CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The U.S. has the highest marginal corporate tax rate among all developed countries[1]. Not only that, but the U.S. has one of the highest effective corporate tax rates among all developed countries, ranking in the top 5[2]. Companies have to pay more of their profits here than in other countries, and this is a factor when people and corporations decide where to invest their money.
The average effective tax rate among other nations is 20%, where the US's is 27%. From another perspective, the tax on new investment is 30%, which is 7.5% higher than international averages[2].
In other words, if a wealthy person is considering investing in a company, they will have to pay 7.5% higher taxes if they invest in a U.S. based company than a foreign company, and in some countries they can pay a tax rate as much as 17.8% lower than the U.S. tax rate.[3]
If you were a business person, and your goal were to maximize return on your investment, would you rather be taxed on your profits at 30% or at 12.2%?
This is why the US is struggling with jobs. We aren't competitive on an international level. Investors can keep more of their profits by investing outside of the US.
US corporate profits are at an all time high. Although the US has the highest corporate tax rate, this rate is rarely paid, as there are arguably more loopholes than any other tax system. Between these loopholes, and flat out tax breaks, the US effective corporate tax rate is significantly below 39.1%, at around 13.4%.
All that considered, I have no problem with the US (or any other country) lowering their corporate tax rate, as long as they close the loopholes, and reduce tax breaks that cost tens of billions of dollars a year. However, that is unlikely to happen, so I support maintaining the tax rates at their 'high' level.
I would like to point out that ThinkProgress is not a tax group, and does not specialize in taxes. Their sources are buried in linked stories.
The 13.4% figure cited is a combination of corporate income tax and corporate investment tax. A simple average of the two doesn't provide the correct picture, as corporate investment income is a small fraction of total corporate income. My sources linked at the tax foundation examine hypothetical corporations in different industries, as the tax rates change from industry to industry.
An interesting note for you Ben, Mitt Romney closed corporate tax loopholes as governor of Massachusetts.
I would like to point out that ThinkProgress is not a tax group, and does not specialize in taxes. Their sources are buried in linked stories.
I realized. I tried to find the data that they'd used, but somewhat gave up. If the data was anomalous, I wouldn't have posted it, yet as I found similar claims (without the international comparison) I decided it was relevant enough.
The 13.4% figure cited is a combination of corporate income tax and corporate investment tax. A simple average of the two doesn't provide the correct picture, as corporate investment income is a small fraction of total corporate income. My sources linked at the tax foundation examine hypothetical corporations in different industries, as the tax rates change from industry to industry.
I hadn't looked through it before. Your sources don't give the same figures (obviously, as you said they're not on the same thing), but the picture it paints is not one where the US is an outlier, but middle of the ground - exactly what my sources were saying. Considering that I have no real expertise in the quantitative comparisons of taxation, and haven't looked into econometrics to a great extent, I feel that this is reason enough to say that tax rates should not be lowered.
An interesting note for you Ben, Mitt Romney closed corporate tax loopholes as governor of Massachusetts.
I think Mitt Romney, if he stood up for himself, would be much better than the manipulated puppet that he is now. He's spoken in favour of homosexuals, in favour of abortions, and done some things that are good for the economy. He now speaks against all of them. If I could mix and match his various opinions over time, I'm sure I could find someone that I support in the end.
ThinkProgress got their data from the Congressional Budget Office, but they cherry picked one figure, when corporate taxes are calculated individually depending on industry. This is the latest study they have put out:
In the three major scenarios they put forth, they get the following tax rates.
Figure 2-14: 23.6%
Figure 2-17: 22.1%
Figure 2-20: 41%!
The Tax Foundation link I put up shows an average of 27%, which it lists in the top 5, but that was before Japan lowered its tax rate. Looking at averages though can be misleading. Some industries can enjoy a tax rate up to 30% less by moving out of the US.
Honestly, a little simplification of the code wouldn't hurt :)
BenWalters-"and reduce tax breaks that cost tens of billions of dollars a year"
Are you serious? You're acting like the government somehow deserves that money. You're acting like it's a bad thing to keep private money in the private sector. Remember, the government can't create jobs. Only private businesses can.
The government makes the majority of it's money through taxes (over 95% of government income is taxes). That means hardly any of the government "jobs" that exist are profit making. Therefore, a government "job" is not really a job because there is not profit made through the work that the government employee does. It's just money spent and lost.
That means the higher the government taxes businesses, the less money that business has for employees. And as there are fewer and fewer people employed, that means there is less money for the government to bring in with taxes. The smaller the amount of money the government brings in, the more it has to cut spending from it's budget. And since we all know the government doesn't like to cut spending, it usually just prints money which causes inflation. Now, the higher the inflation rate, the higher the prices soar. Since wages have never kept up with inflation, people usually become more poor as a result.
And that's why I hate this stupid class war. People don't realize they are only making themselves poor. They aren't helping anything, just hurting themselves.
"That means hardly any of the government "jobs" that exist are profit making."
In a perfect world, no government jobs would be profit making. The amount the government takes in from taxes would equal the wages and expenditures it legislates and administrates. But to go on to say that a job isn't a job because there is no profit motive is ridiculous. A job is a job if something is produced (either immaterial or material, in the case of say educating children in school or grants for cancer research), not whether or not there is a profit behind it.
"That means the higher the government taxes businesses, the less money that business has for employees."
You assume here that all money that businesses remains within circulation for the business, when really, many times executives (particularly of large corporations) may begin to hoard the cash rather than use it to invest in personnel, maintenance, etc. Essentially what your argument here boils down to is a slippery slope; if you have taxes, businesses won't hire, people won't have jobs, government can't tax, government doesn't cut spending, government prints money, inflation and prices soar, and people are wham, bam, thank you ma'am, people are poorer. Because of taxes. Mhm, totally reasonable progression.
"The amount the government takes in from taxes would equal the wages and expenditures it legislates and administrates."
Yeah, but it doesn't! So how do you explain the massive amount of rising debt? That is why jobs should be kept in the private sector. Because the government jobs don't bring in any money, the government debt just goes higher, and since it doesn't cut spending, inflation wipes out savings. So until you properly address the debt problem, you can't really consider a government job an actual job.
Second of all, there is nothing wrong with saving your money. I know you would call it "hoarding" your money, but it's better than spending it like a drunken sailor. Saving is what stable economy is based on, not spending. Then you just get a bubble, because when the money runs out, you have to rely on those who saved in order to recover. This is proven by the rising economic power in China. Half of the people save what they bring in. In contrast, in America, people spend more than what they bring in.
So in conclusion, I leave you with two questions:
1. What about the government debt? You can't say you have a job if it's based off of money that technically doesn't exist.
2. What about the fact that Americans spend more than they bring in? You can't have a stable economy if this continues to happen.
"Because the government jobs don't bring in any money, the government debt just goes higher, and since it doesn't cut spending, inflation wipes out savings."
So tell me, how again don't government jobs bring in any money? Additionally, many economists are now comparing the American recovery and the European recovery. Europe did what you said: they cut spending, programs, and benefits (in the form of other austerity measures), and now those countries who inflicted the most extreme measures are suffering the most instability, inflation, and economic woes. Meanwhile, America, who used a relatively small (compared to what some economists projected is needed) increase in spending to counteract the recession, and now our economic footing is much better and more secure than Europe's. In hindsight, economists are saying that we should have, in fact, spent more to speed recovery.
"Second of all, there is nothing wrong with saving your money."
I never said that.
"I know you would call it "hoarding" your money, but it's better than spending it like a drunken sailor."
I never said one should spend their money "like a drunken sailor."
"Then you just get a bubble, because when the money runs out, you have to rely on those who saved in order to recover."
Rather simplistic, don't you think? Shouldn't there be regulations on banks so they don't allow their customers to spend money so willy-nilly? Perhaps we should enforce banks to not allow those with bad credit to take out loans. Maybe we need to reform our stock exchange so banks aren't gambling with their investors money so that if people suddenly need their money (like in a banking crisis) they can't say, "Whoops, we misplaced your money, so here's an IOU."
"What about the government debt? You can't say you have a job if it's based off of money that technically doesn't exist."
But the money does exist. Or it will at some point. That is the nature of debt. It exists somewhere from someone. Or do you not recognize that other countries exist and that we borrow from them? The nature of debt isn't necessarily a bad thing on a national scale. You point to China as the epitome of fiscal reason, and yet many analysts see China as teetering on the precipice of a burst bubble (or at least deflated growth). http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/05/12/chinese-economy-unexpectedly-slows-will- the-bubble-in-china-babble-burst/
Which brings me to number two.
"What about the fact that Americans spend more than they bring in? You can't have a stable economy if this continues to happen."
Well, actually you can. The modern economy (and by modern, it's actually pretty old) uses debt as a necessity to build credit. That doesn't mean that one spends all their money and wallows hopelessly in debt for the rest of their life, nor does it mean that people should save all their money and spend only cash. Credit is used to buy houses, cars, invest in and make businesses, even while it is also used to get a new pair of shoes or a new iPod. If you don't have credit (which is awarded through payment of debts), it is nigh on impossible to make any large expenditures (like find houses, apartments, cars, businesses, etc.). Being fiscally responsible requires finding a balance between debt and income, and if you can strike that balance, you can be stable. Of course, the balance will be different on between individuals, just as it is different to compare individual debt with national debt. It is somewhat like comparing apples and oranges; yes, they are both debt, per se, but one is used in a vastly different manner than the other.
Supporting Evidence:
China bubble
(blogs.the-american-interest.com)
Are you serious? You're acting like the government somehow deserves that money.
I do not believe that the wealthy and the rich deserve tax breaks, lower tax rates, and to pay less for the same goods, compared to poor people. This corporatism only encourages the divide between the rich and the poor, which strongly correlates with a whole range of social issues, and I do not feel it helps anyone - but the rich themselves.
You're acting like it's a bad thing to keep private money in the private sector.
I do not think that anyone should be exempt from paying what they should pay for. Be that VAT tax on the poor, 30% tax on the mega rich, people who inherit all their money, or corporate tax. So yes, I think it's definitely a bad thing that certain people are given exemptions.
Remember, the government can't create jobs. Only private businesses can.
Patently untrue statement. Not only could I prove that wrong through your own country, I'm going to abolish it through a country that I live in. In Qatar, there's huge amounts of oil, natural gas, and petroleum reserves. The biggest company in the country, Qatar Petroleum, is a state owned & ran firm, which extracts this, and ships it to the West. It brings billions into the economy, investing at cheap rates, giving huge positive externalities to the people. It creates thousands of jobs. Your right wing mantra is idiotic.
That means hardly any of the government "jobs" that exist are profit making.
Good. If there's profit making jobs available, they should (in most circumstances) be left to the market - I agree that it is more efficient than the sector. But, do you think a government should only exist to make a profit, that there is no possible good where there is no profit? If you do not see the value in anything the government does, then we differ too much for us to have a debate on equal terms.
That means the higher the government taxes businesses, the less money that business has for employees. And as there are fewer and fewer people employed, that means there is less money for the government to bring in with taxes. The smaller the amount of money the government brings in, the more it has to cut spending from it's budget. And since we all know the government doesn't like to cut spending, it usually just prints money which causes inflation. Now, the higher the inflation rate, the higher the prices soar. Since wages have never kept up with inflation, people usually become more poor as a result.
Have you heard of the Laffer Curve? In America, you are on the left side, so your trail of logic is false. So, I would rather see tax rates followed properly, by income taxes & corporate taxes, by the poor & the rich, to reduce the printing of money, to reduce inflation, and whilst allowing the government to maintain their current services.
And that's why I hate this stupid class war. People don't realize they are only making themselves poor. They aren't helping anything, just hurting themselves.
Yes, while those massive firms that lobby for billions of dollars in lowered taxes are the real heroes!
"Patently untrue statement. Not only could I prove that wrong through your own country, I'm going to abolish it through a country that I live in. In Qatar, there's huge amounts of oil, natural gas, and petroleum reserves. The biggest company in the country, Qatar Petroleum, is a state owned & ran firm, which extracts this, and ships it to the West. It brings billions into the economy, investing at cheap rates, giving huge positive externalities to the people. It creates thousands of jobs. Your right wing mantra is idiotic."
Well then, if you could prove my statement wrong through my own country, why didn't you? This is a logical fallacy. Don't say you can do something and then do the exact opposite.
Now, the reason you can't prove this through my own country is because the government spends more that it brings in. Until this changes, the government can't create jobs because it's based on money that technically doesn't exist.
And finally, I think you fail to realize the purpose of the government. All a government is suppose to do is protect it's citizens from foreign attacks and enforce it's own civil laws. If the government has the money, then I suppose it can add icing to the cake by providing more services. But the US doesn't have the money, so the extra services should be privatized. Just study the Roman empire. At it's height, it was able to privatize almost all of it's services. The only things it had to pay for was the government positions (the governors, senators, etc.) and the military. That's it. All the other services were privatized. If you wanted them, you paid for them. Then (like in America) the power went to Rome's head and they started to provide more services with less money. They started to inflate the currency (like in America) and the economy started to fall (like in America). Eventually, the people became more lazy (like in America) and started to demand everyday services from the government. They wanted government entertainment, government doctors, even government food (huh, just like in America). Well, the rest is history. Corruption became commonplace (like in America), greed replaced thrift, and nobody paid attention to deficits (amazing, just like in America); and the mighty Roman empire fell. It's as if America is following Rome's path to self destruction step by step. Amazing, simply amazing.
(Roman Empire Source: Empire of Debt; by William Bonner and Addison Wiggin ISBN-10: 0471739022 or ISBN-13: 978-0471739029)
Well then, if you could prove my statement wrong through my own country, why didn't you? This is a logical fallacy.
Because your government only spends about 30% of GDP, whereas Qatar is much higher than this. This large difference in magnitude makes your statements validity all the more untrue. So no, this is not a logical fallacy: you claim that no government (public sector) creates jobs, I have shown that a government has created thousands of jobs and economic prosperity, proving your statement false. This is not a logical fallacy.
And finally, I think you fail to realize the purpose of the government.
Ah, pushing your own opinion across as facts. You should remember that your own constitution instructs government to 'improve general welfare' of the country, and is very much open to interpretation. So, while I agree that government should protect its country from attacks & enforce a legal & police system, I think there is much more that it should do.
If you wanted them, you paid for them.
Do you think there is nothing more to life than money? I believe that every human has an intrinsic value, and I feel that a system in which our only value is that which we can provide to others, is a detrimental to humanity.
Empire of Debt; by William Bonner and Addison Wiggin
That's nice. Do you know how the US grew to power? Through government intervention, protectionism, nationalism, and many other left wing policies. In development, a strong government sector is much more accepted than in developed nations: this is why the IMF, WTO, or World Bank's pushing of US free market policies are kicked the ladder away from those countries after the US climbed up it itself. For a refreshing read, try 23 Things you didn't know about capitalism: by Ha-Joon Chang
"I have shown that a government has created thousands of jobs and economic prosperity, proving your statement false."
Yeah, in your country. What part about "the government jobs in my country don't make a profit" don't you understand?
"You should remember that your own constitution instructs government to 'improve general welfare' of the country, and is very much open to interpretation."
Prove it! Show me which section says this.
"Do you think there is nothing more to life than money? I believe that every human has an intrinsic value."
Based off of what? What gives live value other than our own happiness?
"That's nice. Do you know how the US grew to power? Through government intervention, protectionism, nationalism, and many other left wing policies. In development, a strong government sector is much more accepted than in developed nations: this is why the IMF, WTO, or World Bank's pushing of US free market policies are kicked the ladder away from those countries after the US climbed up it itself. For a refreshing read, try 23 Things you didn't know about capitalism: by Ha-Joon Chang."
Do YOU know how the U.S. rose to power? I don't think you do. See, they wanted a limited government. They didn't have this under the rule of Kind George, so we wiped our butts with England's army and set about in making a limited government. After all, haven't you forgot Thomas Jefferson himself said, "A government that governs least governs best." Maybe you should brush up on you history before you try to pass off you opinion as fact. And you know what my favorite part is? You are silent on my statement about the Roman Empire because you know that's what is happening to America. But you obviously proved you are not studied in history. Otherwise you wouldn't have made such historically inaccurate statements.
Yeah, in your country. What part about "the government jobs in my country don't make a profit" don't you understand?
Again, do you not realize that not all jobs necessarily make a profit? The public sector is not intended to create profit, by any means, it is intended to create benefits to the general public, as outlined by your own constitution. I'm not arguing that the government makes a profit: I would be quite unhappy if it were doing so. But profits are not the only positive thing in the world.
Prove it! Show me which section says this.
Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Based off of what? What gives live value other than our own happiness?
If you cannot see anything good in the world other than money, then I feel truly sorry for you, but that is for you to discover, not me to tell you about. And money ≠ happiness, just so you know.
As far as I'm aware, they supported limited government in terms of social issues, yet much more government intervention in terms of economic issues.
You are silent on my statement about the Roman Empire because you know that's what is happening to America. But you obviously proved you are not studied in history. Otherwise you wouldn't have made such historically inaccurate statements.
I am silent because I don't know much about the Roman's history, while you obviously do. I would be a fool to argue out of ignorance, and I don't feel like researching it to the extent of being able to argue competently.
However, I completely disagree that what you learn in a US school gives you such absolute authority on US history. I have taken 'world' (US) history at an American school before, and it's ridiculously one sided. It tells you nothing more than what the US wants to believe.
I also do not believe that the Roman Empire & the US are perfect comparisons - there are vast differences, I'm sure you will agree. So I disagree with your conclusion: that what happened to the Roman Empire will happen to the US, and that anything but a pure free market is killing the country.
"Again, do you not realize that not all jobs necessarily make a profit? The public sector is not intended to create profit, by any means, it is intended to create benefits to the general public, as outlined by your own constitution. I'm not arguing that the government makes a profit: I would be quite unhappy if it were doing so. But profits are not the only positive thing in the world."
Yeah, and if the government jobs do not make a profit, then we rack up huge debt. So the general benefits created for the general public quickly disappear as the government runs out of money. Such a simple concept; don't know why it's so hard to understand.
"Preamble:"
Wow, you totally do not understand what this means. What they are saying here is that they are establishing the Constitution in order to promote the general welfare of people through limited government. Because if they didn't, the government could become corrupt and a totalitarian state would not be promoting general welfare. So they set a standard of promoting general welfare by creating a limited government. What you do not understand is that the government does not need to provide services to promote the general welfare of people. Sometimes, they can do this by not getting involved in people's lives, but I suppose you think it's a glorious system comrade.
"If you cannot see anything good in the world other than money, then I feel truly sorry for you, but that is for you to discover, not me to tell you about. And money ≠ happiness, just so you know."
If your profile is correct, then you're an atheist. Therefore, life is pointless. There is no life after death, and the meaning of life is what any one person thinks is his own way of happiness (that's why there are no absolutes). So for you to say that money does not create happiness is both wrong and a lie (and contradictory to your own beliefs). You can't say money ≠ happiness if I say it does, because the meaning of happiness is relative. Therefore, I'm right. It's like saying homosexuality ≠ happiness. You can now see the flaw in your statement.
Now, I will explain why saying money does not create happiness is a direct contradiction to your own beliefs. We said this: "And that's why I hate this stupid class war. People don't realize they are only making themselves poor. They aren't helping anything, just hurting themselves.
Yes, while those massive firms that lobby for billions of dollars in lowered taxes are the real heroes!"
It would appear like you are one of those people who want higher wages for the poor or middle class. If money wasn't the source of happiness, then the poor or middle class wouldn't need any extra money. Direct contradiction, as you can clearly see.
"Do YOU know how the U.S. rose to power?
Here's an extract from one of his books.
Here's the book itself - skip to page 32"
I'm sorry that my work schedule doesn't leave time to read the entire 300 page book in time to give you a punctual response to this debate, but I have read the two page extract and have found it has nothing to do with whether or not U.S. corporate tax rates should be lowered. Know though, that I will read bad Samaritan when I get the chance. Then hopefully, I will challenge you to a debate through your profile.
And as for ("As far as I'm aware, they supported limited government in terms of social issues, yet much more government intervention in terms of economic issues.") I would hardly call tariffs "economic government intervention." That's just a drop in a bucket.
"I am silent because I don't know much about the Roman's history, while you obviously do. I would be a fool to argue out of ignorance, and I don't feel like researching it to the extent of being able to argue competently.
However, I completely disagree that what you learn in a US school gives you such absolute authority on US history. I have taken 'world' (US) history at an American school before, and it's ridiculously one sided. It tells you nothing more than what the US wants to believe.
I also do not believe that the Roman Empire & the US are perfect comparisons - there are vast differences, I'm sure you will agree. So I disagree with your conclusion: that what happened to the Roman Empire will happen to the US, and that anything but a pure free market is killing the country."
All right, fair enough. I do not think American history is as ridiculously one sided as what they teach in your own schools. That is why there is fewer free thinkers in your country than there is in mine. And as for the Roman Empire and the US being perfect comparisons, they actually are. Like I said, at the height of the Roman Empire, almost all of their services were privatized. At the lowest point before complete collapse, the government ran up a ton of welfare services (food, housing, doctors, entertainment) just like in America. If you ask me, that's pretty close to being good comparisons.
No, these greedy fucks have had breaks for years and things get worse. Better to ask if these corporations and their lobbyists should be investigated for treason.
Oh, and you're not just as greedy? Tell me, how much money will make you happy? Go on tell me. You can't. I bet you have a cell phone, 50" TV, and a car or two. I bet your place of residence has both heating and air conditioning. The funny thing is that the very thing that you accuse the rich of being is the very thing you are. You are greedy. You are the reason things have gotten worse. You want to know who to blame for the economical situation, you need to look no further than in a mirror.
A year or two ago, corporations were paying 0% of this countries taxes.
...
Free the middle class. Trickle down economics don't work. There is a multitude of things I could say but I just can't. I've said them too many times. Corporatism is the cause for all problems in this country, and the fact that they've convinced some people that they're a good thing is frankly depressing.
"Corporatism is the cause for all problems in this country, and the fact that they've convinced some people that they're a good thing is frankly depressing."
Socialism is the cause for all problems in this country, and the fact that they've convinced some people that they're a good thing is frankly depressing. Remember, an argument works both ways.
Socialism is the cause for all problems in this country, and the fact that they've convinced some people that they're a good thing is frankly depressing. Remember, an argument works both ways.
Ah, but can you somehow explain that socialism is the cause of all this country's problems? Because I can explain why corporatism is the cause for generally everyone's suffering in free world.
But I've done it so many times in the past I'm just tired of repeating myself. Only reason I didn't open my statement with it, ugh.
Yes I can. 1984 By George Orwell. Animal Farm By George Orwell. The country of Russia. All countries that were formally Communist but now have switched to Capitalist.
Russia was never communist, it was totalitarian. No country has ever been capitalist either, they have only be corporate. Fiction and satirical books also prove nothing.
So no, you obviously can't if that's all you have to say.
Wait, you think Russia was never communist? Do you even know the difference between totalitarianism and communism? I suppose not since you think Russia was never communist. But I will agree, no country has ever been capitalist. And neither can you prove evolution, but you cling to it as some sort of fact anyway. Satirical books give you a good theory on which to discuss and argue.
So I don't think you will be proving anything soon if this is all you have to say.
Do you even know the difference between totalitarianism and communism?
I should ask you the same thing.
It doesn't matter if the first year spent after their Civil War somewhat-kinda-sorta-Marxist communism, because (ahem), Marxism has absolutely nothing to do with what Stalin did.
When you try to mimic something and fail, is it truthful to say you mimicked it successfully?
And neither can you prove evolution, but you cling to it as some sort of fact anyway.
Ha ha, saying that evolution is not true is like saying gravity is not true. They're both theories, you know. The only reason gravity isn't controversial outside the scientific community is because it doesn't conflict with thousand year old fairytales based off the teachings of a prophet.
It's clear that they're both true. Just because you don't understand why doesn't mean it's not.
If I jump up, I will fall back to the Earth because of gravity.
If I spread pesticides all over my crops to kill insects, I will need a new pesticide on a later harvest season because the insects will have adapted to the pesticide I used last time because of evolution.
These two examples above always happen. Always.
Just because creationists like to cling to it being a 'theory' because the scientific community is picky about laws and theories almost as much as creationists are about who's prophet was right, doesn't mean that it's not obviously true.
Satirical books give you a good theory on which to discuss and argue.
Not if they have nothing to do with anything in the topic. Animal Farm was a satire that put into perspective what Stalin (Or Lenin or whatever, it's been a while since I've read it) did on terms everyone could understand and in both a humorous and terrifying way. The book was meant to show people what happens when certain people prey upon peaceful ideals for their own self-interests.
A satire about how man is not ready for communism has nothing to do with corporate tax rates.
And since you admitted that no society has been capitalist so far, why the hell aren't we on the same side in this argument? Corporatism is the perversion of capitalist. I thought this system of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer would piss you off more then it would me, because as you can see, it's a symbol of how man is not ready for capitalism due to our imperfection.
They already pay next to 0% of the taxes. If they start having negative percentages, does that mean the government should be paying them money instead of the other way around?
What a site to see that would be. If that wouldn't affirm that this country isn't a democracy and instead a corporate oligarchy, I don't know what would.