While reading today's Gartman Letter, I came across this very interesting piece by Dr. Dilip Gadkar, a professional money manager and Indian native who has lived and been educated within the 'States.
It's a bit long, but I found it thought provoking.
Dilip Gadkar, Macro Viewpoints wrote:Today, about 48% of Americans do not pay any income taxes. So about 48% of Americans now take from the American government without contributing to it. Barack Obama is the first American President whose election symbolizes the united efforts of this half of American society. He knows it and that is why his economical policies, right from his inauguration, have been essentially distributive and oriented towards providing government resources to the less advantaged.
The American taxpayers instinctively understood that President Obama was engaged in transferring wealth from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. This realization led to the political explosion we call the Tea Party. The 1773 Tea Party revolt was against Taxation without Political Representation. The 2010 Tea Party revolt was essentially against Political Representation without Taxation. The taxpayers won the first battle in November 2010. The next important battle is the Presidential election in November 2012. That may be the last Presidential battle won by taxpayers in this long war. Because, the demographic tide is inexorably moving towards a majority of non-taxpayers in 2020 or perhaps by 2016.
In this setup, we see the Democratic Party slowly morphing into a party of the non-taxpayers plus a slice of the very wealthy and the Republican Party becoming the voice of the taxpayers who are unwilling to have their earnings taken away from them. The demographic tide, as we said, favors the Democratic Party.
So we expect the Republicans, if they win the White House and keep effective control of the Congress, to take steps to build a policy framework for Less Representation for Non-Taxation. These steps might include changing electoral districts, making voting registrations difficult for non-taxpayers and even imposing minimum income tax levels (perhaps like the one already proposed by Congresswoman Michelle Bachman) on all Americans. We might see easier and increased immigration policies for wealthy and highly educated immigrants.
We see this battle shaping up as the central conflict or a civil war within American society during this decade. So any one who pines for a united, 'can'twe- all-get-along' American society may be hoping against hope.
As 2011 ends, we see Indian society in the grip of its own revolt, a revolt against widespread corruption in the government at all levels. But like in America, this reason is basically optics. The real reason for this revolt is the tectonic shift underway in Indian society, a 180 degree opposite shift to the one occurring in America.
Since its independence in 1947, Indian society has been a society dominated by non-taxpayers. Even today, about 75% of Indians do not pay any income tax at all. As a result, Indian Politics and Indian Government has been dominated by policies that distribute free services and goods, that seek to distribute income and wealth from people who earn to people who need.
The natural result has been corruption, endemic corruption:
• corruption in the business class that tries to hide much of its income from tax collectors,
• corruption in the administrative machinery that distributes government goodies to the poor, and
• above all in the political class that seeks to build great personal wealth while in office after spending a lot to provide free goodies to gain political office.
The patient, quiet sufferers in this machine were and are the helpless middle class - the people who are unable to hide their income, the people who need services from the government - the middle class, especially the salaried middle class. But this hapless middle class has slowly but surely grown in size and confidence.
Today, this group is anywhere between 150-300 million strong, not strong enough to dominate Indian politics electorally but strong enough to create a revolt that can bring the Indian Government to its proverbial knees. In 2011, this middle class got a leader that it can rally around - a symbol more than an actual leader, a Gandhian figure who lives a simple life and is above personal corruption.
The Congress Party, the party in power, is the leader of traditional Indian politics - giveaway policies and maintenance of vote banks by rural politicians who today are screaming bloody murder of parliamentary democracy by what they term as non-elected civil society. The opposition parties, especially ones with a more urban political base, are supporting this revolt because it is their best chance to topple the Congress Party from power. The political players in this war are not as clear cut as the two parties in the battle for political power in America. But the societal shift is the same and the demographic forces are arrayed similarly. The big difference is the direction and relative ascendancy.
While the comparison to India is novel, the article makes all the standard rhetorical moves regarding the equation of not paying income tax with not paying taxes. It further doesn't really line up with political reality, assuming that people who do not "pay taxes" will vote Democrat, which even a cursory poll of the national electorate will show to be incorrect in terms of political identification.
If you're at an income level where you don't pay income tax, the various aid programs you're eligible for ought to offset other taxes you likely do pay, like sales tax. Thus some individuals are net beneficiaries, some are net donors, but as an average it washes out.
I do agree with you that the political affilations are being painted with a broad, broad brush.
Taxation is redistributive, but as it goes from some skin in the game > no skin in the game > winning regardless of the score, it becomes in the best interests of poorer individuals to push for ever higher tax levels, because they end up making money even though their 'taxes' increase.
The super mega ultra rich, or 1% in today's parlance, because they are super mega ultra rich, possess the resources to simply shift their assets into some shelter, and the burden of taxation falls onto the upper-middle earners.
Edit: Which, in a nod to biccat, is why taxation is redistributive but can completely miss the target on who is supposed to be redistributing to whom.
Question for you: How many individuals last year lost their houses because they called in sick?
Having skin in the game is important. It's why people who sell on consignment outperfom those with flat salaries, and why government projects tend to take longer and be more costly than similar endeavors undertaken by the private sector.
sourclams wrote:Taxation is redistributive, but as it goes from some skin in the game > no skin in the game > winning regardless of the score, it becomes in the best interests of poorer individuals to push for ever higher tax levels, because they end up making money even though their 'taxes' increase.
Sure, but people don't tend to vote that way (in America) because there are other things that are in their interests, like not being a recipient of government assistance, or not endorsing government.
sourclams wrote:
Edit: Which, in a nod to biccat, is why taxation is redistributive but can completely miss the target on who is supposed to be redistributing to whom.
Sure, its a shell game, of sorts. The problem is that the government doesn't take the game as seriously as private citizens do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:
Having skin in the game is important.
But, in this instance, everyone has skin in the game.
Having skin in the game is what justified all kinds of reactionary social organisation from the Roman republic to the British army of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Millions of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Those people are a single disaster away from missing bills and losing ground. A single illness or car crash can ruin their lives.
But of course, they should pay federal income tax. That will make them care more.
dogma wrote:[Sure, but people don't tend to vote that way (in America) because there are other things that are in their interests, like not being a recipient of government assistance, or not endorsing government.
So what exactly do you attribute to the formation of the Tea Party, and its rather phenomenal track record of successfully roadblocking spending and tax increases?
dogma wrote:[Sure, but people don't tend to vote that way (in America) because there are other things that are in their interests, like not being a recipient of government assistance, or not endorsing government.
So what exactly do you attribute to the formation of the Tea Party, and its rather phenomenal track record of successfully roadblocking spending and tax increases?
I already answered that question.
Also, the Tea Party is generally composed of people that "pay taxes."
Rented Tritium wrote:Those people are a single disaster away from missing bills and losing ground. A single illness or car crash can ruin their lives.
Well, that's true of everyone, even the filthy rich.
dogma wrote:[Sure, but people don't tend to vote that way (in America) because there are other things that are in their interests, like not being a recipient of government assistance, or not endorsing government.
So what exactly do you attribute to the formation of the Tea Party, and its rather phenomenal track record of successfully roadblocking spending and tax increases?
People make irrrational decisions? Hence, why rational actor based models are inherently flawed?
As for the article just remember, there ain't no war like the class war.
Then from my perspective your viewpoint is completely wrong; the tea party was, and is, almost entirely focused on spending and taxation.
Also, the Tea Party is generally composed of people that "pay taxes."
That's... also exactly the point. The people who pay taxes dislike seeing tax money fueling a Eurozone-esque entitlement state.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:People make irrrational decisions? Hence, why rational actor based models are inherently flawed?
Taxpayers opposed to gratuitous spending (both in the form of social welfare programs and 'too big to fail' bailouts) form a political party dedicated to cutting spending?
What part of that cause:effect has resulted in irrational goal forming or subsequent behavior?
Easy E wrote:
People make irrrational decisions? Hence, why rational actor based models are inherently flawed?
I didn't say those decisions were irrational.
I would actually argue that irrational decisions are not what most people think they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:
Then from my perspective your viewpoint is completely wrong; the tea party was, and is, almost entirely focused on spending and taxation.
Sure it is, but per your argument, as I understand it, and the argument made in the article posted, lots of Tea Party supporters should really be supporting Democrats. But they don't, they support the Tea Party.
sourclams wrote:
The people who pay taxes dislike seeing tax money fueling a Eurozone-esque entitlement state.
I pay taxes, and I don't dislike it. I don't like it either, I really don't care, but I do take endless joy in reading the arguments of people that are greatly upset by it. Especially the people (not you, I don't know anything about you) that are basically making the same argument from entitlement that they criticize welfare recipients for.
But, that's really only relevant in terms of voting, what people like has only limited bearing on what should be done in terms of policy.
Rented Tritium wrote:Those people are a single disaster away from missing bills and losing ground. A single illness or car crash can ruin their lives.
Well, that's true of everyone, even the filthy rich.
You have to admit, some much moreso than others. Again, how many Americans will go to the doctor when they're sick or would lose their income if a hit and run driver took out their car?
dogma wrote:
sourclams wrote: Having skin in the game is important.
But, in this instance, everyone has skin in the game.
biccat wrote:
dogma wrote:Some individuals are net beneficiaries, but I doubt its 48% of the population (it would be an interesting thing to study, though).
Of course, there's also the standard exchange:
A: Taxation is redistributive!
B: That's the point!
No it's not. The standard exchange is: A: Taxation is redistributive! B: No it's not!
sourclams wrote:If you're at an income level where you don't pay income tax, the various aid programs you're eligible for ought to offset other taxes you likely do pay, like sales tax. Thus some individuals are net beneficiaries, some are net donors, but as an average it washes out.
This is an interesting assertion.
48% of the country is not on food stamps or otherwise receiving cash or easily liquid aid (aside from the EIC). Most households break even on federal income taxes due to some combination of child/child care credits, various homeowners deductions, and the earned income credit (EIC). Now, the EIC does put cash in the hands lower income households with children, so you can argue that they are net beneficieries.
For example, a person earning $8/hr, working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, earns $16,640 a year. If they had three children, their actual federal tax burden reduces to $0, but they'll get the maximum EIC credit of $5,666. So, thus far, the person is "up" $5,666. Now, to be fair, this single mom will be getting ~$2400 a year in food stamps, so she actually sitting at about $24,600 in total income, with about $8000 being "benefits." Now, there's no way she's paying $8000 in taxes. Assuming 6.2% OASDI on her $16,640 is only about $1000, and even 8% sales tax on the rest won't get us to eight grand, nor will the amount of her rent/gas that goes to taxes.
The fact that we're saying that a person raising three children and working full time "has no skin in the game" because, after government help, they're living fat on $25,000 with three kids says a lot about us as a culture.
I think, and maybe I'm just a dirty liberal, that any person working full time, on the books, has "skin in the game."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:I can tell you right now that if I personally got appendicitis right now, it would pretty much ruin my life, career and education.
There's a story I've seen run in a few places that discusses how few American households have even $1000 in emergency cash.
Rented Tritium wrote:I can tell you right now that if I personally got appendicitis right now, it would pretty much ruin my life, career and education.
Rented Tritium wrote:I can tell you right now that if I personally got appendicitis right now, it would pretty much ruin my life, career and education.
Rented Tritium wrote:I can tell you right now that if I personally got appendicitis right now, it would pretty much ruin my life, career and education.
Here is an article from CNN Money that covers the percentage of Americans that can come up with $1,000 in an emergency. $1,000 is not even the typical deductible on a High Deductible 80/20 plan commonly referred to as a HRA/HSA.* The deductibel for such plans average around $1,500.
*=Note- These insurance plans typically have other mechanisms to help off set the high-deductible. HRA is an amountof cash fromt he employer. HSA provides a tax sheltered self-funding mechanism. However, the amounts in the HRA/HSA vary greatly.
Rented Tritium wrote:I can tell you right now that if I personally got appendicitis right now, it would pretty much ruin my life, career and education.
And?
And I live in a developed first world nation.
And?
It's kind of hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when the bootstraps are expensive and covered in Vaseline.
Polonius wrote:I think, and maybe I'm just a dirty liberal, that any person working full time, on the books, has "skin in the game."
...How? Regardless of your income level or unemployment status, if, net, you pay between zero and negative federal taxes, how is voting for higher taxes, either directly or through a candidate that will do so, anything but either indifferent to your individual financial situation or in your best interests?
Polonius wrote:I think, and maybe I'm just a dirty liberal, that any person working full time, on the books, has "skin in the game."
...How? Regardless of your income level or unemployment status, if, net, you pay between zero and negative federal taxes, how is voting for higher taxes, either directly or through a candidate that will do so, anything but either indifferent to your individual financial situation or in your best interests?
What's your solution, then? Tax the single mother of 3 until she's living on 16k again? If it's such a problem, how do you fix it?
Rented Tritium wrote:I can tell you right now that if I personally got appendicitis right now, it would pretty much ruin my life, career and education.
And?
And I live in a developed first world nation.
And?
It's kind of hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when the bootstraps are expensive and covered in Vaseline.
Wait, so barring getting something that can kill you, you're fine?
Rented Tritium wrote:I can tell you right now that if I personally got appendicitis right now, it would pretty much ruin my life, career and education.
And?
And I live in a developed first world nation.
And?
It's kind of hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when the bootstraps are expensive and covered in Vaseline.
Wait, so barring getting something that can kill you, you're fine?
Something 1 in 15 Americans gets.
And that's just one of the many things which could financially RUIN me.
The fact that a person in a developed nation can be completely rock bottom RUINED by something like a car wreck or a hospitalization is insane. We should not be ok with this. This is not what it means to be capitalists.
Polonius wrote:I think, and maybe I'm just a dirty liberal, that any person working full time, on the books, has "skin in the game."
...How? Regardless of your income level or unemployment status, if, net, you pay between zero and negative federal taxes, how is voting for higher taxes, either directly or through a candidate that will do so, anything but either indifferent to your individual financial situation or in your best interests?
It's not, but the wealthy seem to have no problem voting in their best interests!
Why is self interest in voting a bad thing?
And taxes have never been about fairness. Anybody that thinks that needs to lay down for a while. Taxes are inherently unfair. A man with a gun is making you pay an amount you cannot negotiate or avoid. That's unfair.
The only question is: what will bring in the most revenue while hurting the economy the least.
Rented Tritium wrote:
What's your solution, then? Tax the single mother of 3 until she's living on 16k again? If it's such a problem, how do you fix it?
Actually I would rather see the issue attacked from the other side--cutting spending. Then you can also cut taxes.
This may seem monstrous for you, but I personally feel no obligation to your 'mother of 3'.
Rented Tritium wrote:I can tell you right now that if I personally got appendicitis right now, it would pretty much ruin my life, career and education.
And?
And I live in a developed first world nation.
And?
It's kind of hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when the bootstraps are expensive and covered in Vaseline.
Wait, so barring getting something that can kill you, you're fine?
Something 1 in 15 Americans gets.
And that's just one of the many things which could financially RUIN me.
The fact that a person in a developed nation can be completely rock bottom RUINED by something like a car wreck or a hospitalization is insane. We should not be ok with this. This is not what it means to be capitalists.
Again you're saying that something that can kill you might ruin you.
1. That sucks. Thats life.
2. WTF you want me to do about it and why do I care?
Protip-before you start, I've had both appendicits and car wrecks.
Polonius wrote:It's not, but the wealthy seem to have no problem voting in their best interests!
Why is self interest in voting a bad thing?
I would hope that everyone votes for their best interests. Thus, equilibrium (well, over time). However when you create an entire entitlement class voting for unenlightened self-interest, eventually you reach a point where the scales have to tip back the other way--and at that point the pain becomes 'even worse'. Just look at the PIIGS as a case study for how quickly that exact situation develops, and resolves.
Polonius wrote:
And taxes have never been about fairness. Anybody that thinks that needs to lay down for a while. Taxes are inherently unfair. A man with a gun is making you pay an amount you cannot negotiate or avoid. That's unfair.
The only question is: what will bring in the most revenue while hurting the economy the least.
There is truth in this.
Though I will say that being extorted by a man with a gun is quite fair, in some sense. After all, its merely your own fault that you don't have a gun, a better gun, or more guns.
sourclams wrote:
This may seem monstrous for you, but I personally feel no obligation to your 'mother of 3'.
Thankfully, what you feel is only relevant in terms of convincing you how to vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sourclams wrote:
I would hope that everyone votes for their best interests. Thus, equilibrium (well, over time). However when you create an entire entitlement class voting for unenlightened self-interest, eventually you reach a point where the scales have to tip back the other way--and at that point the pain becomes 'even worse'. Just look at the PIIGS as a case study for how quickly that exact situation develops, and resolves.
This is one of the worst posts I've read in a long time.
There is no such thing as "unenlightened self-interest". Self-interest is defined by, drum roll, the self. This means that whatever the self considers to be in its interests is in its interests. The only way to not be self-interested is to be deliberately not self-interested, and even then only if you are very narrowly defining the self.
Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."
Polonius wrote:It's not, but the wealthy seem to have no problem voting in their best interests!
Why is self interest in voting a bad thing?
I would hope that everyone votes for their best interests. Thus, equilibrium (well, over time). However when you create an entire entitlement class voting for unenlightened self-interest, eventually you reach a point where the scales have to tip back the other way--and at that point the pain becomes 'even worse'. Just look at the PIIGS as a case study for how quickly that exact situation develops, and resolves.
Aren't nearly all American's part of an entitlement class? I mean, what does that even mean?
I think that paying a lower tax rate because you have only investment income rather than a day job is an entitlement.
I think that being able to deduct mortgatge interest is an entitlement.
I think being able to have the government back student loans is an entitlement.
If by entitlement class you mean poor, than I'm not sure why they need to be the first people in history to not vote with pure self interest.
Do you believe that the majority of people are "enlightened"?
I'm not usually the guy that pops in all "rarr rarr class warfare" but uh, you just said that people who get government assistance are "unenlightened"
I mean let them eat cake, amirite? I can't take you seriously anymore. I'm very sorry, because you seem pretty smart otherwise but man, that is just so twisted I can't really have this conversation without getting too mad at you. Have a great day.
dogma wrote:Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."
Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'. At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave. The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.
dogma wrote:Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."
Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'. At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave. The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.
Yet the northern european model appears highly sustainable, and that's a high taxation, high benefit system.
It's also possible, and I don't mean to be mean... but let's just say that Russia, modern china, Greece, Italy, and Spain all have pretty miserable track records for governing themselves.
I think that a command economy is doomed to failure. But I think that there is a better blend of sustainable security while encouraging free market growth.
Saying "entitlements didn't work in Greece" is a little bit like saying "The spread offense didn't work at the University of Akron." In both cases, they're probably going to botch whatever system you try.
dogma wrote:Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."
Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'. At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave. The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.
Yet the northern european model appears highly sustainable, and that's a high taxation, high benefit system.
(Looks over Euro crisis)
...er...yea...you might wait on that.
dogma wrote:Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."
Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'. At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave. The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.
Meanhwile, Sweden, Norway and Denmark are doing just fine, while people in the US suffer because their own countrymen aren't there for them in their hour of need. The "x is a failure" argument sure seems swell when you leave out the parts that don't agree with your point of view, eh?
EDIT: To counter Frazzled's statement, you do realise that none of the Scandinavian countries have the Euro, right? While it is true that a Euro collapse would hit us hard, it's won't be because we have "welfare states". It'll be because others played the system, just as third world countries suffer because we in the West play the system.
dogma wrote:Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."
Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'. At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave. The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.
Yet the northern european model appears highly sustainable, and that's a high taxation, high benefit system.
(Looks over Euro crisis)
...er...yea...you might wait on that.
The Euro crisis doesn't really have anything to do with taxes and benefits, it has a lot more to do with higher level monetary policy.
Taxes and benefits came into it as a means to fix the first part, but they didn't actually cause it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:while people in the US suffer because their own countrymen aren't there for them in their hour of need.
What?
Also:
Rented Tritium wrote:The Euro crisis doesn't really have anything to do with taxes and benefits, it has a lot more to do with higher level monetary policy.
What!?!?
The Euro crisis is a crisis of bond markets, which are driven by investor confidence in the ability of governments to repay debt. Which has just about everything to do with taxes and benefits.
dogma wrote:Now, speaking to equilibrium, if everyone voting in their self-interest creates equilibrium, over time, then regardless of any ancillary conditions equilibrium will be created. Of course, I don't know what you mean by equilibrium, but I assume its something akin to "Conditions which I like."
Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'. At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave. The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.
Yet the northern european model appears highly sustainable, and that's a high taxation, high benefit system.
(Looks over Euro crisis) ...er...yea...you might wait on that.
The Euro crisis doesn't really have anything to do with taxes and benefits, it has a lot more to do with higher level monetary policy.
Taxes and benefits came into it as a means to fix the first part, but they didn't actually cause it.
And then there was...Greece.
Now that I think about it, which Euro countries outside Germany haven't been downgraded or put on watch?
sourclams wrote:
Actually I mean 'conditions which are sustainable'.
"Sustainable." Great buzzword, but basically meaningless. Over what period do you want things to be sustained?
sourclams wrote:
At some point, those bearing the brunt of cost get fed up and leave.
Hasn't happened yet, though cheap air travel might change that.
sourclams wrote:
The great experiments with entitlement states, like the USSR, old-style Communist China, and southern Europe have all been proven to be failed models.
Well, there's also Northern Europe, Britain, France, Canada, and South America, but we'll just sweep those under the rug.
Are you under the impression that there is one solution which will solve all state problem for all time?
Well, there's also Northern Europe, Britain, France, Canada, and South America, but we'll just sweep those under the rug.
1. Europe is being downgraded - including France, and apparantely even Germany. The Euro itself contiunes to be in crisis. This is not a good example.
2. Britain had a debt crisis due to the 2008 events and has been forced to cut back spending, as Germany did.
3. South America is a hodge podge, but I don't know of any cradle to grave states there.
Now that I think about it, which Euro countries outside Germany haven't been downgraded or put on watch?
Including "being put on watch" pretty much makes any argument you tried to make null and void; Germany's certainly been "put on watch". France retain their ratings, as do most countries that aren't in the PIIGS. Besides, as I mentioned in my edit above, none of the countries in Scandinavia are in the Euro anyway, which means we're not in quite as bad a situation as the Euro countries.
Now that I think about it, which Euro countries outside Germany haven't been downgraded or put on watch?
Including "being put on watch" pretty much makes any argument you tried to make null and void; Germany's certainly been "put on watch". France retain their ratings, as do most countries that aren't in the PIIGS. Besides, as I mentioned in my edit above, none of the countries in Scandinavia are in the Euro anyway, which means we're not in quite as bad a situation as the Euro countries.
When I said Euro I meant Europe, sorry.
Frankly Scandanavia has what all of 15 people in it? Its pretty and all but economically tiny. Plus you're having to import cheap foreign immigrants which seems to be creating some recent political problems there.
Here is the philosophy in a nutshell. I got mine, so screw the rest of you.
Or course, what people with that mentality forget is that they do not live in a vacuum. In order to really prosper, other people must also feel like they are rospering to a certain dgree or they will simply find a way to take what you have, one way or another.
Law of the jungle is fine, but there is always a bigger, meaner, stronger, predator.
As an alternative and amusing fact to the idea that "taxes and regulations make rich people leave countries!": many members of middle/upper class Chinese are leaving China not because of taxes or excessive regulations, but because of lax, ineffective, or downright absent regulation (especially in the food industry and in air quality) causing poor quality of life.
Now that I think about it, which Euro countries outside Germany haven't been downgraded or put on watch?
Including "being put on watch" pretty much makes any argument you tried to make null and void; Germany's certainly been "put on watch". France retain their ratings, as do most countries that aren't in the PIIGS. Besides, as I mentioned in my edit above, none of the countries in Scandinavia are in the Euro anyway, which means we're not in quite as bad a situation as the Euro countries.
When I said Euro I meant Europe, sorry.
Frankly Scandanavia has what all of 15 people in it? Its pretty and all but economically tiny. Plus you're having to import cheap foreign immigrants which seems to be creating some recent political problems there.
If we're looking at the whole of the EU, then all of the Nordic countries. Come to think of it, the UK hasn't been downranked either, has it?
As for Scandinavia being relatively small economies; this is irrelevant, seeing as you asked for countries that weren't downranked. Claiming that Scandinavian countries don't count because our economies are small is either moving the goalposts or a No True Scotsman and, either way, a poor way of trying to avoid admitting bring wrong.
Guess what, high taxes don't make people move between states. This is easy, it is much harder to move between countires. I don't think high taxes will cause people to move from the US.
Frazzled wrote:
1. Europe is being downgraded - including France, and apparantely even Germany. The Euro itself contiunes to be in crisis. This is not a good example.
The only established states no being downgraded are the Scandinavians, Japan (so far as I know) and China, all of which are socialist. From this we can infer that socialism is not necessarily the cause of negative state outcomes, and that, short of abject failure, its difficult to classify any "socialist experiment" as a failure.
We don't, sensibly, argue that the free market is awful because of Somalia, which is about as close to the literal definition of a free market as exists.
Frazzled wrote:
2. Britain had a debt crisis due to the 2008 events and has been forced to cut back spending, as Germany did.
And?
This goes back to "What do you mean by 'sustainable'?"
No solution is permanent.
Frazzled wrote:
3. South America is a hodge podge, but I don't know of any cradle to grave states there.
Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru...basically every state that isn't Chile; and even they're going that way.
Now that I think about it, which Euro countries outside Germany haven't been downgraded or put on watch?
Including "being put on watch" pretty much makes any argument you tried to make null and void; Germany's certainly been "put on watch". France retain their ratings, as do most countries that aren't in the PIIGS. Besides, as I mentioned in my edit above, none of the countries in Scandinavia are in the Euro anyway, which means we're not in quite as bad a situation as the Euro countries.
When I said Euro I meant Europe, sorry.
Frankly Scandanavia has what all of 15 people in it? Its pretty and all but economically tiny. Plus you're having to import cheap foreign immigrants which seems to be creating some recent political problems there.
If we're looking at the whole of the EU, then all of the Nordic countries. Come to think of it, the UK hasn't been downranked either, has it?
As for Scandinavia being relatively small economies; this is irrelevant, seeing as you asked for countries that weren't downranked. Claiming that Scandinavian countries don't count because our economies are small is either moving the goalposts or a No True Scotsman and, either way, a poor way of trying to avoid admitting bring wrong.
The UK reduced its debt burden from the threat of a downgrade. They got on the ball.
Scandinavian countries. Thats Norway, Denmark, and Sweden right? Whats their sustainability in five or ten years as your population continues to age? How can it be sustainable when you have to import immigration for workers to support all the old farts?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
1. Europe is being downgraded - including France, and apparantely even Germany. The Euro itself contiunes to be in crisis. This is not a good example.
The only established states no being downgraded are the Scandinavians, Japan (so far as I know) and China, all of which are socialist. From this we can infer that socialism is not necessarily the cause of negative state outcomes, and that, short of abject failure, its difficult to classify any "socialist experiment" as a failure.
We don't, sensibly, argue that the free market is awful because of Somalia, which is about as close to the literal definition of a free market as exists.
Frazzled wrote:
2. Britain had a debt crisis due to the 2008 events and has been forced to cut back spending, as Germany did.
And?
This goes back to "What do you mean by 'sustainable'?"
No solution is permanent.
Frazzled wrote:
3. South America is a hodge podge, but I don't know of any cradle to grave states there.
Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru...basically every state that isn't Chile; and even they're going that way.
Wait you think those countries are cradle to grave support? Er...no.
Polonius wrote:I think, and maybe I'm just a dirty liberal, that any person working full time, on the books, has "skin in the game."
...How? Regardless of your income level or unemployment status, if, net, you pay between zero and negative federal taxes, how is voting for higher taxes, either directly or through a candidate that will do so, anything but either indifferent to your individual financial situation or in your best interests?
It's not, but the wealthy seem to have no problem voting in their best interests!
Why is self interest in voting a bad thing?
And taxes have never been about fairness. Anybody that thinks that needs to lay down for a while. Taxes are inherently unfair. A man with a gun is making you pay an amount you cannot negotiate or avoid. That's unfair.
The only question is: what will bring in the most revenue while hurting the economy the least.
The Colbert Principle; pluck the maximum possible amount of feathers with the minimum honking.
It all went wrong for the French in the end, because the goose was over-plucked.
Frazzled wrote:
Wait you think those countries are cradle to grave support? Er...no.
I don't really know what you mean by "cradle to grave support" and so went with "extensive socialism."
Sorry my man. Socialism on a scale commensurate or nearly commensurate with Greece.
Interestingly, Were the US led by an enlightened Frazzled administration, I would look hard at Germany's educational, tax, regulation, and international/tariff and nontariff structures. They do seem to work, and work quite well.
Frazzled wrote:
Interestingly, Were the US led by an enlightened Frazzled administration, I would look hard at Germany's educational, tax, regulation, and international/tariff and nontariff structures. They do seem to work, and work quite well.
Pretty much any other educational system is superior to the US educational system.
Frazzled wrote:
Interestingly, Were the US led by an enlightened Frazzled administration, I would look hard at Germany's educational, tax, regulation, and international/tariff and nontariff structures. They do seem to work, and work quite well.
Pretty much any other educational system is superior to the US educational system.
sourclams wrote:This may seem monstrous for you, but I personally feel no obligation to your 'mother of 3'.
I feel more of an obligation to a citizen of this country who has probably been raised in a disadvantaged area, than I do to rebuilding a country that we've invaded and garrisoned troops in for over a decade now.
We need to cut costs, but we need to keep a support system in this country for those in need. So far, governmental wealth redistribution has benefited the ultra-wealthy far more than the poor. Bailing out banks, only to see them grant obscene bonuses, paying huge sums to private defense contractors, and watching politicians making bank from questionable stock tips from industry lobbyists all bother me far more than a family living in squalor getting food stamps - a program, I might add, that many states have outsourced to... privately owned banks that now issue debit cards with usage fees instead of actual food stamps. It's not hard to see how transferring these government provided funds from those at subsistence level to the banks isn't what's needed when we're in debt.
The articles that have influenced my thoughts on this matter the most are these two:
The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy."
Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"
The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"
The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Written by one of the ultra-wealthy who actually gets it. He states,
I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the tens of millions of middle-class families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.
If the average American family still got the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would have an astounding $13,000 more in their pockets a year. It’s worth pausing to consider what our economy would be like today if middle-class consumers had that additional income to spend.
Frazzled wrote:California and New York are dominated inreligious fundamentalists? Wow I never knew.
I specifically mentioned the Texas Board of Education in that post for a reason.
I didn't know the Texas Board of Education dominated the educational systems of 49 other states. I mean, I knew we were awesome, but underestimated how awesome we are. Texas HURR!!!
Frazzled wrote:I didn't know the Texas Board of Education dominated the educational systems of 49 other states.
Texas has a huge sway in it, because our large demographics means that book producers often use the TBE's standards for new books. They are revisionist anti-intellectualist assclowns who really should be kicked from their position.
biccat wrote:
No, but they are more concerned with indoctrinating than they are educating.
So, like all American high schools?
The only education worth anything is the one you do yourself. I'm not saying that classwork, lectures, tests, and a physical building can't all help, but the only way you can actually learn anything beyond random facts is through practice and actually reading and using the material.
Frazzled wrote:
I didn't know the Texas Board of Education dominated the educational systems of 49 other states. I mean, I knew we were awesome, but underestimated how awesome we are. Texas HURR!!!
I suggest researching how school textbooks are chosen and distributed nationally and in particular how a certain body of people in Texas are pivitol in controlling what is and isn't included in them...
CT GAMER wrote:I suggest researching how school textbooks are chosen and distributed nationally and in particular how a certain body of people in Texas are pivitol in controlling what is and isn't included in them...
Other schools are free to choose to use other textbooks. I'm pretty sure that there's no law that schools in California have to use the same textbooks as those in Texas.
CT GAMER wrote:I suggest researching how school textbooks are chosen and distributed nationally and in particular how a certain body of people in Texas are pivitol in controlling what is and isn't included in them...
Other schools are free to choose to use other textbooks. I'm pretty sure that there's no law that schools in California have to use the same textbooks as those in Texas.
OF course they could choose other books if they existed. Problem is that because Texas is a powerhouse in book buying (upwards of $570 Million and ranked amoungst the highest)) of textbooks and due to this the board holds publishers hostage by refusing books that don't meet their political bent. They sway what is and isn't included, the tone of wording, etc. and the ublishers bow to their revisions, and requests.
These Texas-vetted books are then the ones that get published and are what other states have to choose from.
So in effect a small board of Texans with an ultra-conservative bent and a revisionist leaning in regards to teaching history get to decide what the entire nation has access to for text books and what is taught as factual history...
Sure there is no law in any state that requires the school textbooks to be from the major Texas printers. However, since they have the largest manufacturing of said books by volume, the prices are lower.
In this way most school districts are actually run like any other business, buy the least expensive school books they can. They make a lot of other boneheaded decisions on how to spend money, but that is another story for another topic.
Back on to the subject of income disparity, welfare etc. Show of hands, how many of you have a cell phone, cable/satelite tv, more than 1 television, a gaming console, etc.
I personally have none of the above. As a person who pays the vast array of taxes, from corporate to personal income, etc. no sales tax here thankfully, with all the money I shell out in taxes, I have a strict budget that barely includes buying models for games at 50% retail occassionally.
The average household in America has at least 1 cell phone, at least 1 gaming console, cable tv, and more than 1 television. This is especially true of the impoverished. It quickly begins to look like even the most economically downtrodden of our society are pretty well off, and probably have some serious problems with prioritizing their spending habits.
Going back to one of those school spending issues that helps illustrate the point. I forget the figures, and am too busy to search the reports out right now, but some ridiculous number of kids in school today (may only be Oregon) are on the free breakfast and lunch program through school. The arguement is made that this vast number of children are not being fed properly at home, though most of those households have many of the luxuries I mentioned earlier. These families would also receive foodstamps to help pay for food.
Recently a local reporter did a quick investigation on how much it costs to feed a couple kids a healthy breakfast and lunch for a month, and it came to the low low cost of $20 a month. Seriously, less than half of the average cell phone or cable tv bill. The meals consisted of fresh fruit, eggs, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, frozen orange juice, milk, etc. all your childhood food basics.
Any wonder why some people are outraged by it all?
CT GAMER wrote:OF course they could choose other books if they existed. Problem is that because Texas is a powerhouse in book buying (upwards of $570 Million and ranked amoungst the highest)) of textbooks and due to this the board holds publishers hostage by refusing books that don't meet their political bent. They sway what is and isn't included, the tone of wording, etc. and the ublishers bow to their revisions, and requests.
Presumably areas such as California (largest population in the country) or New York (3rd largest population) could exercise their own prejudices.
CT GAMER wrote:OF course they could choose other books if they existed. Problem is that because Texas is a powerhouse in book buying (upwards of $570 Million and ranked amoungst the highest)) of textbooks and due to this the board holds publishers hostage by refusing books that don't meet their political bent. They sway what is and isn't included, the tone of wording, etc. and the ublishers bow to their revisions, and requests.
Presumably areas such as California (largest population in the country) or New York (3rd largest population) could exercise their own prejudices.
The state of affairs is all well documented and has been discussed for many years if you care to see why it is the way it is.
Frazzled wrote: Interestingly, Were the US led by an enlightened Frazzled administration, I would look hard at Germany's educational, tax, regulation, and international/tariff and nontariff structures. They do seem to work, and work quite well.
Pretty much any other educational system is superior to the US educational system.
Depends on where you go and who you ask. You may have been talking to the bottom of the class who managed to get into college because I know that my state is top ten in education, but we have people like that still. In fact our school system has "academies" where we trade a lunch every other day for an extra class in whatever the academy is for. Fine arts take an art class, health science took a health science class. In fact I was taking anatomy. pathophysiology, microbiology, and genetics in high school.
halonachos wrote:
Depends on where you go and who you ask.
While that's true, some people are better positioned to assess the situation than others.
halonachos wrote:
You may have been talking to the bottom of the class who managed to get into college because I know that my state is top ten in education, but we have people like that still.
Sorry, by "Who you ask" I meant that it depends on who you ask the questions. For example if you ask an inner-city kid with pants below their rears and packing heat, he may not know who socrates is, but if you go to a suburb and find someone wearing a button up shirt with a pocket protector and ask then he may know and go into detail.
dogma wrote:Pretty much any other educational system is superior to the US educational system.
It comes from it being effectively dominated by religious fundamentalists that are more concerned with indoctrinating than they are educating...
*mutters something nasty about the utterly corrupt things masquerading as human beings that are the Texas Board of Education*
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:California and New York are dominated inreligious fundamentalists? Wow I never knew.
I specifically mentioned the Texas Board of Education in that post for a reason.
You did where? Oh I see it the font size 1 line I was supposed to notice. If you want to say it, say it. Don't hide it and hope we all care enough to look for your Easter eggs.
Dilip Gadkar, Macro Viewpoints wrote:Today, about 48% of Americans do not pay any income taxes. So about 48% of Americans now take from the American government without contributing to it.
I read all of this, but my gut feeling was that I could stop reading after that wildly erroneous conclusion by the second sentence. My gut was right. To believe that not paying income tax is akin to not contributing to 'American government" requires intellectual dishonesty on an epic scale.
Frazzled wrote:
Wait you think those countries are cradle to grave support? Er...no.
I don't really know what you mean by "cradle to grave support" and so went with "extensive socialism."
Sorry my man. Socialism on a scale commensurate or nearly commensurate with Greece.
Interestingly, Were the US led by an enlightened Frazzled administration, I would look hard at Germany's educational, tax, regulation, and international/tariff and nontariff structures. They do seem to work, and work quite well.
The irony being that much of Germany's success here -- much like Japan's -- can be attributed to the rebuilding efforts after WW II, which includes their Con. equivalents, which America was key in drafting and informing.
.. if only you'd gotten that new social contract eh ?
Dilip Gadkar, Macro Viewpoints wrote:Today, about 48% of Americans do not pay any income taxes. So about 48% of Americans now take from the American government without contributing to it.
I read all of this, but my gut feeling was that I could stop reading after that wildly erroneous conclusion by the second sentence. My gut was right. To believe that not paying income tax is akin to not contributing to 'American government" requires intellectual dishonesty on an epic scale.
Not really, that percentage he's quoting is actually pretty close to being correct. However he most likely stated it incorrectly because he should've said that 48% of Americans receive more in tax deductions than they have to pay in federal income taxes, this is what he means by people taking from the government without contributing to it.
The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.
The one taxes that nobody can really avoid are medicare and social security though, everybody pays for those. However for things like the postal service and military they give no taxes, state taxes pay for local fire and rescue though and state taxes laws vary by, you guessed it, state. So partially right and partially wrong because the 47%-48% stated pay into medicare and social security, which everyone benefits from later, but not into military, federal law enforcement, post office, or anything else controlled directly by the federal government.
Polonius wrote:The only education worth anything is the one you do yourself. I'm not saying that classwork, lectures, tests, and a physical building can't all help, but the only way you can actually learn anything beyond random facts is through practice and actually reading and using the material.
Whats scary is I read that as "I'm not saying that classwork, torture, tests, and a physical building can't all help"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:OF course they could choose other books if they existed. Problem is that because Texas is a powerhouse in book buying (upwards of $570 Million and ranked amoungst the highest)) of textbooks and due to this the board holds publishers hostage by refusing books that don't meet their political bent. They sway what is and isn't included, the tone of wording, etc. and the ublishers bow to their revisions, and requests.
Presumably areas such as California (largest population in the country) or New York (3rd largest population) could exercise their own prejudices.
Something tells me Arizona, California, and New York don't refer to the Battle of San Jacinto as when we gained our freedom, and the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ph34r wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:Texas has a huge sway in it, because our large demographics means that book producers often use the TBE's standards for new books.
Once again, remember Texas Hurr! Remember Goliad! Remember the Alamo!
Speaking of the Alamo
You know that's not an argument, right?
Every time you respond to someone's serious argument with a troll, Frazzled, you just discredit yourself further.
Wait, I had credit to begin with? Awesome.
What wiener dog pissed in your Cheerios this morning? Would you like a wiener dog to pee in your breakfast cereal? I can arrange that.
Dilip Gadkar, Macro Viewpoints wrote:Today, about 48% of Americans do not pay any income taxes. So about 48% of Americans now take from the American government without contributing to it.
I read all of this, but my gut feeling was that I could stop reading after that wildly erroneous conclusion by the second sentence. My gut was right. To believe that not paying income tax is akin to not contributing to 'American government" requires intellectual dishonesty on an epic scale.
Not really, that percentage he's quoting is actually pretty close to being correct. However he most likely stated it incorrectly because he should've said that 48% of Americans receive more in tax deductions than they have to pay in federal income taxes, this is what he means by people taking from the government without contributing to it.
The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.
The one taxes that nobody can really avoid are medicare and social security though, everybody pays for those. However for things like the postal service and military they give no taxes, state taxes pay for local fire and rescue though and state taxes laws vary by, you guessed it, state. So partially right and partially wrong because the 47%-48% stated pay into medicare and social security, which everyone benefits from later, but not into military, federal law enforcement, post office, or anything else controlled directly by the federal government.
They also pay all the end-user taxes; like sales tax, taxes on gasoline, alcohol, prepared foods/restaurants, etc. There are a lot more taxes than just income tax. As Ouze said, the article was predicated on an entirely false conclusion. That nearly half of Americans don't pay net tax at all.
Dilip Gadkar, Macro Viewpoints wrote:Today, about 48% of Americans do not pay any income taxes. So about 48% of Americans now take from the American government without contributing to it.
I read all of this, but my gut feeling was that I could stop reading after that wildly erroneous conclusion by the second sentence. My gut was right. To believe that not paying income tax is akin to not contributing to 'American government" requires intellectual dishonesty on an epic scale.
Not really, that percentage he's quoting is actually pretty close to being correct. However he most likely stated it incorrectly because he should've said that 48% of Americans receive more in tax deductions than they have to pay in federal income taxes, this is what he means by people taking from the government without contributing to it.
The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years — the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama — have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.
The one taxes that nobody can really avoid are medicare and social security though, everybody pays for those. However for things like the postal service and military they give no taxes, state taxes pay for local fire and rescue though and state taxes laws vary by, you guessed it, state. So partially right and partially wrong because the 47%-48% stated pay into medicare and social security, which everyone benefits from later, but not into military, federal law enforcement, post office, or anything else controlled directly by the federal government.
They also pay all the end-user taxes; like sales tax, taxes on gasoline, alcohol, prepared foods/restaurants, etc. There are a lot more taxes than just income tax. As Ouze said, the article was predicated on an entirely false conclusion. That nearly half of Americans don't pay net tax at all.
Of course, most of the taxes you mentioned are not federal taxes, yet they can vote in federal elections (read vote in members that will give them benefits).
biccat wrote:
No, but they are more concerned with indoctrinating than they are educating.
So, like all American high schools?
The only education worth anything is the one you do yourself. I'm not saying that classwork, lectures, tests, and a physical building can't all help, but the only way you can actually learn anything beyond random facts is through practice and actually reading and using the material.
That's very true.
You need good material to read, of course. That's where libraries (school, university and community) can help.
Having read the original piece, I have to admit, it's a pretty interesting essay, in a "what a pathetic attempt at coherent thoughts, and a sad waste of time and bandwith" kind of way.
Like I said, FEDERAL law enforcement, military, and postal service. Those are all federally run and are paid for with federal income tax. Its not a false conclusion because they pay a state tax, but not a federal income tax. Which means that they don't pay into the American system but may be paying into the California, Texas, or Alabama system which doesn't benefit people outside of the state. When I pump gas into my car I pay taxes that supports VDOT and not TXDOT.
Then there are people who may not even pay state income tax. End user taxes can only generate so much, but at least its something you know.
Mannahnin wrote:There are a lot more taxes than just income tax. As Ouze said, the article was predicated on an entirely false conclusion. That nearly half of Americans don't pay net tax at all.
What's been most interesting to me thus far is that posters taking issue with the article are predicated on an entirely false conclusion; that the article is referring to all taxes, as opposed to federal taxes.
The government as envisioned by the founding fathers did not feature an income tax.
I am still more concerned by the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his cleaning staff than I am by the idea, factual or not, that 48% of the country pay no federal income tax.
Last I checked, 48% of the country were living at or below the poverty line. This is the reason our economy is failing. Not that they're not paying taxes, but that 48% of the population cannot afford to spend money and our economy is based on a consumption model. If they're not consuming, the economy stalls.
Taxes are meant to redistribute wealth so that it benefits everyone (funding 'society'). By taking money from those who have more than they can spend, and giving it to those who will spend it, you create a positive feedback loop in which everyone does better.
An economy that is actually functioning will make more money for a rich person, even if they have to pay some of that in taxes, as all their investments will do better. There is a huge amount of historical data that shows this to be true. When the lowest in society are able to afford to spend money, all of society does better. When the wealth becomes accumulated in the hands of a few, economies stall, and we all do worse.
Redbeard wrote:The government as envisioned by the founding fathers did not feature an income tax.
I am still more concerned by the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his cleaning staff than I am by the idea, factual or not, that 48% of the country pay no federal income tax.
Last I checked, 48% of the country were living at or below the poverty line. This is the reason our economy is failing. Not that they're not paying taxes, but that 48% of the population cannot afford to spend money and our economy is based on a consumption model. If they're not consuming, the economy stalls.
Taxes are meant to redistribute wealth so that it benefits everyone (funding 'society'). By taking money from those who have more than they can spend, and giving it to those who will spend it, you create a positive feedback loop in which everyone does better.
An economy that is actually functioning will make more money for a rich person, even if they have to pay some of that in taxes, as all their investments will do better. There is a huge amount of historical data that shows this to be true. When the lowest in society are able to afford to spend money, all of society does better. When the wealth becomes accumulated in the hands of a few, economies stall, and we all do worse.
Redbeard wrote:I am still more concerned by the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his cleaning staff than I am by the idea, factual or not, that 48% of the country pay no federal income tax.
Does it bother you that Mr. Buffet pays a 35% tax rate* on the earnings of his company and then pays 15% tax rate when he receives those earnings personally, for a total tax rate of 44%?
If corporations pay dividends using post-tax dollars, why should we tax those dollars again when they're received by the owners of the corporation?
Redbeard wrote:I am still more concerned by the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his cleaning staff than I am by the idea, factual or not, that 48% of the country pay no federal income tax.
Does it bother you that Mr. Buffet pays a 35% tax rate on the earnings of his company and then pays 15% tax rate when he receives those earnings personally, for a total tax rate of 44%?
If corporations pay dividends using post-tax dollars, why should we tax those dollars again when they're received by the owners of the corporation?
For the same reason that we tax retail sales at each level of distribution. Because they're separate transactions.
Things are taxed at separate levels all the time, it's not new, novel or wrong. That argument is not really a serious one.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, "mr buffet" doesn't pay that first 35%, his company does. Separate people as far as tax is concerned.
Redbeard wrote:Last I checked, 48% of the country were living at or below the poverty line. This is the reason our economy is failing. Not that they're not paying taxes, but that 48% of the population cannot afford to spend money and our economy is based on a consumption model. If they're not consuming, the economy stalls.
This is why you (the general you) have to check harder. 48% of the country, according to the study that posted this "fact" about 3 weeks ago, is living "in poverty", as defined by the study. Also defined by the study is the "fact" that "in poverty" is anything between 100% and 199% of the poverty line.
Thus, you can earn almost double the poverty line, and still be considered in poverty. For a family of 5, that would include any amount up to ~$52,000 versus a poverty line of $26,000.
Franky, I think that definition is nonsensical. How can double the amount considered to be poverty, still be considered poverty? If I showed up for 'Ard Boyz with a 4,998 point army list, wouldn't you (the general you) have a problem with that?
Redbeard wrote:I am still more concerned by the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his cleaning staff than I am by the idea, factual or not, that 48% of the country pay no federal income tax.
Does it bother you that Mr. Buffet pays a 35% tax rate* on the earnings of his company and then pays 15% tax rate when he receives those earnings personally, for a total tax rate of 44%?
That's not how it works.
He's only taxed once. HIs company, which is legally another entity, gets taxed a second time. If corporations didn't push so hard for personhood, they'd not be taxed extra like that-- but they did, despite not actually being people they have been given the rights of a person.
Which also comes with the responsibilty of paying your motherfething taxes.
Rented Tritium wrote:Things are taxed at separate levels all the time, it's not new, novel or wrong. That argument is not really a serious one.
Actually it really is a serious argument. You can't simply dismiss it because you don't have a good response.
The fact is that Warren Buffet is paying a higher tax rate than his secretary because his money is double taxed. His secretary's money isn't double taxed: corporations can deduct salary.
If Mr. Buffet took profits from Berkshire Hathaway as salary rather than dividends his tax rate would be (about) 35%.
Would you be happier if Mr. Buffet paid 35% tax rate instead of 15%, even if the total amount paid in taxes were reduced?
sourclams wrote:
This is why you (the general you) have to check harder. 48% of the country, according to the study that posted this "fact" about 3 weeks ago, is living "in poverty", as defined by the study. Also defined by the study is the "fact" that "in poverty" is anything between 100% and 199% of the poverty line.
I didn't mention a study - do you have a reference to it?
I think it'd be pretty hard to support a family of 5 on $52k/year lately. Have you seen the price of a box of space marines lately?
biccat wrote:The fact is that Warren Buffet is paying a higher tax rate than his secretary because his money is double taxed.
No it isn't.
His corporation's income is taxed.
If he didn't want his corporation to be taxed he'd lobby to remove the corporation's rights to personhood so they don't have the responsibility of paying their taxes. But he doesn't do that. His corporation is perfectly fine with having the rights to personhood. So they pay their taxes.
Or are you going to argue that the rich who already have too much to begin wtih should be exempt from tax while everyone else needs to pay?
Rented Tritium wrote:Also, "mr buffet" doesn't pay that first 35%, his company does. Separate people as far as tax is concerned.
So a company makes $100, pre-tax.
The Government takes $35.
The company pays its 50 employees $1 each.
The Government takes another 15%-35%, or $12.50 total.
Out of the $100 that company earned, the company got $15 to redistribute to shareholders (which may include the employees) or re-invest. The employees got $37.5, before any gains in stock options. The Government got $47.50 of the $100 so far. If any of those employees choose to exercise a stock option, the government will get another ~25%. If any of those employees got paid a bonus for exceptional performance, the government gets 50% of that amount. If reinvestment results in a purchase from an outside company, the government gets sales tax.
Let's say nobody exercises their stock options/ESOP, and all of the remainder gets paid out in bonuses.
Of $100, the company is left with $0. The employees are left with $45 after-tax. The Government gets $55.
Is it any surprise that companies dedicate so much effort to finding tax shelters and shipping income offshore?
biccat wrote:Would you be happier if Mr. Buffet paid 35% tax rate instead of 15%, even if the total amount paid in taxes were reduced?
I'd be happier if he was taxed at a top marginal rate of 70%, like the highest marginal rates were inthe 50s and 60s when this country was still recognized as a world leader and not a crumbling super-power. You know, back when the wealthy were willing to support the society that allowed them to become wealthy.
Redbeard wrote:I am still more concerned by the fact that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his cleaning staff than I am by the idea, factual or not, that 48% of the country pay no federal income tax.
Does it bother you that Mr. Buffet pays a 35% tax rate on the earnings of his company and then pays 15% tax rate when he receives those earnings personally, for a total tax rate of 44%?
If corporations pay dividends using post-tax dollars, why should we tax those dollars again when they're received by the owners of the corporation?
Doers it bother you that corporations can shield their earnings such that they pay out no income tax, yet can make distributions out to shareholders? Does it bother you that personal corps can run through personal expenses and do that all the time?
The Government takes another 15%-35%, or $12.50 total.
Employee wages, bonuses and salaries are tax exemptions for corporations.
Melissia wrote:No it isn't.
His corporation's income is taxed.
And if the corporation earns $100, he only gets $56 (assuming he's the sole owner).
Melissia wrote:If he didn't want his corporation to be taxed he'd lobby to remove the corporation's rights to personhood so they don't have the responsibility of paying their taxes. But he doesn't do that. His corporation is perfectly fine with having the rights to personhood. So they pay their taxes.
Given this comment I'm pretty sure you don't understand the concept of "corporate personhood" beyond what you read on The Daily Kos or the Socialist Workers Weekly. And I'm not interested in explaining it to you.
Melissia wrote:Or are you going to argue that the rich should be exempt from tax while everyone else needs to pay?
I am going to argue that dividends from corporate earnings should be tax exempt while personal income received as compensation from corporations should be taxed. Stick around for the whole show.
biccat wrote:Given this comment I'm pretty sure you don't understand the concept of "corporate personhood"
I don't read either of those magazines. I studied the concept in business law classes.
I think it's you that doesn't understand the full rammifications of corporate personhood.
Even if he's the sole owner, it is somewhat irrelevant. The corporation and him are separate entities.
biccat wrote:I am going to argue that dividends from corporate earnings should be tax exempt while personal income received as compensation from corporations should be taxed.
Why should they be exempt? They're a form of income. Maybe I should argue that my personal income should be exempt from taxation? Except I don't think I have the lobbying power of a big corporation yet, hrm...
While the distinction was poorly made there IS a difference between corporate tax, capital gains, and income taxes. There is a 17% cap IIRC on capital gains because the money has already been taxed once at a high rate.
Melissa's attempt to link corporate personhood to thier tax rate is unsurprising, and wholly unrelated. The corporate sales tax was high in America long before corporations began to advocate for legal personhood.
The frequently overlooked fact is that Warren Buffet never said he paid less in INCOME taxes than his secretary, because either he does or he pays his secretary a larger salary than he pays himself...which actually wouldn't be too suprising.
All said capital gains taxes are fine where the are, corporate taxes need to be lower, income taxes need to be lower and the government needs to stop spending so much fething money.
Rented Tritium wrote:Things are taxed at separate levels all the time, it's not new, novel or wrong. That argument is not really a serious one.
Actually it really is a serious argument. You can't simply dismiss it because you don't have a good response.
The fact is that Warren Buffet is paying a higher tax rate than his secretary because his money is double taxed. His secretary's money isn't double taxed: corporations can deduct salary.
If Mr. Buffet took profits from Berkshire Hathaway as salary rather than dividends his tax rate would be (about) 35%.
Would you be happier if Mr. Buffet paid 35% tax rate instead of 15%, even if the total amount paid in taxes were reduced?
You are missing it. His company pays taxes, then pays him a paycheck, then he pays taxes on the paycheck. You are conflating him with his company.
AustonT wrote:The corporate sales tax was high in America long before corporations began to advocate for legal personhood.
So you're saying that we were taxing corporations at high rates before the USA finished the ink on its constitution?
Because I should note that the founding fathers had an almost universal loathing of corporations, who had been pushing those rights since before the concept of America was conceived.
Frazzled wrote:Doers it bother you that corporations can shield their earnings such that they pay out no income tax, yet can make distributions out to shareholders? Does it bother you that personal corps can run through personal expenses and do that all the time?
I'm not sure how corporations can make distributions to shareholders without declaring a profit. Unless they're sitting on cash reserves, in which case they're simply transferring tax liability on those profits from one year to the next.
But yes, in general I have a problem with so-called "personal corporations." They seem to exist solely as a means of shielding income from liability.
Redbeard wrote:I'd be happier if he was taxed at a top marginal rate of 70%, like the highest marginal rates were inthe 50s and 60s when this country was still recognized as a world leader and not a crumbling super-power. You know, back when the wealthy were willing to support the society that allowed them to become wealthy.
It was a simple yes-or-no question. When the top marginal rate was 70%, what was the effective tax rate paid by the wealthiest? I would suggest that it was probably around 18-20%.
However, if you're suggesting a return to the 50's, can we also go back to when government spending was ~20% of GDP, there was no social security or medicare, and most of the federal regulatory framework hadn't been established? Oh, and defense was 35% of federal spending.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:You are missing it. His company pays taxes, then pays him a paycheck, then he pays taxes on the paycheck. You are conflating him with his company.
I'm not "missing it" at all. I understand your argument. But your argument is wrong.
Melissia wrote:. If corporations didn't push so hard for personhood, they'd not be taxed extra like that-- but they did, despite not actually being people they have been given the rights of a person.
AustonT wrote:
No I'm saying this statement isn't true.
Melissia wrote:. If corporations didn't push so hard for personhood, they'd not be taxed extra like that-- but they did, despite not actually being people they have been given the rights of a person.
That's because you're wrong. Sole proprietorships, for example, are not taxed twice-- nor are partnerships. But Corporations are-- because they are a separate entity, not tied to the life of the person who runs them.
Of course, with how hard corporations lobby Washington, they still often get loopholes and exemptions that let them usually pay less taxes than sole proprietorships and partnerships anyway even with double taxation...And naturally the owners aren't personally liable as an added bonus, so not only are they taxed less they're also less liable when the gak hits the fan anwyay.
Melissia wrote:That's because you're wrong. Sole proprietorships, for example, are not taxed twice-- nor are partnerships. But Corporations are-- because they are a separate entity, not tied to the life of the person who runs them.
Not all partnerships expire with the death of the person who runs them. In fact, I work for one. None of the people named on my business card are still living (we're actually a Limited Liability Partnership).
Further, you could form an LLC and avoid paying corporate taxes (LLCs have pass-through taxation like partnerships).
Melissia wrote:Of course, with how hard corporations lobby Washington, they still often get loopholes and exemptions that let them usually pay less taxes than sole proprietorships and partnerships anyway even with double taxation...And naturally the owners aren't personally liable as an added bonus, so not only are they taxed less they're also less liable when the gak hits the fan anwyay.
Anyone can get limited liability by converting an SP or partnership to a LLC or LLP. States are actually pretty generous with grants of limited liability.
Redbeard wrote:I'd be happier if he was taxed at a top marginal rate of 70%, like the highest marginal rates were inthe 50s and 60s when this country was still recognized as a world leader and not a crumbling super-power. You know, back when the wealthy were willing to support the society that allowed them to become wealthy.
It was a simple yes-or-no question. When the top marginal rate was 70%, what was the effective tax rate paid by the wealthiest? I would suggest that it was probably around 18-20%.
However, if you're suggesting a return to the 50's, can we also go back to when government spending was ~20% of GDP, there was no social security or medicare, and most of the federal regulatory framework hadn't been established? Oh, and defense was 35% of federal spending.
If you scroll down to the "Revenue Sources by Type since 1900" heading, federal income tax in the 50's was 10-15%. I figure even with higher rates, the wealthy probably didn't pay much more of a disproportionate share than they do now. IIRC the ratio of the share of taxes versus share of earnings for the richest 10% is about 1.17.
Redbeard wrote:Wasn't social security established in 1935?
If you scroll down to the "Revenue Sources by Type since 1900" heading, federal income tax in the 50's was 10-15%. I figure even with higher rates, the wealthy probably didn't pay much more of a disproportionate share than they do now. IIRC the ratio of the share of taxes versus share of earnings for the richest 10% is about 1.17.
I posted a link to an excellent article from Rolling Stone earlier in the thread. The wealthy used to pay a much larger share - over 90% top marginal until Kennedy pushed for tax cuts in the early 60s, which, amazingly, the GOP opposed. It wasn't until Reagan's early presidency that the rate came down to 50%, and even then, Reagan realized that the bills couldn't be paid at that rate and raised them again, seven times during the remainder of his presidency.
I don' know the micro-details, and I won't pretend to. What I can see is historical trends. I, personally, have done better when the country spends less than it makes, pays its bills, and collects the money to do so from the ultra-wealthy. I have done worse whenever the government has cut tax rates, borrowed for luxuries (such as foreign wars), and tried to 'reward' job creators. I'm comfortably middle (somemight say upper-middle) class, I have a steady development job at a major tech corporation, so I'm not benefiting from government handouts during these times. I believe that I'd be better off, overall, if we never had the Bush tax cuts, or even if we had them, but had them for those in lower income brackets than myself only. I didn't need the cuts. I also didn't need to see my retirement account drop 40% when our national credit rating was tanked... I lost far more because of that than I would have paid in the extra taxes.
I'm totally fine with businesses getting extra privileges as long as extra responsibilities come along with that.
There are a lot of business structures that limit liability but also come with restrictions or extra liability in different areas. Most of them are designed fine.
At its core, the idea of corporations exercising the rights of the shareholders is perfectly rational.
Just on the point about the PIIGS. The issues facing each PIIGS nation are different. In ireland for example, the issue was caused by having a very open economy, that was reliant on a volatile construction sector, extremely poor regulation of private banks, and then the massive error to guarantee all of our banks just before the most ludicrously indebted one collapsed. This has added the private debts of investors in countries all over Europe (primarily France, Germany, and the UK) to the state's debt, essentially socialising the losses of foreign and domestic private bankers. This was done with no parlimentary debate or public scrutiny over the course of a night, and then rushed through the parliment soon after. Ireland has a debt of over £300,000 per citizen. This debt was not incurred through welfare (though generous welfare did leave our economy vunerable) or education spending (education spending allowed our boom in the first place).
The citizens of Ireland are paying the debts of much of the rest of Europe (notably those countries who still have "stable" economies. Easy to be stable when your problems are heroically taken on board by some morons in a little island to the west.) Our overlords at the IMF and ECB have arranged for a loan from the other countries which we persist in calling a "bailout" despite the fact that it is costing us money (interest) to repay it, and the debt is not ours to begin with (well, a large proportion of it.)
There is no doubt that Ireland had some major inefficiencies before the 2008 banking guarantee, but they were nowhere near the system issues that you are alluding to here.
By the way, I hold no particular nationalist rancour over this situation. Someone had to take the hit to stop the whole system falling down, we happened to be the country with the stupidest politicians when the crunch came.
Rented Tritium wrote:I'm totally fine with businesses getting extra privileges as long as extra responsibilities come along with that.
There are a lot of business structures that limit liability but also come with restrictions or extra liability in different areas. Most of them are designed fine.
At its core, the idea of corporations exercising the rights of the shareholders is perfectly rational.
I'mfine with that as well, but I'm still of the opinion that if the corporations want personhood (especially in regards to political donations) which other forms of business they need to pay extra taxes for that right, but by its very nature having the right to political donations means that they will push to do away with those extra taxes (because responsibility is expensive).
Rented Tritium wrote:I'm totally fine with businesses getting extra privileges as long as extra responsibilities come along with that.
There are a lot of business structures that limit liability but also come with restrictions or extra liability in different areas. Most of them are designed fine.
At its core, the idea of corporations exercising the rights of the shareholders is perfectly rational.
I'mfine with that as well, but I'm still of the opinion that if the corporations want personhood (especially in regards to political donations) which other forms of business they need to pay extra taxes for that right, but by its very nature having the right to political donations means that they will push to do away with those extra taxes (because responsibility is expensive).
I think they already do pay extra taxes for that right. getting rid of loopholes would sure help, though.
Melissia wrote:I'mfine with that as well, but I'm still of the opinion that if the corporations want personhood (especially in regards to political donations)
Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't have First Amendment protections?
Melissia wrote:I'mfine with that as well, but I'm still of the opinion that if the corporations want personhood (especially in regards to political donations)
Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't have First Amendment protections?
If you remove the "double taxation" (which isnt' actuallydouble taxation, but instead a result of the corporation being its own entity), the no, they shouldn't.
Melissia wrote:If you remove the "double taxation" (which isnt' actually double taxation, but instead a result of the corporation being its own entity), the no, they shouldn't.
Are you saying that Constitutional First Amendment rights could be conditioned on payment of a tax?
Melissia wrote:If you remove the "double taxation" (which isnt' actually double taxation, but instead a result of the corporation being its own entity), the no, they shouldn't.
Are you saying that Constitutional First Amendment rights could be conditioned on payment of a tax?
edited, First Amendment, not Constitutional
No, I'm saying that if corporations want the rights of personhood, they should have the responsibilities of such as well.
Not simply all the rights without any responsibility, as you suggest.
Melissia wrote:I'mfine with that as well, but I'm still of the opinion that if the corporations want personhood (especially in regards to political donations)
Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't have First Amendment protections?
Melissia wrote:No, I'm saying that if corporations want the rights of personhood, they should have the responsibilities of such as well.
Not simply all the rights without any responsibility, as you suggest.
What responsibilities are you talking about? Do natural persons have any responsibilities that must be fulfilled as a condition of receiving Constitutional rights?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
biccat wrote:
Melissia wrote:I'mfine with that as well, but I'm still of the opinion that if the corporations want personhood (especially in regards to political donations)
Are you suggesting that corporations shouldn't have First Amendment protections?
YES.
What part of the First Amendment limits the expression of those rights to persons? Isn't the First Amendment a negative check on government, not a positive grant of rights?
Frazzled wrote:Does the Constitution apply to chickens and rocks too?
Are you asking whether chickens or rocks have a free speech right? I suppose that any law that attempted to limit the free speech rights of chickens and rocks could be invalidated under the First Amendment. I'm not sure how you could determine that a chicken or rock is engaged in protected speech, however.
Any law that required, for example, all chickens to be baptized, or all chickens to perform the Hajj would likewise be unconstitutional.
Is it a free speech right for a rock to flings itself at a Riot cop?
You would think it is self-evident that that The Bill of Rights does not grant personhood to things that are inanimate. I guess the Founders probably thought that was common sense and didn't need to put in the whole "natural person" part. Their mistake.
The only way that can be resolved is by a Amendment to the Constitution to explicitly state "natural person" now*, or have a different set of Supremes overrule this last set.
Either scenario is a hard to see happening.
So, what does this have to do with taxation again?
A corporation is the combined will of a group of people. It derives its rights from the people that make it up. A corporation cannot exist without owners.
biccat wrote:Do natural persons have any responsibilities that must be fulfilled as a condition of receiving Constitutional rights?
If I was a dude, I'd have to sign up for selective service too (and I have stated my support of expanding that women in the past). And I have to obey the laws of the state and federal governments and pay their various taxes.
These are things I am legally obligated to do as a person in the United States. I would think that, being an American (I assume you are given your flag emblem), you would know this without me saying it.
For obvious reasons it's impossible for corporations to be signed up for selective service (Because they technically are not actually people even if they are legally), But even then, businesses are constantly pushing to be exempted from both parts of the latter (taxes and laws that apply to non-corporate entities).
Frazzled wrote:Does the Constitution apply to chickens and rocks too?
Are you asking whether chickens or rocks have a free speech right? I suppose that any law that attempted to limit the free speech rights of chickens and rocks could be invalidated under the First Amendment. I'm not sure how you could determine that a chicken or rock is engaged in protected speech, however.
Any law that required, for example, all chickens to be baptized, or all chickens to perform the Hajj would likewise be unconstitutional.
Exactly, because the government is not allowed to pass laws to establish religion (to paraphrase).
Easy E wrote:Is it a free speech right for a rock to flings itself at a Riot cop?
If it were free speech for a person to fling oneself at a riot cop, it's free speech for a rock to fling itself at a riot cop.
Easy E wrote:You would think it is self-evident that that The Bill of Rights does not grant personhood to things that are inanimate. I guess the Founders probably thought that was common sense and didn't need to put in the whole "natural person" part. Their mistake.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Where's the part where a "natural person" distinction would fit (aside from peaceably assemble, I'm pretty sure corporations can't do that anyway)?
Melissia wrote:If I was a dude, I'd have to sign up for selective service too (and I have stated my support of expanding that women in the past). And I have to obey the laws of the state and federal governments and pay their various taxes.
So obeying the law is a requirement for constitutional rights to attach? How do the various due process rights even attach?
If I violate the rule to sign up for selective service I don't lose my free speech rights. If I don't obey the laws of the state I don't lose my right to an attorney, or the right to a trial by jury.
Melissia wrote:These are things I am legally obligated to do as a person in the United States. I would think that, being an American (I assume you are given your flag emblem), you would know this without me saying it.
I do know that. However, the consequence of not doing these things does not result in a revocation of your Constitutional rights.
Your argument seems to be that since legislatures grant groups of people certain rights (limited liability) then they could require those groups to forfeit their free speech. But it's quite well established that Congress can't require waiver of fundamental rights in order to receive benefits.
Melissia wrote:businesses are constantly pushing to be exempted from both parts of the latter (taxes and laws that apply to non-corporate entities).
People lobby for all sorts of things, I don't see why corporations should be any different.
If a cruel punishment was typical, would it be allowed in that the bill of rights only prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, not cruel or unusual punishments?
Melissia wrote:These are things I am legally obligated to do as a person in the United States. I would think that, being an American (I assume you are given your flag emblem), you would know this without me saying it.
I do know that. However, the consequence of not doing these things does not result in a revocation of your Constitutional rights.
Your argument seems to be that since legislatures grant groups of people certain rights (limited liability) then they could require those groups to forfeit their free speech. But it's quite well established that Congress can't require waiver of fundamental rights in order to receive benefits.
I think you've got this a bit backwards. It's not about forfeiting your rights. I think it's more about a human being having certain liabilities and vulnerabilites and limits which a corporation does not. If I break a law, engage in dishonest and/or disreputable practices, or otherwise misbehave, I can be imprisoned, or have my license to practice a given trade revoked, and/or have my professional reputation ruined. I also have a finite amount of lifespan in which to gather capital, exercise influence, and clear my name/recover my reputation if I mess up. A corporation is not so limited. It cannot be imprisoned, it has no limit to its lifespan, and even if dissolved, the same people can start a new business all over again, at least somewhat if not entirely insulated from the consequences of their actions. It is the people who have any personal responsibility and liability, and the people who have (or should have) rights.
Shut down ALL business operations and lcok up all of their properties for the duration of their sentence. None of this "blame the employee, not the company" crap.
AustonT wrote:Especially the one you work for right?
Not sure what sort of thing you're asking lol... Ican read this numerous ways.
Why don't you list the numerous ways and I will pick one
For example, reading it with the insinuation that I wouldn't want to be held liable myself. Or with the insinuation that I would do so viciously if I disliked my company (which I could believe, if I disliked it hard enough, such as Wal-Mart). Or that you're insinuating double standards.
I'll pick double standards. Since it's close enough to "I believe in this until it affects me"
I'm also sure that Walgreens should close all of it's stores nationwide by your hypothetical incarceration due to corporate responsibility in a malpractice case in Timbucktoo.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its the only way to be sure
I don't think it's usually useful to shut down a whole corporation because of malfeasance. Significant jail time for management personnel directly responsible might be a more effective deterrant, without costing everyone else their jobs. Kind of related to the undocumented worker problem. If it wasn't so profitable companies here wouldn't hire them. If the fines were massive enough, or the managers responsible had to serve time for it, we might actually be able to curb the demand.
Mannahnin wrote:I don't think it's usually useful to shut down a whole corporation because of malfeasance. Significant jail time for management personnel directly responsible might be a more effective deterrant, without costing everyone else their jobs. Kind of related to the undocumented worker problem. If it wasn't so profitable companies here wouldn't hire them. If the fines were massive enough, or the managers responsible had to serve time for it, we might actually be able to curb the demand.
Hey if it works in China, why not here?
EDIT: If its a criminal offense then I'm all for it. Locking people up for noncriminal offenses should be a no no, unless they tick me off of course.
We already have a system in place to fine corporations for being bad. The issue is just that it's too easy to get away from and the fines are too low.
Look at the Exxon Valdez for instance. They dragged their feet for decades on paying the fines and settlements and finally were able to argue them down again and again until they were paying a tiny fraction. That's not how this is supposed to work.
It might be the best choice out of a bunch of bad ones, but double taxation is only required in corporations that are publically traded or have more than 100 shareholders (with each family counting as a single shareholder) or, IIRC, foriegn shareholders.
Check out "S" Corporations some time. Or LLCs.
Also, corporate taxes are very dissimilar to individual taxes. They are only taxed on profits, which means after all legititimate (but not necessarily wise) business expenses. Individuals are taxed on all income, aside from relatively small exemptions and deductions.
Polonius wrote:Corporations also choose to be taxed doubly.
It might be the best choice out of a bunch of bad ones, but double taxation is only required in corporations that are publically traded or have more than 100 shareholders (with each family counting as a single shareholder) or, IIRC, foriegn shareholders.
Which is why, outside of large or publicly traded corporations, nobody uses the corporate form. LLCs and S-corps are the way to go.
For some reason my firm is an LLP. I'm not sure why or how this makes sense.
Polonius wrote:Corporations also choose to be taxed doubly.
It might be the best choice out of a bunch of bad ones, but double taxation is only required in corporations that are publically traded or have more than 100 shareholders (with each family counting as a single shareholder) or, IIRC, foriegn shareholders.
Which is why, outside of large or publicly traded corporations, nobody uses the corporate form. LLCs and S-corps are the way to go.
For some reason my firm is an LLP. I'm not sure why or how this makes sense.
C corps are corps.
there are lots of nonpublic corporations. I'm not certain what you're talking about.
How did a discussion about an opinion piece that's half a step away from, "We should return to the way things were when only property owners were allowed to vote!" turn into a debate about the, "Corporations are people, too!" lunacy?
Seaward wrote:How did a discussion about an opinion piece that's half a step away from, "We should return to the way things were when only property owners were allowed to vote!" turn into a debate about the, "Corporations are people, too!" lunacy?
Seaward wrote:How did a discussion about an opinion piece that's half a step away from, "We should return to the way things were when only property owners were allowed to vote!" turn into a debate about the, "Corporations are people, too!" lunacy?
Seaward wrote:How did a discussion about an opinion piece that's half a step away from, "We should return to the way things were when only property owners were allowed to vote!" turn into a debate about the, "Corporations are people, too!" lunacy?
Seaward wrote:How did a discussion about an opinion piece that's half a step away from, "We should return to the way things were when only property owners were allowed to vote!" turn into a debate about the, "Corporations are people, too!" lunacy?
Income disparity got us to warren buffet. Warren buffet got us to the perceived double taxation on the rich. Double taxation on the rich got us to the difference between corporate taxes and personal taxes and that got us to corporate personhood.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Income disparity got us to warren buffet. Warren buffet got us to the perceived double taxation on the rich. Double taxation on the rich got us to the difference between corporate taxes and personal taxes and that got us to corporate personhood.
The problem is, the piece isn't really about income disparity. It's about how people who don't pay income taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote.
If paying taxes, and not citizenship, were the basis for voting, I'd finally get to vote.
But, really, that's a horrible idea. (basing voting on paying taxes, not me voting ) Let's disenfranchise the poor even further. As if it's not bad enough that they reduce the number of polling places, forcing people who really cannot afford to miss work to wait in long lines. There are already too many tricks used to disqualify poor voters, they don't need to make it official.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Income disparity got us to warren buffet. Warren buffet got us to the perceived double taxation on the rich. Double taxation on the rich got us to the difference between corporate taxes and personal taxes and that got us to corporate personhood.
The problem is, the piece isn't really about income disparity. It's about how people who don't pay income taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote.
The first jump was the bigger one. That's on the first page, though, so you can go see it for yourself.
