when that's simply and obviously not true. It also assumes that all pay is exactly where it "should" be, which is also not true.

If a company wants to stay competitive, it will not raise prices unless it has to. While companies COULD raise their prices to make up for every dollar in taxes, they're unlikely to. And further, even granting the assumption that Pro makes, he's still asking for the customers of Company A to subsidize the profits of Company B, even if they don't use Company B's product!

"No one realizes they are saying that but they surely are. Presidents, Congressmen and talk show guests plus all sorts of well-known people keep echoing this idea that we need to raise taxes for the rich and that is code for raising taxes on me and you and yet so few actually see it."

Unfortunately, Pro ignores the many flaws in his case under the false impression that all corporate taxes raise the cost of living on individuals by raising prices. He's failed to show an actual warrant for that position, while I've demonstrated that such is not necessarily the case.

"When a business has its taxes increased, it has its cost of business increased. When its cost of business increases, they have to raise the cost of their products to hopefully survive. The business does not pay taxes. The end consumers pay ALL TAXES in every business. Voting for someone wants to raise taxes on anyone eventually finds it way as a tax increase on every consumer.

It's these kind of sweeping generalizations that, ultimately, hurt discourse. The presumption that less profits NECESSARILY increases prices is absurd on its face, in a world where Corporate <em>profits</em> are so high, and those profits go only to the top. It's not as though lowering taxes necessarily leads to <em>decreased</em> prices.

Corporations are profit making machines. They will <em>always</em> make as much profit as they possibly can, which is limited only by their competition and their consumers' willingness to consume. Lowering taxes will not lower prices, and raising taxes will only raise prices in <em>certain</em> circumstances, and is highly dependent on the extent to which we're talking about raising them. A company will not raise prices <em>solely</em> to make up for lost profits unless they can get away with it...in which case they'd do it to raise profits whether they lost the profits or not, because that's their very nature.

I mean, honestly, does Pro really think that the Oil Companies would be utterly forced to raise prices if they didn't make a (combined between the top 5) $1 TRILLION dollars in profits between 2001 and 2011? Considering about half the money they spent was on things which solely enriched "their board, senior managers, and largest share holders"? [3]

I thank Pro for this debate. I hope that he can make a more solid case for his resolution, or even for this side point (since he's apparently conceded the actual resolution), in his next round, and turn it over to him.




[1] http://www.marketwatch.com...
[2] http://creativeconflictwisdom.wordpress.com...
[3] http://thinkprogress.org...
Debate Round No. 2
brett.winstead

Pro


Pro then goes on to show how a business must take in X amount of money in order to pay Y expenses.

This is, of course, identical to what people do. Perhaps Pro's conception of "out of pocket" is flawed; perhaps he sees everyone as having a trust fund from which they draw.



This debate is not about people. It is about business but people would have higher salaries if the taxes did not come out but that is obvious.

By the logic he employs, no one pays taxes, everyone just collects them.




You are forgetting something. If Joe Sixpack gets his after tax paycheck and then pays for XYZ Business's products, he is paying some of XYZ taxes on money of his that has already been taxed. This means he is paying taxes twice on the same money he earned once.


The point is that customers pay all of a business's bills. Without a customer buying their product, there is no money to pay for overhead, labor and taxes. When you hear someone say that Walmart or Exxon or whatever need to pay more money in taxes, you know you are hearing someone speak out of sheer ignorance on this subject and I don't care if they have 10 master's degrees in economics. Why do I say that? Because when the ignorant speaker says the rich businesses need to pay more taxes (no amount is ever enough for this mindset), what they are really saying is:

"I want XYZ corporation to raise their prices and so we consumers can pay higher prices at the cash register and so they can in turn pay the government more money in taxes."


Pro makes a sweeping generalization here. As with most sweeping generalizations, it lacks validity.



This is not a generalization. It is a fact of life. As I pointed out, taxes are a cost of doing business and who pays for a business's products so that they can have a business? The consumers. Therefore, it is not a generalization that a consumer pays a company's taxes. It is a fact. If you cannot see it...well.

There are corporations who paid ZERO taxes.[1] Corporations are entities which spend money on more things than simply the necessities.




Hold on. You are venturing off into another direction. What a corporation wants to spend its legally earned money on is their business. They are not charities and you have no business deciding what is a "necessity."



That Pro argues that raising taxes would necessarily raise prices is absurd.



Why not just ask any business owner what would happen if their costs of doing business increased and they wanted to try to keep their profits and their employees salaries the same? What do you think he will say? Keeping prices the same is the wrong answer. Now, if he wants to take a cut in the overall business's profits, sure he can do that but most businesses do not want to think that way. The purpose of a person starting a business is to grow it.



It could just as easily cut into the millions of dollars CEOs get paid per year. Especially considering the US has such a wild difference between CEO and average worker pay, as compared to other countries. [2]




You are showing wealth envy now. Why does it matter to you personally what a CEO gets paid provided the company that legally earned that money wants to pay him? The direction you are going is beyond this debate. It is not for you to decide what a CEO gets paid.

It also assumes that all pay is exactly where it "should" be, which is also not true.



Who are you to decide what anyone's pay "should" be?

If a company wants to stay competitive, it will not raise prices unless it has to. While companies COULD raise their prices to make up for every dollar in taxes, they're unlikely to.



If they want to make what they were making before, they will. If the taxes keep going up (a liberal's dream), they will. It also depends on how much competition there is. In no way does it help you or me for the government to raise taxes on a business. It only can lead to more money out of our pockets. You do acknowledge that you are not benefitting when someone else's taxes are raised don't you?




And further, even granting the assumption that Pro makes, he's still asking for the customers of Company A to subsidize the profits of Company B, even if they don't use Company B's product!



When did I say any such thing?


The presumption that less profits NECESSARILY increases prices is absurd on its face, in a world where Corporate <em>profits</em> are so high, and those profits go only to the top. It's not as though lowering taxes necessarily leads to <em>decreased</em> prices.



I am speaking in general terms and never said "all businesses increase all prices every single time their tax rate goes up even slightly." That is not what I am saying. I am simply saying that a tax increase is putting a business in a situation where their costs are increased. Therefore, sooner or later, prices are almost certain to go up depending on other costs (up or down) and how much their taxes went up and the competition. They sure are not going down. Business don't go "Hey, our taxes went up. Let's lower prices."



Corporate profits are "so high?" Now, you are generalizing. A corporation can be some guy (like me) with an Ebay business who filled out some forms and incorporated. Some lose money.

Corporations are profit making machines. They will <em>always</em> make as much profit as they possibly can, which is limited only by their competition and their consumers' willingness to consume.




Name me someone who does not want to make as much profit as they can. Just being a corporation does not mean big profits. Otherwise, every tiny business in the world would incorporate.



I mean, honestly, does Pro really think that the Oil Companies would be
utterly forced to raise prices if they didn't make a (combined between the top 5) $1 TRILLION dollars in profits between 2001 and 2011?



I love talking about the oil companies so I am glad you brought this up. Oil companies raise prices of their products all the time for all the reasons I stated in the first round. As for their profits, do you know how much money they make on a gallon of gas? It is hard to find this info anywhere but most speculators believe it to be 7-10 cents! Read that again. Do your own research. Now, what does the government who does absolutely nothing to produce that gallon of gas make per gallon? I hope you are sitting down - about 50 cents per gallon. That is about 7 times more than the oil companies make and yet, I can bet you that thinkprogress will not report those numbers. I bet NPR will not either and neither will The Young Turks or moveon.org. I guess you would like for the oil companies to apologize for selling something that they make that is in so much demand that people are willing to buy mass amounts of it and they are sitting on pennies per gallon profits and you are talking down at them? Sorry, I don't understand that. I hope you never start a business that gets to this level and have to absorb criticism for doing your job so well.



http://mnprager.wordpress.com...



Considering about half the money they spent was on things which solely enriched "their board, senior managers, and largest share holders"? [3]



Again, how is that your business how a private company spends its money? Let me look through your house and decide what things you really did not need to spend your money on. Would you want that?


[2] http://creativeconflictwisdom.wordpress.com......
[3] http://thinkprogress.org......




It is telling that 2 or the 3 links you used were definitely liberal sites. The thinkprogress link in general had nothing do do with this debate but was just a long rant about oil company profits and how they spend their money. Here is a link to how the US government spends money and I can assure you, the oil companies have nothing on them and I should point out that oil companies earn their money.



http://www.heritage.org...






bladerunner060

Con

Just to clarify where we are at the moment:

The case as presented initially is already lost, as Pro has already conceded that corporations DO pay taxes. The rest of these points have been mere tangents, as Pro's against the idea of corporate taxes.

Pro's case is that, since costs are directly transferred to consumers, taxing corporations is bad.

My response to that has been to show that that is not necessarily the case. It therefore fails as an argument against taxation.

There is a difference between taxation at the level of "take all their profits!!!" and "Make them actually pay taxes above 0%". Pro is arguing that all taxes on corporations are bad. I believe I have demonstrated that he has failed to make that case.


Pro's response was long enough that my response, if done point by point, would exceed the character allotment. I will, therefore be responding holistically.

Pro ignores the fact that his arguments would apply exactly as well to people as to corporations. This is special pleading. He also seems to take exception to my points regarding the necessity of the profits that these companies have. While he is correct that, what a company makes legally is their business to spend, at the same time, it is not the responsibility of everyone else to subsidize their profligacy. If they want to continue having the same amount of profits, but cut no costs, they might have to raise their prices. But this is no different than a household wanting to keep their lifestyle even when it's no longer fiscally prudent. An individual company's profits are not the rest of society's job to maintain. And if they refuse to accept less profits, that is their decision. However, it will have no impact on the market forces which will determine whether they stay in business.

The only time higher taxes REQUIRE a raise in prices is when they result in a lack of profits. This should be trivially seen as true. When they don't cut into the profits to the extent that they require a raise in prices, the raise in prices is no longer due to the taxes, but due to the business' decision to refuse to accept less.

Such a scenario is less common than Pro attempts to claim, simply because as a general rule companies are already charging the most they think they can...they'd be foolish not to, since their goal is to maximize profits. Thus, raising taxes on these companies will not necessarily raise prices in all instances, and Pro's argument fails.

Pro claims that his statement that all people who advocate higher taxes on corporations are necessarily advocating for higher prices is NOT a generalization, while my comment about corporate profits IS. I readily concede, in point of fact, that mine was a generalization. OF COURSE some corporations don't make profits. That should be obvious. It does nothing to my argument, considering the taxes we're talking about are proportionate to those profits.

Pro tries to bring in "Joe Sixpack", but has failed to establish a connection of necessity between a raise in taxes and a raise in prices.

The general arguments dealt with, I want to deal with some specifics.

"Why not just ask any business owner what would happen if their costs of doing business increased and they wanted to try to keep their profits and their employees salaries the same?"

This is Pro's real point, which seems to be that corporations have more of a right to profits than individuals do. He asserts this without warrant.

If an outgoing cost goes up, then, to keep all the other numbers the same, income would have to increase. But why do they assert a need to keep their profits at the same level? Why does that take precedence over the individuals of the country, who are NOT allowed to keep their "profits"? Pro has given no answer to that.

Pro asserts that the person setting prices should pay themselves whatever they want, and the rest of the citizens should subsidize that pay by allowing the company to not pay taxes. This should be absurd on its face.

"Now, if he wants to take a cut in the overall business's profits, sure he can do that but most businesses do not want to think that way."

It's unfortunate that most businesses do not want to actually contribute to the society from which they derive their very existence. But that's not society's fault. Pro position entails advocating for no taxes whatsoever, and entails that businesses be treated better than individuals, who ARE taxed, and must take that into account when they take jobs.

"You are showing wealth envy now."
No, and that's ad hominem. I'd ask that Pro refrain.

"Who are you to decide what anyone's pay "should" be?"
I demonstrated that the pay here is different than the pay elsewhere, where there is still industry. Therefore the companies in the US would not go out of business if they didn't pay their CEOs these wage packages, which is contrary to Pro's claims that every cost increase MUST result in a price increase.

"If they want to make what they were making before, they will."
That's also not necessarily the case. They could also focus on making a fine product, and expand their customer base in order to "make what they were making before". But Pro has failed to give a justification for why they should be "make what they were making before" in the first place.

"You do acknowledge that you are not benefitting when someone else's taxes are raised don't you?"
No. If more taxes go into the system, this means that either: I pay less taxes, or more things which taxes pay for are paid for, making things ostensibly better overall.

"When did I say any such thing?"
Company B is not paying taxes. This is good, to Pro, because it keeps Company B's prices low. However, the customers of Company A don't care what Company B charges, they don't use the product. Yet, since Company B isn't paying taxes, the taxpayers who DO pay taxes are forced to pay taxes that could otherwise be paid by Company B (or, if we accept Pro's case, their customers). Therefore, in order to keep prices low for Company B's customers, Company A's customers pay higher taxes.

"Oil companies raise prices of their products all the time for all the reasons I stated in the first round."

And also because they can. Supply and demand.

"As for their profits..."

None of this has any bearing on the resolution, nor is the number directly sourced; even Pro agrees he doesn't actually know.

Pro then goes on to make some ad hominem attacks on various media outlets which have no bearing on the truth of his argument.

Pro's source completely ignores that these oil companies are sometimes ones who are selling the crude oil that makes up 76 percent of the total cost. That fluctuates "according to supply and demand", making no note as to the cost there. It's incredibly misleading to simply ignore that.

"I guess you would like for the oil companies to apologize ...I hope you never start a business ... and have to absorb criticism for doing your job so well."

Pro's case is that oil companies should continue to pay less taxes, despite profiting trillions of dollars. His argument for that is that they will necessarily raise prices. This has been refuted. His other is that they deserve to have all their money...an argument that he doesn't apply to the individual, in a case of obvious special pleading.

Pro goes on to once again argue that a business can spend its money as it sees fit, a concept I've never taken issue with. I've merely pointed out how his necessity argument fails. He then finds fault with media outlets (in this case, my sources) despite never actually questioning the numbers or concepts I was sourcing; sourcing is not for making your arguments for you. I merely used their numbers to support my own argument. If Pro has some issue with the numbers, he should present it.

Pro then complains about how the government spends money, which has no bearing on his argument.
Debate Round No. 3
brett.winstead

Pro


The case as presented initially is already lost, as Pro has already conceded that corporations DO pay taxes.



Not only are you mistaken, you are not the first debater I have had on this site who seems to be deliberately trying to sway voters your way by putting words in my mouth that I have not even said.



Pro's case is that, since costs are directly transferred to consumers, taxing corporations is bad.



Not once have you heard me say that taxing businesses is bad. I said they don't pay taxes and that their consumers do. I never said one word about it being good or bad. I am explaining who pays them, not whether they should or not.


While he is correct that, what a company makes legally is their business to spend, at the same time, it is not the responsibility of everyone else to subsidize their profligacy.




No one is subsidizing business taxes. That is the big liberal lie you have been told by sites like thinkprogress and the current president who has often mentioned oil companies receiving subsidies. Oil companies pay (ok, their customers) astronomical amounts of taxes. Only people who do not understand the jargon spoken by politicians seem to get the fact that they do not receive subsidies which are handouts. They get legal tax breaks which amounts to them paying x billions in taxes instead of slightly more than a billion. By you believing that Joe and Betty Sixpack are somehow subsidizing them and the government is literally sending big companies a check out of Joe and Betty's income, you are being absolutely 100% lied to. See:



http://www.nypost.com...





An individual company's profits are not the rest of society's job to maintain.



I mean no disrespect but I can definitely see where you spend your time on the internet for economic news. Society does not pay a business's tax bills except when they buy their products.




"Why not just ask any business owner what would happen if their costs of doing business increased and they wanted to try to keep their profits and their employees salaries the same?"

This is Pro's real point, which seems to be that corporations have more of a right to profits than individuals do. He asserts this without warrant.



I never said one word about "more." They have a right to profits if they earn them. That why they are in business.


Pro asserts that the person setting prices should pay themselves whatever they want, and the rest of the citizens should subsidize that pay by allowing the company to not pay taxes.


Now, you are just flat out lying because I have said none of this.




It's unfortunate that most businesses do not want to actually contribute to the society from which they derive their very existence.



They contribute every time they trade their products for their customer's money. They give jobs to society. Many contribute millions to charities. What other obligation do they have?



Pro position entails advocating for no taxes whatsoever, and entails that businesses be treated better than individuals, who ARE taxed, and must take that into account when they take jobs.



Again, you are flat out lying because anyone reading this debate knows I never have said a word that businesses should be treated better than individuals.


"You do acknowledge that you are not benefitting when someone else's taxes are raised don't you?"
No. If more taxes go into the system, this means that either: I pay less taxes, or more things which taxes pay for are paid for, making things ostensibly better overall.



No, you don't pay less taxes. Your paycheck may say differently but you just have them spread around differently but you have no idea how much taxes you pay. Most taxes you pay are hidden taxes incorporated into the cost of the products you buy. The government cannot afford to give you a raise when they raise Walmarts taxes. They waste it on government programs. They spend about 1.42 for every dollar they take in. Don't think for a minute that when they get more money, they do something fiscally smart with it and make things "better overall."


"Oil companies raise prices of their products all the time for all the reasons I stated in the first round."

And also because they can. Supply and demand.


Finally, we agree on something.



"As for their profits..."

None of this has any bearing on the resolution, nor is the number directly sourced; even Pro agrees he doesn't actually know.



We do know what oil company profits are. That is public information. I was only talking about the amount they make on a gallon of gas. They do more than sell gas.


Pro's source completely ignores that these oil companies are sometimes ones who are selling the crude oil that makes up 76 percent of the total cost. That fluctuates "according to supply and demand", making no note as to the cost there. It's incredibly misleading to simply ignore that.


I don't even see how that affects any part of this debate? I guess I missed it.



"I guess you would like for the oil companies to apologize ...I hope you never start a business ... and have to absorb criticism for doing your job so well."

Pro's case is that oil companies should continue to pay less taxes, despite profiting trillions of dollars.



YET ANOTHER LIE. I never said any such thing.



His other is that they deserve to have all their money...an argument that he doesn't apply to the individual, in a case of obvious special pleading.



I can see you are still not finished with your lying. You are just piling on one after the other now.


Pro then complains about how the government spends money, which has no bearing on his argument.



I was simply making that point because you were acting as if companies do not have a right to their money. If they don't, should you give it to our wonderful, honest, fiscal government?



This debate has ceased being fun because you have ventured far off from the actual topic and begin putting words in my mouth that are flat out deceptive lies. You have quoted things I never said at all and tried to put your spin on it which is basically "people good, corporations bad." You should start a business sometime and see what it is like. Just pray to God you are not too successful or people like the websites you frequent are going go come down on you on a regular basis. You will never pay your employees "enough." Your CEO will make "too much" and you will surely pay "too little" in taxes getting all of our tax breaks and "subsidies." Lastly, you will spend your money on unnecessary things not taking into account your "social responsibility."

bladerunner060

Con

I would like to open by noting I appreciate both Pro's timeliness/speed overall.

As to arguments:
Pro chooses only now to respond to my point that "The case as presented initially is already lost, as Pro has already conceded that corporations DO pay taxes." I noted it in R2 in addition to R3.

I refer Pro to his R2: "Do businesses write checks to the IRS every quarter? Of course they do."

That is paying taxes. I've already made the case for that, and Pro has yet to rebut it. He also noted that business expenses included taxes, in his R2 list.

"No one is subsidizing business taxes"

While I was speaking more of a general subsidy, in the sense that if they are not paying their "fair share" (which is the concept Pro was complaining about way back in R2), it is nonetheless the case that oil companies DO receive subsidies, so even if he takes issue with my rhetorical position, it is not a "lie". [1], [2], [3]

As the Supreme Court recently noted, there isn't really a difference between a tax break and a payout. Taxes are taxes, and they all factor in to each other. Pro's source claims that the oil industry's tax breaks are "like every other business...deductions for the expenses they incur."

Pro's source is an opinion piece. There is no data to back up the assertion at all.

Every regulated industry has their own tax breaks. Common usage is that subsidies are money paid out, while "tax break" is the term for the types of deductions we're talking about. However, it is still a subsidy, under the technical definition of the word. In fact, it's explicitly in line with Pro's arguments, as a subsidy "... reduces costs for both producers and consumers by giving direct or indirect support."[3]

"I mean no disrespect but I can definitely see where you spend your time on the internet for economic news. Society does not pay a business's tax bills except when they buy their products."

What Pro seems to not understand here, is that, to a greater or lesser extent depending on your political views, taxes are necessary. The government requires X in revenue. If it doesn't get it, it will raise taxes. If it doesn't raise taxes on corporations, it will raise it on what remains: the people. So yes, when a corporation gets a tax break, it plausibly falls to the people to make up the money that's not being paid by the business. As Pro notes, the government runs in the RED, not the BLACK.

"I never said one word about "more." They have a right to profits if they earn them. That why they are in business."

Pro seems to fail to understand the special pleading he's engaged in. His reasoning either applies to the people and to businesses, or it does not. As he is not arguing for that, he's instead arguing that only businesses should be keeping these profits. That is exactly as I described it, Pro's not using the specific word "more" notwithstanding.

"They contribute every time they trade their products for their customer's money. They give jobs to society. Many contribute millions to charities. What other obligation do they have?"

This was a rhetorical question, but the answer would be: To pay a tax burden of a similar nature as individuals. You can argue against the tax burden overall, but arguing ONLY for businesses is special pleading and, as I've noted, warrantless.

"""You do acknowledge that you are not benefitting when someone else's taxes are raised don't you?"""
""No. If more taxes go into the system, this means that either: I pay less taxes, or more things which taxes pay for are paid for, making things ostensibly better overall.""
"No, you don't pay less taxes. Your paycheck may say differently..."

Perhaps Pro doesn't understand what "ostensibly" means. I agree; the government certainly has trouble with how it spends money. But the idea that the system overall is not helped when more money goes into it that is still going to be spent seems absurd. I can only imagine Pro's trying to argue that they will overspend by exactly the same amount whether they have that extra money or not, but if that is his claim, he's shown no warrant for it.

"""Oil companies raise prices of their products all the time for all the reasons I stated in the first round."""
""And also because they can. Supply and demand.""
"Finally, we agree on something."

Pro seems to not understand why this is harmful to his case. Oil companies will charge exactly as much as they think they can get away with with acceptable risk. They may be more willing to take a risk by raising prices than they would otherwise, but that's a risk they take, it just becomes a necessary risk when they're not making a profit. Pro's claim is that they wouldn't raise the price from X to Y without the tax, except that if they think they could get Y, they would just raise the price anyway! That's how market economics works.

"We do know what oil company profits are. That is public information. I was only talking about the amount they make on a gallon of gas. They do more than sell gas. "

Correct. I was referring to your assessment of the per-gallon profit.

"I don't even see how that affects any part of this debate? I guess I missed it."
Pro's source threw out 76% of the total cost of a gallon of gas as being the cost of the crude oil. I assumed Pro used the math included there to get to his figure for per-gallon profits. However, considering that 76% is often not paid, as the company gets its own oil, ignoring that amount to arrive at a few cents a gallon figure is invalid

A NOTE ON LYING:

I'm quite tired of these charges of lying. Pro fails to establish why I've supposedly misrepresented him, and he claims things are quotes which are CLEARLY not quotes, but rather my assessment of his position, then tries to claim that because he didn't use those specific words, I've "lied". This is ridiculous. Every time I've quoted Pro, I've QUOTED Pro clearly. That he doesn't like my assessment of his position, but has yet to explain HOW it's wrong, focusing on words that I never claimed he literally said, is not a rebuttal.

"I was simply making that point because you were acting as if companies do not have a right to their money. If they don't, should you give it to our wonderful, honest, fiscal government?"

The problem here is that Pro doesn't make this case for the individual. It's entirely for businesses. As previously noted, this is special pleading; the implication of the apparent artificial limitation of the argument is that corporations have MORE right than individuals, otherwise Pro would be defending the individuals as well. He has yet to actually contradict this, and indeed, it would not follow from his original resolution, which these points have nothing to do with.

"This debate has ceased being fun..."

Pro apparently does not understand how a debate works. I'm saddened that he fails to realize that explaining the implications of an opponent's position is PART of a debate.

"You have quoted things I never said at all"
Now THIS is a flat lie. I have never done this to Pro, and he needs to step back or give ANYWHERE where I quoted him saying something he didn't. The examples he's given thus far are NOT quotes, and it's disingenuous to claim they are.

"and tried to put your spin on it which is basically "people good, corporations bad.""

The irony here is that I could accuse Pro of doing exactly what he's been accusing me of. However, I would like to ask where he gets the idea that I see such a dichotomy? My point is that corporations/businesses should be AS responsible, taxwise, as individuals; Pro's argument from the beginning was to find fault with the concept of their paying their "fair share".

[1] http://www.forbes.com...
[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
brett.winstead

Pro



"No one is subsidizing business taxes"


As the Supreme Court recently noted, there isn't really a difference between a tax break and a payout.




Well, as authorities on the matter, they sure would not lie would they? After all, you and I are not capable of thinking for ourselves are we. 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. But, according to you, I guess it is a tax because the Supremes say it is.



You used the word "payout." Let's say I come to your house every Thursday and demand you pay me a tax of $50 each week. One day I come along and demand $40. You are still paying me $40 but are you going to go to your friends and say you got a "payout" of $10? If so, your thinking is consistent with the Supreme Court's.




Every regulated industry has their own tax breaks. Common usage is that subsidies are money paid out,




That is not what a subsidy is. A subsidy is an actual payout which means a company would have to get more back from tax dollars that they pay in. An earned income tax credit is usually a subsidy.




However, it is still a subsidy, under the technical definition of the word. In fact, it's explicitly in line with Pro's arguments, as a subsidy "... reduces costs for both producers and consumers by giving direct or indirect support."[3]




They are not giving anything just like you were not being given the $10. Who is giving oil companies payouts? Are you just not interested in the facts? I sent you a link. They (their consumers) pay billions in taxes. You cannot both pay and receive. Go try to buy something at a store and see if you can find a way to pay for it and get money back at the same time. In this universe, that is not possible.



"I mean no disrespect but I can definitely see where you spend your time on the internet for economic news. Society does not pay a business's tax bills except when they buy their products."

What Pro seems to not understand here, is that, to a greater or lesser extent depending on your political views, taxes are necessary.




I never said the first thing about taxes being unnecessary.




The government requires X in revenue. If it doesn't get it, it will raise taxes. If it doesn't raise taxes on corporations, it will raise it on what remains: the people.




You just do not get it. A corporation's taxes are the people's taxes but you are just blind to that.




So yes, when a corporation gets a tax break, it plausibly falls to the people to make up the money that's not being paid by the business. As Pro notes, the government runs in the RED, not the BLACK. The government requires X in revenue.




You simply do not understand that the government does not require X in revenue. If so, what is X? 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. If Exxon made 10 trillion dollars and they (for example) were in a 50% tax bracket, that would be all the 5 trillion, correct? That would mean that NO ONE else needed to pay any taxes. 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. 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.




"They contribute every time they trade their products for their customer's money. They give jobs to society. Many contribute millions to charities. What other obligation do they have?"

This was a rhetorical question, but the answer would be: To pay a tax burden of a similar nature as individuals.




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. I know what you are going to try to say about percentages and it is senseless. 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. You have been to the sites and seen the phrase "fair share" tossed around and refuse to do any research yourself to see what the rich pay. You should Google "rich fair share" sometime.




But the idea that the system overall is not helped when more money goes into it that is still going to be spent seems absurd.




Let me introduce you to the federal government. They will spend it. They do spend it.




I can only imagine Pro's trying to argue that they will overspend by exactly the same amount whether they have that extra money or not, but if that is his claim, he's shown no warrant for it.




Are you at all familiar with the history and present of government spending? How do you think their "budget" climbs higher and higher every year?




A NOTE ON LYING:

. Every time I've quoted Pro, I've QUOTED Pro clearly.




Which you have not. 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.





"You have quoted things I never said at all"
Now THIS is a flat lie. I have never done this to Pro, and he needs to step back or give ANYWHERE where I quoted him saying something he didn't. The examples he's given thus far are NOT quotes, and it's disingenuous to claim they are.




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.




"and tried to put your spin on it which is basically "people good, corporations bad.""




My point is that corporations/businesses should be AS responsible, taxwise, as individuals; Pro's argument from the beginning was to find fault with the concept of their paying their "fair share".


Wow, business should be as responsible? Newsflash; they are! They spend tons of money just on compliance alone in addition to the taxes they (their customers) pay. 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:



1. how much taxes the rich pay


2. how little taxes the poor pay


3. how much compliance costs are in addition to paying


4. how much regulation they put up with


5. how much they give to society in products, sponsorships, technology, making life easier, etc.



...and yet they still get criticized by those who sit on their thrones and say they rich don't pay "enough" and yet they cannot and will not define "enough" and neither will you. It will never be enough. You are having your mind poisoned by those sites and so you are accepting their lies about subsidies being handouts and the rich not carrying their burden and especially, corporations receiving as you call it "payouts." The sad part is that you are believing that these sites just present the unbiased truth.

bladerunner060

Con

Thank you to my opponent for this debate.

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...
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
The lack of votes is actually a perennial problem that's always on the menu to be fixed. For now there is that "unvoted debates" thread in the forums, which generally gets a debate at least a few votes.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
I appreciate and take it in the spirit it was intended. I bear no animosity.

I will say, however, that part of the problem seems to me to be a word imprecision. I NEVER quoted you as saying anything but what I copied and pasted from your rounds.

I freely confess I analyzed your position. I don't believe that I ever once even used the colloquial "He's saying X...", which is something that you did when you said "...what they are really saying is:" and then gave your own analysis. In that circumstance, the context makes clear it's not a "real" quote.

Charges of "LIAR" flung just because you disagree with an assessment are unproductive and disrespectful. And claiming someone misquoted you when they did no such thing is not fair, either, even if that claim is part of an apology for the former. I will be charitable, and assume you meant "I found your analysis of my position flawed and inaccurate" rather than "What you quoted about me was not true".
Posted by brett.winstead 3 years ago
brett.winstead
Also for the record, I did not apologize to win votes, which I cannot take very seriously on this site due to the low number of voters in every single debate. Some have none.
Posted by brett.winstead 3 years ago
brett.winstead
For the record, I will apologize for calling you a liar but it sure appeared that way. You are correct that if you believe it, it is not a lie (to quote George Costanza). What you were quoting about me was not true but that does not mean you were trying to deceive necessarily so I will take it back.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
You were correct, even if you weren't?

Your source does not UNAMBIGUOUSLY agree with you.
Nor does a Dictionary of Economics agree with you at all.
Nor does the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Both of those cite indirect subsidies as things which exist.

Can you not see that a refusal to even CONSIDER evidence on the grounds that you MUST be right is a huge bias?

(As to your Wal-Mart rant, I presume your friend was talking about the fact that Wal-Mart's business model is such that their employees are disproportionately on government assistance despite their huge profits with which they could trivially afford to pay more. Now, they choose not to, as is their right, but it's not entirely inaccurate to point out that Wal-Mart's tendency to keep wages low (in some documented cases, through locking their employees in and refusing to pay them for their work http://en.wikipedia.org...) may well contribute to a higher overall tax burden, and dismissing a source simply for its liberal-ness is a bias)
Posted by brett.winstead 3 years ago
brett.winstead
What I tried to say was that I had always correctly thought that a subsidy was exactly what it is - a grant or handout and when I found the definition on Investopedia, I thought "there must be more definitions of it" but as the day wore on and I got to thinking about it, and realized that a tax break is not at all the same as a grant so I did a little more research and found out I was originally correct (after the debate).

When the president claims oil companies get subsidies, the liberal sites love to scream about the oil companies getting subsidies and the people having to make up for it - something you echoed in the debate. They think that they have to pay the big companies something out of their pocket and they do not. That is why the word "subsidy" from Obama and thinkprogress is a lie. It is meant to deceive. It is not just incorrect. They want you to believe this so you will scream for them to get a tax hike. I have this anti Walmart friend who told me that as long as I shop at Walmart, he will continue to pay the difference in taxes. Guess where he spends his time getting news; yep. thinkprogress.com
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Sigh.

Once again, Poe's law is given experimental validity.

Pro, you need to stop using the word "lie". Lie implies intent to deceive. Just because I or someone else disagrees with you does not make us "liars", or our statements, even if possibly wrong, "lies".

I'll remind you, also, that you had ample opportunity to quibble about this within the debate, and chose not to. While I have no problem continuing things in the comments, since I'm almost always willing to discuss, none of this will factor into the decision on the debate itself.

Further, I'm sorry that YOUR OWN SOURCE disagreed with you. Perhaps you should have thought about it before posting it? Regardless, you've given no grounds for your "almost certainly a left winger" crack.

Now, having been confronted with the fact that the definition YOU PROVIDED didn't back up your claim, you went out there and found one that did. Of course, the fact that your definition doesn't expressly preclude a tax break from being considered a subsidy, or that it's clearly not a technical definition, doesn't seem to have phased you in the slightest.

To return to your example from earlier, there is FUNCTIONALLY no difference between (you giving me $50, and me giving you $10), and (you giving me $40 in the first place). We wind up with the exact same figures.

The term that would specify more, here, is "indirect subsidy". As noted in the Wikipedia article I gave within the debate, that such an "indirect subsidy" is a valid use of the term subsidy is in the Collins Dictionary of Economics.

It's a fairly standard work on the subject, and the concept of indirect subsidies is a fairly standard concept. For goodness' sake, it's mentioned in the CHILDREN'S edition of the Brittanica:

http://kids.britannica.com...
Posted by brett.winstead 3 years ago
brett.winstead
I made a mistake by quoting from Investopedia on the definition of a subsidy. I did not think a tax break was considered a subsidy so surprise of surprises, Investopedia is wrong! From dictionary.com:

sub"si"dy
[suhb-si-dee] Show IPA
noun, plural sub"si"dies.
1. a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2. a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3. a grant or contribution of money.
4. money formerly granted by the English Parliament to the crown for special needs.

For some odd reason, the editor of Investopedia (almost certainly a left winger) thought that a tax break was the same thing as one of these definitions and it is absolutely not. A business getting a tax break is not getting any grant, contribution or sum paid in any form. It is just not money being taken from them.

Therefore, when you read anywhere that businesses like oil companies receive subsidies, you know you are reading a lie.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Okay. So, first off, may I point out that you're doing what you complained about earlier? You're assessing things I said, by trying to make claims about what the things I say mean. THAT'S PART OF DEBATING.

In response to my reminding you I've never called them gifts, you say ""You never called them gifts but you act as if it is."

Now, I could do what you've done and simply say "YOU'RE LYING". But instead, I will SHOW YOU why your assessment is incorrect. Which is what you're supposed to do when debating something.

I called them subsidies. As your own definition notes, tax breaks ARE subsidies. Therefore, they are subsidiZED by definition. As such, the taxpayers are subsidizing the profit margins you're talking about.

At no point is there any implication such a subsidy is a "gift" in the sense you've been using it. Your argument fails, because it moves from the argument that prices MUST rise in response to higher taxes in order for the business to stay SOLVENT, to the idea that businesses are entitled to a certain amount of profits that would be reduced if the taxes are raised. Net Profits are monies above the cost of doing business...as such, eating into them does NOT raise business expenses, and does NOT necessitate a rise in prices.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
""Pro asserts that the person setting prices should pay themselves whatever they want, and the rest of the citizens should subsidize that pay...""

"By the last part of that last sentence, you are heavily implying that citizens do subsidize that pay..."

Actually, no. I'm saying that your position is such that the taxpayers should subsidize that pay. It's necessarily entailed from your argument that raising the taxes to a "fair" level will necessarily raise prices. That argument rests on the idea that the businesses are entitled (because it's clear that they do not NEED) to the pre-tax profits. I called that into question, by pointing out that by arguing for just that entitlement, you are essentially arguing for the people to pay, but businesses not to.

"because you are accusing me of wanting that to be so with your word "should.""
That's not how you parse that sentence. It was speaking of the consequences of your position. However, I DO believe that the taxpayors DO subsidize that pay, when corporations wind up paying no taxes, which does happen as I noted.

"That in itself is a lie but I digress."
In the future, perhaps the purchase of a dictionary would help you. Then you could look up the meaning of words like "lie". Because you're doing it wrong. Every statement about your position from me has been an honest one. If I'm wrong, that's one thing. It would be your job to show that. But accusing me of lying necessarily entails that I am speaking something I know to be untrue. Which is, ITSELF, a lie on your part, considering at this point you've given no sufficient reason that you suppose that intent.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
brett.winsteadbladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: And yet, businesses still pay taxes. Pro attempts to convolute a very simple issue, talks around himself and generally makes no points of coherence whatsoever. I understand that he was trying to be clever, but it didn't work out. Businesses pay taxes. It's an astoundingly simple fact. Conduct to CON because PRO accused him, repeatedly, of being a liar. PRO is admonished to adhere to proper decorum. CON's statements of fact were overwhelmingly more convincing, because they were statements of fact.