Bill Maher on socialism
-
AnthonySocksss — 3 months ago(December 12, 2025 06:45 PM)
The business/corporation is still taxed in the US, it can’t just pack up and leave even if it changes owners
Yer dum
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0 -
Soul_Venom — 3 months ago(December 12, 2025 08:24 PM)
It can and will if there is monetary advantage. Jobs moving overseas is not new. Jobs already move out of states with stupid democrat leadership.
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
AnthonySocksss — 3 months ago(December 13, 2025 04:07 AM)
We’re not talking about job positions, we’re talking about entire corporations as tax reporting entities. The New England Patriots do not suddenly move overseas because their owner is being taxed.
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0 -
Soul_Venom — 3 months ago(December 13, 2025 04:15 AM)
You’re fixated on the legal shell instead of the economics.
No one is claiming the Patriots put a stadium on a boat and sail to Ireland. The point is that ownership, capital, IP, headquarters, financing, and future investment are mobile, even when the corporate entity technically remains U.S.-registered.
What actually happens in the real world is:
Owners sell or relocate
New ownership restructures where profits are booked
HQ functions, IP, and expansion move offshore or to friendlier states
Domestic operations get hollowed out over time
The tax base shrinks without the company “vanishing”
That’s why corporate inversions exist. That’s why states compete on tax policy. That’s why capital flight is a real, measurable phenomenon.
So no — corporations don’t teleport overnight.
But future growth, jobs, and taxable income absolutely leave when the incentives change. Pretending otherwise is just ignoring basic economic reality.
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
AnthonySocksss — 3 months ago(December 13, 2025 04:20 AM)
Do you even listen to yourself?
Even if they “relocate” they still have to pay taxes in the US.
You wrote an entire worthless paragraph of nonsense
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0 -
Soul_Venom — 3 months ago(December 13, 2025 05:07 AM)
Yes, I do listen — and you’re still wrong.
U.S. taxes are source-based, not magic. Corporations pay U.S. tax on U.S.-sourced income, not on profits that are legally booked elsewhere. That’s the entire reason profit-shifting, transfer pricing, and inversions exist in the first place.
If what you were saying were true:
Corporate inversions wouldn’t exist
Ireland wouldn’t be a corporate tax hub
States wouldn’t compete on tax policy
The IRS wouldn’t spend billions fighting profit shifting
Yet all of those things do exist.
When IP is domiciled abroad, profits are booked abroad.
When HQ functions move, income allocation changes.
When financing and expansion move, future taxable income leaves.
The legal entity remaining U.S.-registered does not mean the same tax base remains. That’s Econ 101 and Tax Law 101.
Laughing at reality doesn’t make it go away — it just means you don’t understand how corporate taxation actually works.
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
AnthonySocksss — 3 months ago(December 13, 2025 05:19 AM)
None of that **** you mentioned leads to a reduction in US jobs. The business is still located IN the US. If anything, a corporate inversion actually strengthens domestic jobs.
We’re collectively laughing at the reality of yer stupidity going on this pointless, irrelevant tangent. Yer trying to conflate two different topics and it’s backfiring hilariously
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0 -
Soul_Venom — 3 months ago(December 13, 2025 05:27 AM)
AnthonySocksss said...
None of that shit you mentioned leads to a reduction in US jobs. The business is still located IN the US. If anything, a corporate inversion actually strengthens domestic jobs.
We’re collectively laughing at the reality of yer stupidity going on this pointless, irrelevant tangent. Yer trying to conflate two different topics and it’s backfiring hilariously
No, what’s “hilarious” is how confidently you misunderstand how jobs are actually created.
You keep clinging to the idea that because a building still exists in the U.S., jobs are somehow locked in place. That’s not how reality works — that’s how someone who’s never dealt with capital allocation imagines it works.
Jobs are created at the margin:
New hires go where HQ and IP are
Expansion follows management and financing
High-value roles (engineering, legal, R&D, finance) move first
U.S. operations stagnate while growth happens elsewhere
The factory doesn’t vanish overnight — it just stops growing, then gets “restructured” later. This isn’t controversial, it’s documented.
If corporate inversions strengthened U.S. jobs:
Governments wouldn’t fight them
Economists wouldn’t warn about them
Countries wouldn’t compete to attract them
Saying “the business is still located in the U.S.” is a kindergarten-level take. The address doesn’t matter — future investment does.
You’re not laughing at my argument.
You’re laughing because you don’t understand it and don’t realize how obvious that is.
Trump is still your President. Charlie Kirk still Wins! -
AnthonySocksss — 3 months ago(December 13, 2025 05:40 AM)
Soul_Venom said...
No, what’s “hilarious” is how confidently you misunderstand how jobs are actually created.
You keep clinging to the idea that because a building still exists in the U.S., jobs are somehow locked in place. That’s not how reality works — that’s how someone who’s never dealt with capital allocation imagines it works.
Jobs are created at the margin:
New hires go where HQ and IP are
Expansion follows management and financing
High-value roles (engineering, legal, R&D, finance) move first
U.S. operations stagnate while growth happens elsewhere
The factory doesn’t vanish overnight — it just stops growing, then gets “restructured” later. This isn’t controversial, it’s documented.
If corporate inversions strengthened U.S. jobs:
Governments wouldn’t fight them
Economists wouldn’t warn about them
Countries wouldn’t compete to attract them
Saying “the business is still located in the U.S.” is a kindergarten-level take. The address doesn’t matter — future investment does.
You’re not laughing at my argument.
You’re laughing because you don’t understand it and don’t realize how obvious that is.
expand
Buddy, please stop, you are embarrassing yerself. You are attempting to sound intelligent by parroting an extremely facile and shallow understanding of the topic.
Corporate inversions do not have a direct link to domestic blue collar jobs. You are talking about a couple of white collar workers moving overseas which would take literal decades to actually lead to any loss in wage/employment growth or tax revenue . We are talking about the entire labour market here. You are trying to combine two wildly different things, and it’s actually funny you can’t recognize this
. The irony is that the Republicans’ 2017 tax law they passed actually encouraged foreign investment over domestic and the offshoring of white collar jobs. So if yer gonna blame anyone, blame yer tribe.
By the way, a corporate inversion would free up more capital, allowing aid company to become more competitive and create more domestic jobs.
No US company is going through the gargantuan undertaking of outsourcing ALL of their business and operations just to have to pay a buttload in US tariffs.
No serious economist would actually argue that “without the rich half the jobs would disappear”. That’s economics ground zero. I’m definitely going to hold yer feet to the fire regarding yer original bullshit comment:
Please provide an example of when a corporate inversion resulted in “half the jobs” of said company being lost and outsourced.
I’ll be waiting for yer non-reply.
P.S. The only solution to the TCJA is still raising taxes on foreign corporate profits. So either way, rich people still need to be taxed more.
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0 -
Yermom_Is_God — 3 months ago(December 11, 2025 02:34 PM)
What's shocking is a poor guy like you would rather serve the rich than yourself.
Not everyone believes they're entitled to someone else's money simply because they want it. Shocking I know.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
AnthonySocksss — 3 months ago(December 13, 2025 04:08 AM)
Then why are the rich entitled to tax payer funded subsidies in the billions of dollars?
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0 -
Yermom_Is_God — 3 months ago(December 13, 2025 05:23 PM)
They're not. I don't believe in income taxes or government handouts, you do.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
AnthonySocksss — 3 months ago(December 13, 2025 07:53 PM)
Musc and Bozo have received a combined amount of over $100 billion in government subsidies thanks to you republitards
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0
