Awesome explanation! You pretty much said in a paragraph what it took me a bunch of links (unlikely anyone actually read) to get across. I was never a big fan of the previous president, but I am confident this Net Neutrality was proof that once in a while a blind squirrel does find a nut.
I would think it to be more like saying we should spend more on those roads and highways the major shipping companies use, and less on those us common folk use, even though the collective taxes paid by us far outweigh those paid by the corporations.....like big business is not satisfied with all the tax breaks, they require double the icing of their cake.
That makes sense too, not only because we also use those roads, but because the major shipping companies hire people. Personally, I'd like to see some of our road systems returned to gravel. It makes little sense to repave roads that are used so little that I can often travel a couple of hundred miles without meeting a car.
It's a give and take situation, I just happen to think big business is not only out to take more than its share, but actively looking for new and interesting ways to screw the rest of us out of ours. One only need to look at how much of our taxes goes to roads and infrastructure, then compare that to how much big business is paying, to see what a sweetheart deal they are getting....on the taxpayer dime. I'm an independent, and have zero loyalty to the Left or Right (though I'll admit that lately the conservatives seem less silly), but fair is fair. If one actually reads the links I provided (or does their own Google research), it's pretty clear to see that ending net neutrality is most definitely in the interest of corporations, and most certainly not in the interest of consumers. So until I become a Big Business, I know which side my bread is buttered on. As for whether the Left or Right gets censored, does it matter? Is it okay, so long as it is the other guy that gets targeted? Alex Jones? Goooood! Michael Moore? Baaaaaad! Fascists? Goooood! Commies? Baaaaad!
Kinda what I said. The Interstates exist for the shipping companies, but everyone who chooses to use them benefits. If you count ALL the taxes that corporations pay--everything from unemployment to matching funds for Medicare and Social Security, etc., it is more than individuals pay. Besides the taxes paid by corporations just get passed on to the customers, making everything more expensive. It gets really complicated, but I was just trying to simplify it. I, too, am Independent, but I lean to conservative in most areas of life as I have learned that, for Liberals/Progressives, intentions are what counts, not results. Unintended consequences are among standard operating procedures for them.
I quite agree on your view that " for Liberals/Progressives, intentions are what counts, not results", but once you take into account some of the intentions, I'd say it is fortunate that they are so unskilled at obtaining results. I have found no confirmation to your claim that "Interstates exist for the shipping companies". Everything I see about the 'Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956' that established the Interstates suggests the shipping companies was but one of many intended beneficiaries (https://www.history.com/topics/interstate-highway-system). As for corporate taxes, most of the research I have done on Google paints a different picture: https://www.epi.org/blog/cbo-study-...-rate-than-the-statutory-rate-would-indicate/ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/chart-shows-corp-taxes-grossly-unfair_n_3321737.html https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2017/09/five-charts-to-help-you-better-understand-corporate-tax-reform https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-rates/ And as you pointed out, much of their taxes are actually being paid by consumers, which is a sweetheart deal of another sort. It's too complicated for me to get a good handle on, but where there is smoke there is fire, and I'm definitely smelling something burning.
That's a pickle. Both have proven themselves untrustworthy, and ever eager to take advantage of consumers or screw over citizens. Is a choice between the lesser of two evils really a choice? And if so, who can split the hair finely enough to determine which of these two will prove to be the least obnoxious in the long run? On the one hand we have the governmental dystopia of V for Vendetta vs the corpocracy envisioned in the Robocop movies.
Thus far, I am not seeing a problem. Things were okay before Net Neutrality, they didn't get any better with Net Neutrality, and they haven't gotten any worse since Net Neutrality was suspended. What I see are a bunch of liberals fussing that we need to put the government in control of our Internet access so that the big, bad ISPs and other corporate entities don't screw us over, but the only ones who I see screwing us over are the ones we allow to do so, that being Facebook, Google, and Youtube, largely, and they were all in favor of Net Neutrality. I change ISPs every few years but I am not overly displeased with my Internet service or hosting companies. If they cut or severely degrade my access or the access to my websites, then I will find something else to do with the rest of my life, and I won't be paying them anymore. I don't think that's in their best interest any more than it is in mine, and I see no reason whatsoever to trust the government to make things better. The words to fear have always been, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
@Neville Telen the links seem to only refer to the corporate taxes. What I was speaking of was total taxation. That would include the matching Social Security and Medicare taxes, unemployment, and all the state and local income and property taxes, as well as other taxes imposed by states and local governments. They also are assessed excise taxes, wellhead taxes and royalties (oil and gas companies) and any number of other taxes.
Yeah, like I said, too complicated for me. No idea how I would even begin to research something like that via Google. A search of 'total corporate taxes paid in 2014' turned up this: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-sanders-says-tax-share-paid-corporations-ha/ .....which doesn't really answer your question, and I got no clue if this is any better: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/amount-revenue-source. There is this, which seems to support my assumption: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/revenues/ and this https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...nt-pay-the-corporate-income-tax/#254866fc5e48. I'm good at researching stuff, but this topic is out of my league, and would require someone that knows enough about the subject to ask Google the right questions.