Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Income made in the US should have taxes paid to the US. Income made outside the US, shouldn't have taxes paid to the US, imo.
Preventing businesses from reincorporating outside the US, imo, shouldn't be prevented by edict. Why are these companies reincorporating outside the US? And, why isn't that addressed?
I think it should be addressed, and I'm not arguing that anyone should be prevented from leaving the U.S. if they wish to leave. But if they want to have their cake and eat it, too, then that might be something worth questioning.
Have you ever stopped to consider just how absurd it all is? I mean, here we have people born into wealth and privilege, who have every luxury and comfort, who enjoy the protection of living under one of the most powerful governments and nations on the planet, and yet, they're still complaining that they're not getting enough.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Keeping government out of the loop more will lead to less corruption of government by corporations. I oppose the amount of money involved in politics. Doling out favors to corporations in response to their political support is heinous in my eyes. I didn't oppose the basic tenet of Occupy Wall Street. I simply felt that going after Wall Street was the wrong way to go about it. Had they put their focus on stopping government from accepting "bribes" from Wall Street, I'd have had no problem with that.
The problem at hand seems so deep and so entrenched in the system that it needs a major clean-out, Roto Rooter style.
I think the Occupy Wall Street might have indicated that some people believe that the major banks and corporations are the ones who are really in charge, while the politicians answer to them. After all, those on Wall Street are the ones with the money, and money is essential to winning elections.
Of course, if the public wasn't so easily fooled by these slick and expensive political campaigns, then money would be a less of a factor in the electoral process.
Still, those who have the money and power to corrupt the government also have the money and power to reform the government and make it better. So, if those on Wall Street have their hooks in government, then maybe it would behoove to take heed that people are unhappy and that they'd better do something soon to make things right before the shit hits the fan.
That's going to depend entirely on how Wall Street thinks things will shake out once the shit starts spraying.
Unfortunately, there is no way to force anyone to pay attention to issues and to use critical thinking skills prior to voting. I think there are enough low information voters out there that can be swayed to win an election by either party. It's all about which ad campaign can lure the most suckers. I fully believe the majority of voters are low information voters, too. And, that is just sad.
Roto-Rooter style? I don't disagree with that at all.
I agree with you about the low information voters. I have to admit that I’m somewhat baffled at times, especially since our society overall has favored education and informed political activism. It’s not that the information isn’t available, so I don’t see any real excuse for anyone to be a low information voter nowadays. It may also be due to the quality of the information they have, not the quantity.
Politicians also have a way of playing on people’s fears. That’s why mud-slinging and negative advertising seems to be so effective at winning elections. The common voter’s logic might go like this: “Well, I don’t really like D that much, but I’ll vote for him just because I’m really afraid that R will get in there. I really like G and would rather see him win, but he has no chance of winning and I don’t want to waste my vote. So I’m voting for D.” I think it’s actually a greater waste of one’s vote by voting for the lesser of two evils when there might be more desirable candidates in the field who get all but ignored.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Envy, in and of itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Wanting to be more like someone who has more or is more successful is a good thing, imo. It's when you take to knocking that other guy down, whether by government taxation or regulation, rather than by improving yourself, that things tend to go wrong. For the most part, you can change the length of your stick end through hard work and diligence.
I don't think that anyone wants to knock the other guy down, and I also think that encouraging people to improve themselves (and helping them to do so when needed) is a good thing.
As for changing the length of your stick through hard work and diligence (and that phrasing gave me a bit of chuckle, I must confess), that also greatly depends on how well the overall economy is doing. That's really the main issue at stake here.
Also, as far as envy is concerned, as exemplified in the article by noting a corporate hierarchy, with the lower ranks envying those at the higher ranks, that may not be materialistic envy as much as it's envy of power. The position and title itself might also be the object of envy, while the money may be a secondary (yet still desirable) factor. But just because a person is a CEO and another person is only a vice-president, it wouldn't necessarily mean the CEO was more diligent or worked harder than the vice-president. People can get knocked down in other ways than regulation or taxation. It's a dog-eat-dog world.
Taxing people at ever higher rates to subsidize more and more isn't knocking people down? I disagree.
Well, I think it would depend on how high the rate is. Taxation, in and of itself, is not designed to knock people down. It can certainly be used that way and abused to extreme proportions. We have a far from perfect track record in terms of governmental abuses in this country, but at least in my lifetime, I don’t think the taxes have really been that bad. Sure, they’re kind of a pain in the butt; I hate taxes, so it’s not that I’m unsympathetic.
I also find it especially galling to consider how much of the people’s money is wasted by the government. I don’t think that negates the necessity of taxation, but I agree that the government needs to come up with a better way of doing things.
quote:
My use of the phrase, "for the most part," indicates that working harder isn't always going to be indicative of your success levels, and there are people who get to add to what their forebears started, too. A person "paying it forward" to his/her children is a good thing. Even that is being attacked. You take two people who are generally equal, the one that works harder than the other will tend to be more successful. I'm never going to have income like Lebron, the Koch's, Bill Gates, etc., and I'm perfectly okay with that. I don't need it. I'm looking at competing with myself, though. I want to be better than I am. I know that the better I am, the more valuable an employee I'll be, and the more successful I'll be.
On a personal level, I’m much the same way, and in no way am I criticizing hard work, diligence, or even the success of the individuals you’re referring to. I just don’t think that it tells the whole story. In any case, noting individual success is more a credit to the talent, skills, hard work, and determination of those particular individuals. It doesn’t necessarily give credit to any particular system or political ideology. Hard work, talent, ambition, intelligence, and diligence will always tend to pay off on an individual level, regardless of whatever economic or political system one lives under.
quote:
quote:
But when those empty storefronts remain empty for what seems like an unusually long time, with no one stepping in to replace them, then it's time to start asking the hard questions.
Yes, it is. And, part of the problem could very easily be government putting hurdles in place, making it more and more difficult for entrepreneurs to enter the marketplace. The more difficult it is to form and run a company (from a government compliance aspect), the less competition there will be for those that are already there.
And, for the peanut gallery, that doesn't mean I don't want any regulations on start ups, or anything like that.
Whatever hurdles are put in place by government can be addressed and negotiated. I’ve seen a lot of businesses go under because their rent was too high and they couldn’t renegotiate their lease. Or maybe they can’t get any loans if the bank feels it’s not a good investment anymore. Whatever is squeezing small business these days, I can’t believe that it’s just government doing that through regulation and taxation. The big businesses play a pretty big role as well.
Maybe the government can put the hurdles and regulations on big business, while cutting small business a break and removing some of the hurdles. I don’t think anyone wants to knock down any of the hard-working small business owners, but I think most of the public’s anger these days is mainly directed at the fat cats and others at the top levels.
quote:
quote:
quote:
The argument is less about unrestrained or unregulated capitalism, though, and more about how much restraint and regulation is placed on capitalism. The greater the restraint, the less capitalism we have, and the greater the benefit of buying further government intrusion by corporations (to either restrain competition, or to get their own carve-out).
I would suggest that the issue really isn't about "capitalism" per se. I think economic systems are fundamentally tied in with political systems, and as such, they are both reflections of the culture, attitudes, and mores of the people. Capitalists are politicians in a different forum, and the level of restraint or regulation they might have to deal with rests largely with their own political skills and powers of persuasion, in whatever form it might take.
Sadly, the powers of persuasion usually have a "$" in front of them.
Yes, but when more people start to see less and less “$” in their lives, then the power starts to dissipate. That’s when they start to resort to cheaper forms of persuasion which tend to have unfavorable results.
quote:
Indecision and gridlock can be limiting to real improvement, but it can also prevent further distortions of the economy. "Real improvement" and "distortions" will be defined by your political persuasion, of course.
I think there might be ways of measuring “real improvement” from a more objective and non-political point of view. After all, there are plenty of things that conservatives and liberals do agree upon, so they can always try to build upon that. I don’t think we need any distortions of the economy, but I always try to remember that any perceptions of the economy are tied in with political and cultural perceptions as well. I figure, as long as we don’t have any major shortages of vital goods, or no food riots or power outages, we’re still shooting par. They never promised us a rose garden.
Still, when there are more and more boarded up storefronts, more pawn shops, more panhandlers and homeless people, and other signs of misery out there, it’s hard to ignore. Or even if people aren’t materially deprived, there still seems to be some inexplicable level of insanity that I can’t quite fathom. I don’t blame capitalism directly for that, but I think capitalism advocates a system which allows for unscrupulous people to prey on the weak and vulnerable. So, part of the loathing of capitalism also rests in the idea of wanting to protect the weak, which is an honorable thing for Captain America to do.
|
RE: Another interesting article... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread