Anonymous #2 22h

Until he has to pay for it… He hasn’t raised the corporate tax rate yet, but he’s going to raise it by over 50%. Tons of low-margin businesses are going to have to close.

6

Anonymous #6 21h

Never works bc the USA always interferes

26

Anonymous #5 21h

Just in case anyone is confused (not 5 but anyone reading their comment): this doesn’t mean the corporate tax rate will be over 50%. Raising it by over 50% means the corporate tax rate goes from 7.25 to 11.5%. That’s an increase of only 4.25 percentage points

69

Anonymous #6 21h

He’s not even a socialist. The system that people usually think of when they say “socialism” is not the same as democratic socialism

17

Anonymous #9 21h

Yes but plenty of businesses, particularly small businesses and, even more particularly, restaurants, operate within a 4.25 percent margin. In fact, that’s actually worse than I thought it was. I thought the corporate tax rate in NYC was 7.5% going up to 11.5%.

-7

Anonymous stoner22 21h

If you can’t stand up to outside interference then it’s not a strong system

-3

Anonymous #9 21h

The idea that blue collar workers should have an equal say and equal ownership of the means of production as the people who spend 4-6 years of their life studying business operations on a university level is ridiculous. Those blue collar people are the reason Trump is in power. You want the stupidest people in our country to have equal say to us? That’s preposterous.

-7

Anonymous #5 21h

It’s gonna be the same as New Jersey . People aren’t gonna leave NY. I agree that many fees aren’t bad and don’t need to be cut. And others kinda need to be cut entirely or at least cut 100% for small businesses.

9

Anonymous #11 21h

Lots of people left Jersey as well though

1

Anonymous #5 21h

If they’re only generating a small margin and aren’t humongous, they’re likely not paying 7.25% already. That’s for NY state corporations with a business income base over $5M (federal taxable income minus any NY-specific deductions). And because that’s the NYS tax rate, he has to get Hochul and the legislature to go along with it. She’s running for re-election and likely wouldn’t do that during an election year

13

Anonymous #5 21h

They can’t simply leave NY. They still have to pay NY taxes if they get enough income by conducting activity in NY, such as owning property or providing services to people in NY

13

Anonymous #5 21h

"outside interference" aka the biggest most influential country in the world threatening you militarily and economically, with their endless arsenal and sanctioning you to hell isolating you from the world when youre a small developing nation that cannot get by without external resources -- because not even the united states could do that with all of its power. thats such a laughably stupid argument to make man

25

Anonymous #4 21h

We absolutely did get by like that when we started. The first country to trade with us was Morocco and it was just them. We had to EARN the respect of other countries by winning major victories against Britain.

-1

Anonymous #5 21h

have you done a diy lobotomy on yourself? "we did that" no we didnt. and thats not even remotely relevant, because the conditions of... 1500s to 1700s america? are vastly different than developing nations in the modern day that are not just suddenly appearing but rebuilding, there is no new land for them to suddenly develop on or travel to

10

Anonymous #5 21h

I didn’t say they needed to have an equal say, although they should have some say. And business majors aren’t much to write home about. People who spent 4 years of their life studying business operations are currently telling doctors (who spent 4 years in undergrad, 4 years in med school, 3-4 years in residency, and potentially 1-3 years in fellowship) how to treat their patients, and it’s mostly a shitshow

15

Anonymous #4 21h

The British Empire was more powerful in the 1770s than we are today

5

Anonymous #9 20h

If they want a say in how the business is run, they should do the thing normal people and invest in the company. Most major public companies on the market have an option where you can buy fractional stock. Chase has it and the minimum you can buy is $5. Either that OR many companies have stock options. Take those.

4

Anonymous #5 20h

owning stock in a company doesn’t mean you get a say in production lmao what

15

Anonymous #5 20h

im kind of speechless. the british empire was more powerful than the us is today? according to what metric? they couldnt stop the us from trading with allies like france or the indigenous people, the us was settled because it was ripe and its vast resources were virtually untouched. for england to do anything they had to wait months, and their resources and weapons could be matched relatively simply by americans. this is insane theres no way you think like this for real

7

Anonymous #5 20h

Shareholder votes aren’t binding. The board can totally ignore them. But yes, some businesses actually pay stock as part of compensation

5

Anonymous #5 20h

When people say the workers should have a say, they’re usually referring to a union

2

Anonymous #4 20h

It’s like how Gone With The Wind is the highest grossing movie of all time but a modern movie smokes it relatively easily

0

Anonymous #5 20h

no, its not.

1

Anonymous #4 20h

Yes it is, the British Empire was far more powerful in its day than we are now

0

Anonymous #8 19h

Yes you fucking do shareholders have legal voting rights in the company

0

Anonymous #9 19h

There are some shareholder votes that have to be binding legally but there are also non-binding measures

0

Anonymous #5 19h

Really depends on the company and its bylaws

5

Anonymous #9 19h

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/61

0

Anonymous #5 19h

Title 12 is specific to banks

9

Anonymous #5 19h

again, according to what metric. for england to do anything to the united states, it took months of travel time, they didnt have the resources to just send everybody across the ocean to do a naval blockade, and then even with a naval blockade theres still everyone else in the americas, including canada. in no relevant way was british more powerful. the united states has the power to sanction and obliterate like nobody else in history, and they do it to places that are rebuilding.

6

Anonymous #4 19h

Is it even a fair comparison? Technology, trade, and travel have changed *significantly* since then

5

Anonymous #4 19h

if youre going to say that the example of a country standing up with outside interference is america, at least recognize that the situation was entirely different and the factors at play are on another planet level of distanced. outside interference from america since the 50s has been fighter jets, bombers, and endless troops versus farmers, or economic sanctions to prevent any sales of anything meaningful to those who desperately need it.

4

Anonymous #9 19h

NO ITS NOT THATS WHAT IM SAYING. to compare "developing america in the 1500s to 1700s" to "random country today rebuilding" is like saying mars is livable because it has an atmosphere. its just fucking wrong

3

Anonymous #4 19h

How did it fail in the Soviet Union then? They’ve got more natural resources than any country on earth and they still fucked it up

0

Anonymous #5 19h

the soviet union was a fucking disaster, and thats NOT RELEVANT TO THE POINT OF OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE. the ussr lasted for like 90 years or whatever because its fucking russia and they had so many people and resources to invade and hobble along with, that was the one place that outside interference is almost irrelevant

5

Anonymous #12 19h

When?

23

Anonymous #9 19h

Also “workers should have a say” isn’t socialism, and unions exist under capitalism. You’re well within your rights to form a union. However, socialism isn’t about unions. Socialism is that either the government or the workers themselves own the means of production, meaning EVERYONE gets equal say (unless it’s a dictatorship then it’s just the government who gets a say). We do not want everyone to have an equal say, otherwise we get Trump.

0

Anonymous #4 19h

The Soviet Union was a disaster because the government controlled the means of production, AKA EXACTLY WHAT SOCIALISM IS

-1

Anonymous #5 19h

Didn’t they end up with massive deficits because of falling oil and alcohol sales? That’s not even unique to socialism

8

Anonymous #5 19h

1) not what we were talking about. this whole thing, if you can remember or read above is about outside interference 2) holy jesus christ if i had a week to list all of the reasons why the ussr failed it wouldnt be enough, and the top reason certainly isnt their control over production. did the control over production (socialism?) cause the chernobyl meltdown too?

2

Anonymous #5 19h

Please read some Marx and then go talk to a real human

3

Anonymous stoner22 18h

Marx was such a loser that his own mom said, on his birthday, to his face, that she would rather he have made capital instead of writing about it

0

Anonymous #5 16h

That’s actually hilarious if true 💀

7

Anonymous #9 16h

Ah sorry I misread it, he REMEMBERED it on his 50th birthday. She still said it to his face tho

0

Anonymous #5 43m

If you can’t handle me shooting you in the knee then you you got weak knees

1