One consequence of the new tax law

Yes, and the corporate tax cut is one more step in the process of socializing risk and expense while privatizing more profit. Corporations cost us money to maintain them and they should pay their own costs.

 

Yes, just as you lose almost every debate, because with you there is no "debate". There's only your spin, denials, deflections, disinformation, accusations, and general BS, . . . . -and then repeat.

It is exactly why I had you on "ignore" for so long. I'm thinking it may happen again because you never learn this lesson.

 

so your idea is that conservatives lose debates to communists after communism slowly killed 120 million human souls?

 

No, my idea is that there is no communism and so few "communists" that people who believe magnets improve their health outnumber them.

I know you think the Democratic Party is a communist party, and that is the sort of crazy, asinine, unbalanced thinking I'm talking about too.

 

but 132 attempts to get to communism have existed and 120 million human souls were slowly starved to death. Shall we set a limit on 200 million dead before we kill anyone who mentions communism as anything other than
the most deadly force in human history?

 

There have been an average of 8,775 firearm murders in the US per year. Shall we set a limit of 9,000 gun murders per year before we ban guns?

 

cu t the BS if you disagree with conclusion say why or admit you cant

 

Apple, Microsoft, Walmart, Google, etc are all in the same boat.

They will each owe a huge tax haven tax to Uncle Sam due to the new corporate tax law recently passed.

 

They're not "getting off".

They (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Walmart, etc.) are paying-up.

Their tax back-payment is at 21% and it covers all their prior years of sheltering profits in tax havens like Ireland, Caymans, Singapore, etc.

 

No tax classes however ?!

 

He is right about the tax on Apple.

He has omitted Google, Microsoft, Walmart, etc. as well though. These corporations have all been tax cheats.

This is a catch-up under the "Subpart F rules" of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 US Code.

 

actually our subject is not nature of labor force but whether 250 years of tech growth resulted in unemployment
you learned that it did not and tried to change subject to nature of work force. Make sense?

 

yes if he had tax classes he would know we as consumers pay the corporations' taxes just like we pay for the glass screens on our iphones. Best bet is to eliminate the tax and let business concentrate on burying the competition. Way too wonkish for liberals I know.

 

no it doesn't.

 

I can but won't because it is clear that your grasp of economics would require effort on your part to learn what you don't know. Regrettably, it seems that is a chronic condition suffered by many.

 

translation: as a liberal I have to run from yet another debate. Ever see a conservative who has to run? What does that teach you?