RE: Another interesting article...

RE: Another interesting article... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/3/2014 9:13:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You really don't get it. So tell me precisely and exactly how it will harm the economy if Walmart pays its employees $2 more an hour. Not just scare tactics about inflation but in detail. I'm a math guy so numbers if you please. Increasing pay by that percentage will do what to their spending which will increase demand for basic consumer goods by x% which will some how be bad for the economy in how? Do we have a match between supply and demand now? If not, adding more money chasing the same amount of products isn't going to increase anything but prices. If we have too much supply, prices will come down. If we have too little supply, prices will go up (and should). Supply is not inflexible. You are still approaching things from the perspective that supply side theory is correct. 1981 to today proves it is not. Low inflation and favoring producers did not get us growth and full employment. It just got us screwed. We need to go back to moderate inflation and policies favoring workers. Those worked. The 1950's and 60's were boom times unprecedented in American history. I'm sure the boom times had nothing to do with the end of WWII and changing from war manufacturing to civilian manufacturing. [8\|] It had an effect but Picketty makes a very convincing case that it wasn't the sole reason.

Zonie63 -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/4/2014 11:43:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That's my point. They are still paying taxes right here in good old USA, even though they aren't here. We don't assess taxes on the entirety of their global revenues, though. That's yet another thing that the Liberals have been talking about. When GE makes a kajillion bucks outside North America, they don't pay taxes to the US on that, though they are paying whatever taxes are applicable where they are making that revenue. If GE turns a profit in foreign markets and takes losses in the US, if that revenue never comes back into the US, why should it get taxed? Well, they still enjoyed certain advantages of being born and educated in the good old US of A that they would not have gotten had they been born in these other countries where they're currently making "kajillions." Companies like GE have benefited quite nicely living in the USA off the fat of the land, with a friendly government to give them lucrative contracts and a business-friendly culture for generations. Under such circumstances, you’d think they’d demonstrate a bit more loyalty or patriotism for the country, yet, the minute things get the slightest bit inconvenient for them, they want to jump ship. quote: I understand you here, but, what's wrong with them being out of the loop with us working stiffs? There will always be those types. Why isn't it okay for there to be income inequality, anyway? Isn't that an incentive for "working stiffs" to find a better way? Whether it’s “right” or “wrong” depends on how it affects the economy as a whole, the overall quality of life, and the general standing of the nation in geopolitical terms. If the ruling class of America is showing themselves more and more out of touch with realities of geopolitics, as well as out of touch with the perceptions and values of the people they’re ruling over, then this would explain America’s overall decline on the world scene. There is income inequality in a lot of countries right now – countries which would not be considered desirable places to live and certainly not world powers by any standard. That doesn’t make income inequality “not okay,” in and of itself. But when those who are still living high on the hog and enjoying a life of luxury (that 99% of the population couldn’t even dream of) start complaining of their supposed “hardships” because they have to pay taxes, that’s when one might start to wonder. quote: I'm less critical of our educational system. Seriously. What I think is wrong with our educational system is all the non-curricular shit demanded of it. Parents need to play a bigger role in their kids' academic lives, and need to take care of all the non-curricular shit. Let schools go back to just teaching. I honestly don't think there's enough time for our schools to teach critical thinking skills because of all the other stuff they have to deal with. It’s kind of a vicious circle, though. Parents at the lower end of the economic spectrum might have to work 2 or more jobs to make ends meet, taking time away from the job of raising the kids. quote: Lazy Americans. I used to be one. I think there are a number of influences at work, in addition to laziness. There’s been a certain level of overconfidence exuded in American politics for as long as I can remember. Ideas of American “exceptionalism” and America as the world’s greatest superpower have led to a certain level of complacency fed by the belief that “it doesn’t get any better than this.” It’s as if this country has been reveling in one giant party since the end of World War II, chasing after leisure, pleasure, and recreation as our main passion. I’ll admit that I got caught up in it too when I was younger. It was what I was raised with; I didn’t know any different. During my teen years and early 20s, it was as if most everyone at my peer level was interested in “partying”/bar hopping or going to the concerts or other such recreational/entertainment/fun events – since we never wanted to endure one minute of boredom. The pinnacle of 1980s youth political activism was “you gotta fight for your right to party!” I look back and wonder, what the fuck was the matter with us? quote: Why increasingly tax increasing success? Why does government get to say "you make too much, so we'll take more" anyway? I don’t think they’re saying it like that. quote: Who gets to decide their utility, though? Do the Democrats, when in power, get to say that any non-Volt's are going to get taxed higher, only to have the GOP make changes when they take over? I think a fair and equitable standard might be agreed upon. Of course, the Democrats and Republicans will have to get their acts together at some point and produce some results – regardless of what’s actually proposed and/or enacted into law. That’s assuming that they can even make a deal at some point (which will likely be some kind of watered-down stopgap proposal which will keep the country above water temporarily – but no long-term solutions). I think we’ll just have to wait for the mid-term elections to see what will happen. quote: Take a look at the US poor vs. the poor in most any other country. Take a look at how those who are just outside of "the poor" in any Third World country compares to the poor in the US. Why would we compare the poor in the US to the poor in developing countries? It might be more useful to compare the living standards of the poor and working classes of the U.S. compared to that of other industrialized countries. Even within the U.S., living standards might vary from state to state. quote: No one wants that. Where are in danger of that happening in the US? I don’t think anyone wants it either, and I’m not even saying that there’s any danger right now. But there are certain trends which might be considered troubling. After all, even the author of the article in your OP suggested that capitalists were losing sleep and worried that the people would give up their freedom and choose an omnipotent government. I don’t think there’s any immediate danger of that happening, but I suppose it could happen, if the people feel they have no other choice. quote: The fact that there are people who do work and succeed should give hope to anyone not doing as well. I watch people come into work and do whatever they can get away with to not have to work, and they are getting paid upwards of $14 to start. All the while, they bitch and moan about how shitty their job is. There will never be a minimum wage that will be "enough." That's the problem. As soon as we set a floor, the politicians will start to raise it in an effort to get elected. It depends on the company and the culture which is set by upper management which tends to trickle down to the lower ranks. Some companies might favor a more positive and upbeat atmosphere and company culture, while others tend to have a more negative and hostile management style. Trouble is, they never tell you that at the outset; it’s something that employees have to figure out on their own once they’ve been employed. Still, I get your point about people who bitch and moan about how shitty their job is. They can get irritating. That can also cause resentment in a workplace, since there will be those who do their jobs, work hard, put in a honest day’s work, yet also have to pick up the slack for those who aren’t quite up to par or who just can’t carry their part of the workload. As for me, I don’t usually complain about the job or the pay itself, but I fall more into the category of those who complain “why does this company employ so many fuck-ups?” I end up thinking the same thing at election time, too.

tj444 -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/4/2014 11:50:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 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. Even if they leave, though, they are still going to pay taxes on their US revenues, and their US employees still pay US income taxes. I'm sure Toyota and it's workforce are paying taxes here. But doesn't that bother them just as much? Why would anyone want to do business with the US at all if it’s true that we're so unfriendly and hostile to private business? That's my point. They are still paying taxes right here in good old USA, even though they aren't here. We don't assess taxes on the entirety of their global revenues, though. That's yet another thing that the Liberals have been talking about. When GE makes a kajillion bucks outside North America, they don't pay taxes to the US on that, though they are paying whatever taxes are applicable where they are making that revenue. If GE turns a profit in foreign markets and takes losses in the US, if that revenue never comes back into the US, why should it get taxed? But DS, if you became an expat you would be required to file US tax returns every year and be taxed on all your worldwide income (I think anything under 85K or so wont be taxed) so why shouldn't US corps get the same treatment as you would? And too, don't forget, those big corps can actually negotiate their tax rate (all privately & hush-hush) with the IRS so the fact is that many of those big corps don't pay the same rate as small & medium US corps pay.. so you can see why some people might feel those big US corps don't really pay their fair share.. Just sayin'..

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/4/2014 6:29:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That's my point. They are still paying taxes right here in good old USA, even though they aren't here. We don't assess taxes on the entirety of their global revenues, though. That's yet another thing that the Liberals have been talking about. When GE makes a kajillion bucks outside North America, they don't pay taxes to the US on that, though they are paying whatever taxes are applicable where they are making that revenue. If GE turns a profit in foreign markets and takes losses in the US, if that revenue never comes back into the US, why should it get taxed? Well, they still enjoyed certain advantages of being born and educated in the good old US of A that they would not have gotten had they been born in these other countries where they're currently making "kajillions." Companies like GE have benefited quite nicely living in the USA off the fat of the land, with a friendly government to give them lucrative contracts and a business-friendly culture for generations. Under such circumstances, you’d think they’d demonstrate a bit more loyalty or patriotism for the country, yet, the minute things get the slightest bit inconvenient for them, they want to jump ship. It's not like inversions haven't been happening. Nor is it like the "slightest bit inconvenient" or "the minute" things are getting that way. quote: quote: I understand you here, but, what's wrong with them being out of the loop with us working stiffs? There will always be those types. Why isn't it okay for there to be income inequality, anyway? Isn't that an incentive for "working stiffs" to find a better way? Whether it’s “right” or “wrong” depends on how it affects the economy as a whole, the overall quality of life, and the general standing of the nation in geopolitical terms. If the ruling class of America is showing themselves more and more out of touch with realities of geopolitics, as well as out of touch with the perceptions and values of the people they’re ruling over, then this would explain America’s overall decline on the world scene. There is income inequality in a lot of countries right now – countries which would not be considered desirable places to live and certainly not world powers by any standard. That doesn’t make income inequality “not okay,” in and of itself. But when those who are still living high on the hog and enjoying a life of luxury (that 99% of the population couldn’t even dream of) start complaining of their supposed “hardships” because they have to pay taxes, that’s when one might start to wonder. Who is complaining about having to pay taxes? Isn't the complaint about having to pay more taxes? 47% (roughly) don't pay Federal Income Taxes. 53% do. Of Federal Income Tax revenues, the largest burden is still borne by those at the top of the income charts. IIRC, the Top 10% pay like 70% of Federal Income Tax revenues. But, that's not enough? quote: quote: I'm less critical of our educational system. Seriously. What I think is wrong with our educational system is all the non-curricular shit demanded of it. Parents need to play a bigger role in their kids' academic lives, and need to take care of all the non-curricular shit. Let schools go back to just teaching. I honestly don't think there's enough time for our schools to teach critical thinking skills because of all the other stuff they have to deal with. It’s kind of a vicious circle, though. Parents at the lower end of the economic spectrum might have to work 2 or more jobs to make ends meet, taking time away from the job of raising the kids. I understand the difficulties. My former in-laws both worked, but they made it a point to work separate shifts so one was always home with their kids. There are single parent homes where a second parent isn't there to cover when the one has to go to work. I get all that. I've been damn lucky at work since my divorce in that every weekend (save one) I've had my boys, I've not had to work. My current job, I made traded off working every other weekend so that I could have my weekend's with the boys off. I'm quite glad my employer didn't have an issue with that. My employer is still hiring for Union jobs. The pay isn't incredible, but it's north of $13/hr. and there is plenty of forced OT, and even more OT if you request it. quote: quote: Lazy Americans. I used to be one. I think there are a number of influences at work, in addition to laziness. There’s been a certain level of overconfidence exuded in American politics for as long as I can remember. Ideas of American “exceptionalism” and America as the world’s greatest superpower have led to a certain level of complacency fed by the belief that “it doesn’t get any better than this.” It’s as if this country has been reveling in one giant party since the end of World War II, chasing after leisure, pleasure, and recreation as our main passion. I’ll admit that I got caught up in it too when I was younger. It was what I was raised with; I didn’t know any different. During my teen years and early 20s, it was as if most everyone at my peer level was interested in “partying”/bar hopping or going to the concerts or other such recreational/entertainment/fun events – since we never wanted to endure one minute of boredom. The pinnacle of 1980s youth political activism was “you gotta fight for your right to party!” I look back and wonder, what the fuck was the matter with us? You grew up with the Beastie Boys?!?!? [:D] I ignored politics. I didn't trust them in my youth. I hated politics then. Both of those are still true now. I just don't ignore them anymore. quote: quote: Why increasingly tax increasing success? Why does government get to say "you make too much, so we'll take more" anyway? I don’t think they’re saying it like that. OF course not. Politicians, generally, aren't that open and honest. quote: quote: Who gets to decide their utility, though? Do the Democrats, when in power, get to say that any non-Volt's are going to get taxed higher, only to have the GOP make changes when they take over? I think a fair and equitable standard might be agreed upon. Of course, the Democrats and Republicans will have to get their acts together at some point and produce some results – regardless of what’s actually proposed and/or enacted into law. That’s assuming that they can even make a deal at some point (which will likely be some kind of watered-down stopgap proposal which will keep the country above water temporarily – but no long-term solutions). I think we’ll just have to wait for the mid-term elections to see what will happen. You trust government too much. Any "fair and equitable" standard is still available for "modernizing," or "updating." quote: quote: Take a look at the US poor vs. the poor in most any other country. Take a look at how those who are just outside of "the poor" in any Third World country compares to the poor in the US. Why would we compare the poor in the US to the poor in developing countries? It might be more useful to compare the living standards of the poor and working classes of the U.S. compared to that of other industrialized countries. Even within the U.S., living standards might vary from state to state. Maybe to get a feel for what "poor" truly is? quote: quote: No one wants that. Where are in danger of that happening in the US? I don’t think anyone wants it either, and I’m not even saying that there’s any danger right now. But there are certain trends which might be considered troubling. After all, even the author of the article in your OP suggested that capitalists were losing sleep and worried that the people would give up their freedom and choose an omnipotent government. I don’t think there’s any immediate danger of that happening, but I suppose it could happen, if the people feel they have no other choice. Huh?!? It's not happening already? We, as a Nation, are continually allowing the Federal Government to encroach on our liberty and freedom. Some people are even voting in favor of it. How do you not see that?!? quote: quote: The fact that there are people who do work and succeed should give hope to anyone not doing as well. I watch people come into work and do whatever they can get away with to not have to work, and they are getting paid upwards of $14 to start. All the while, they bitch and moan about how shitty their job is. There will never be a minimum wage that will be "enough." That's the problem. As soon as we set a floor, the politicians will start to raise it in an effort to get elected. It depends on the company and the culture which is set by upper management which tends to trickle down to the lower ranks. Some companies might favor a more positive and upbeat atmosphere and company culture, while others tend to have a more negative and hostile management style. Trouble is, they never tell you that at the outset; it’s something that employees have to figure out on their own once they’ve been employed. Still, I get your point about people who bitch and moan about how shitty their job is. They can get irritating. That can also cause resentment in a workplace, since there will be those who do their jobs, work hard, put in a honest day’s work, yet also have to pick up the slack for those who aren’t quite up to par or who just can’t carry their part of the workload. As for me, I don’t usually complain about the job or the pay itself, but I fall more into the category of those who complain “why does this company employ so many fuck-ups?” I end up thinking the same thing at election time, too. My job is to fix what the fuck-ups fuck up, so the company continually hiring fuck-ups is job security for me. I even have to fix the stuff that isn't due to the fuck-ups, so even if they stopped hiring them, I'm still employed.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/4/2014 6:46:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 But DS, if you became an expat you would be required to file US tax returns every year and be taxed on all your worldwide income (I think anything under 85K or so wont be taxed) so why shouldn't US corps get the same treatment as you would? And too, don't forget, those big corps can actually negotiate their tax rate (all privately & hush-hush) with the IRS so the fact is that many of those big corps don't pay the same rate as small & medium US corps pay.. so you can see why some people might feel those big US corps don't really pay their fair share.. Just sayin'.. I think a better question would be: Why do former US citizens have to pay any income taxes on income not earned in the US? Any proof big corp's negotiate rates with the IRS? I'm all for closing all tax loopholes. But, I do not support closing them for "this" sector, but not "that" sector. No picking and choosing. That only invites corruption. Close 'em all.

Zonie63 -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/4/2014 8:10:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's not like inversions haven't been happening. Nor is it like the "slightest bit inconvenient" or "the minute" things are getting that way. But there's no good reason for any of this to be happening, other than greed. It's not like it's Saigon in 1975 where everyone was in a panic to get out on the last helicopter. These capitalists make it sound like they're being forced out of the country, when nothing could be further from the truth. They're not in danger of having their businesses nationalized or anything so extreme as that. So, the only reason they're moving is out of convenience. quote: Who is complaining about having to pay taxes? The wealthy are complaining. quote: Isn't the complaint about having to pay more taxes? It depends on if the percentage is fair or not. If the wealthy make more money for themselves by paying their employees lower wages, then they're leaving society with a bigger burden which necessitates them paying more in taxes. If my taxes have to go to pay Walmart employees' food stamps, welfare, and state-paid medical care, then it's only fair to ask the executives of Walmart to pay extra to pick up the burden that they're leaving society. quote: 47% (roughly) don't pay Federal Income Taxes. 53% do. Of Federal Income Tax revenues, the largest burden is still borne by those at the top of the income charts. IIRC, the Top 10% pay like 70% of Federal Income Tax revenues. But, that's not enough? This is not really an argument for lowering taxes, though. This is an argument which begs the question as to why that 47% isn't paying (if that statistic is even valid). Moreover, if the top 10% hold 70-75% of the nation's total wealth, then paying 70% of Federal income taxes doesn't seem too terribly out of line. quote: You grew up with the Beastie Boys?!?!? [:D] I ignored politics. I didn't trust them in my youth. I hated politics then. Both of those are still true now. I just don't ignore them anymore. I grew up with politics, especially during my childhood when Watergate and Vietnam were the big issues of the day. I think that by the time I reached college, though, a lot of my generation was burned out on politics and didn't want to hear it anymore. Still, I think it addresses your point about "the lazy American." quote: OF course not. Politicians, generally, aren't that open and honest. Neither are capitalists or economists, for that matter. quote: You trust government too much. Any "fair and equitable" standard is still available for "modernizing," or "updating." At least we can still vote for government - or at least part of it. No such luxury when it comes to private business. Government is the lesser of two evils. quote: Maybe to get a feel for what "poor" truly is? So, what does this mean? That our country has to become as poor and powerless as Chad or Somalia before capitalists will ever admit that there might be a problem with the way they're doing things? quote: quote: quote: No one wants that. Where are in danger of that happening in the US? I don’t think anyone wants it either, and I’m not even saying that there’s any danger right now. But there are certain trends which might be considered troubling. After all, even the author of the article in your OP suggested that capitalists were losing sleep and worried that the people would give up their freedom and choose an omnipotent government. I don’t think there’s any immediate danger of that happening, but I suppose it could happen, if the people feel they have no other choice. Huh?!? It's not happening already? We, as a Nation, are continually allowing the Federal Government to encroach on our liberty and freedom. Some people are even voting in favor of it. How do you not see that?!? I'm not sure what you mean now. Just a few quotes up, you're saying "Where are in danger of that happening in the US?" You didn't seem to see it then, but now you're chiding me for not being able to see it now? Either we're in danger or we're not. Either capitalists are losing sleep or they're not. I think "government" at any level can encroach on our liberty and freedom. I doubt that very many wealthy neighborhoods have to contend with cops shining their lights in their windows in the middle of the night, or helicopters flying overhead, or SWAT teams busting down people's doors only to discover that they came to the wrong house. For some neighborhoods, that shit's been going on since, like, forever. The Border Patrol has checkpoints and patrols all over the place around here, and it's been that way even before 9/11 or the Patriot Act. Believe me, I've seen more than just "encroachment" upon people's liberty and freedom - and by more than just the Federal government - and it's been going on a hell of a lot longer than the past few years. I will give the Feds some credit; at least they're better now than they were in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. That may not be saying much, but seriously, this is nothing compared to the level of atrocities and abuses of power which took place back then. You say that we should compare how it is to be poor in the US to "third world" countries, but shouldn't we also make similar comparisons about the level of freedom and liberty in these same "free market" countries which capitalists glorify and idolize so much?

tj444 -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/4/2014 8:24:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 But DS, if you became an expat you would be required to file US tax returns every year and be taxed on all your worldwide income (I think anything under 85K or so wont be taxed) so why shouldn't US corps get the same treatment as you would? And too, don't forget, those big corps can actually negotiate their tax rate (all privately & hush-hush) with the IRS so the fact is that many of those big corps don't pay the same rate as small & medium US corps pay.. so you can see why some people might feel those big US corps don't really pay their fair share.. Just sayin'.. I think a better question would be: Why do former US citizens have to pay any income taxes on income not earned in the US? Any proof big corp's negotiate rates with the IRS? I'm all for closing all tax loopholes. But, I do not support closing them for "this" sector, but not "that" sector. No picking and choosing. That only invites corruption. Close 'em all. Personally, I don't think US expats should pay US income taxes on non-US income but it has always been this way (& somehow I don't think that will ever change). You can move to Puerto Rico tho & become a resident there and not pay any US income taxes or you can get a second citizenship and renounce your US citizenship. Yes, I have posted about those sneaky backroom tax deals corps can negotiate with the IRS before, they are called Advance Pricing Agreements "When Oracle reported its latest quarterly earnings last month, most investors focused on the fact that its dividend doubled. The number that got less notice in its annual report a week later was its low tax bill — nearly half the standard 35% corporate rate. It’s a significant change from a decade ago, when the software giant began thinking about higher tax costs amid plans for growth. It turned to an obscure solution: confidential pacts forged between the Internal Revenue Service and multinational corporations that critics say can unwittingly bless aggressive tax strategies. In 2003 Oracle disclosed for the first time that it had sealed two such long-term pacts with the IRS and was negotiating additional ones. The pacts, known as advance pricing agreements, effectively lock the IRS into agreeing with a company’s tax planning over many years, both future and past. Despite costing companies up to millions of dollars in fees to prepare and taking up to four years to seal, the agreements are nonetheless worth it to an elite group of big corporations that have them, including Google ( GOOG ) , Apple ( AAPL ) , and Amazon ( AMZN ) . The inner workings of the pacts, whose effects are sometimes not seen until years later, are not disclosed due to taxpayer confidentiality laws." http://fortune.com/2013/07/22/the-tax-break-that-corporate-america-wants-kept-secret/

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/4/2014 8:57:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's not like inversions haven't been happening. Nor is it like the "slightest bit inconvenient" or "the minute" things are getting that way. But there's no good reason for any of this to be happening, other than greed. It's not like it's Saigon in 1975 where everyone was in a panic to get out on the last helicopter. These capitalists make it sound like they're being forced out of the country, when nothing could be further from the truth. They're not in danger of having their businesses nationalized or anything so extreme as that. So, the only reason they're moving is out of convenience. Really? So, if they're not in danger of being nationalized (wasn't it Venezuela that was doing that?), they shouldn't attempt to lower their costs as much as possible? quote: quote: Who is complaining about having to pay taxes? The wealthy are complaining. quote: Isn't the complaint about having to pay more taxes? It depends on if the percentage is fair or not. If the wealthy make more money for themselves by paying their employees lower wages, then they're leaving society with a bigger burden which necessitates them paying more in taxes. If my taxes have to go to pay Walmart employees' food stamps, welfare, and state-paid medical care, then it's only fair to ask the executives of Walmart to pay extra to pick up the burden that they're leaving society. The wealthy aren't complaining about having to pay taxes. They're complaining about having to pay more taxes. quote: 47% (roughly) don't pay Federal Income Taxes. 53% do. Of Federal Income Tax revenues, the largest burden is still borne by those at the top of the income charts. IIRC, the Top 10% pay like 70% of Federal Income Tax revenues. But, that's not enough? This is not really an argument for lowering taxes, though. This is an argument which begs the question as to why that 47% isn't paying (if that statistic is even valid). Moreover, if the top 10% hold 70-75% of the nation's total wealth, then paying 70% of Federal income taxes doesn't seem too terribly out of line. We don't tax wealth, though. We tax income. There is a huge difference. And, if we did end up taxing wealth, you'd see a lot more people leaving. quote: quote: OF course not. Politicians, generally, aren't that open and honest. Neither are capitalists or economists, for that matter. A lying Capitalist will tell you they are doing something for a reason other than profit. Those Capitalists are attempting to show that they are "good" and will use it to market themselves. Business isn't about anything but profits. quote: quote: You trust government too much. Any "fair and equitable" standard is still available for "modernizing," or "updating." At least we can still vote for government - or at least part of it. No such luxury when it comes to private business. Government is the lesser of two evils. I disagree on both counts. Regarding businesses, we vote with our dollars. If we don't want their products, we don't buy them. If we don't want them in our lives, it's a whole lot easier to keep them out. Not so with government. At least we have a choice with business. If some out-and-out liberal business opens in Toledo, I can choose to not shop there. If some out-and-out liberal government gets elected in, there's no way for me to avoid that. That is, there's no choice there. quote: quote: Maybe to get a feel for what "poor" truly is? So, what does this mean? That our country has to become as poor and powerless as Chad or Somalia before capitalists will ever admit that there might be a problem with the way they're doing things? Nope, but all the whining about "the poor" certainly may be misplaced. Our "poor" aren't really all that poor in comparison. quote: quote: quote: quote: No one wants that. Where are in danger of that happening in the US? I don’t think anyone wants it either, and I’m not even saying that there’s any danger right now. But there are certain trends which might be considered troubling. After all, even the author of the article in your OP suggested that capitalists were losing sleep and worried that the people would give up their freedom and choose an omnipotent government. I don’t think there’s any immediate danger of that happening, but I suppose it could happen, if the people feel they have no other choice. Huh?!? It's not happening already? We, as a Nation, are continually allowing the Federal Government to encroach on our liberty and freedom. Some people are even voting in favor of it. How do you not see that?!? I'm not sure what you mean now. Just a few quotes up, you're saying "Where are in danger of that happening in the US?" You didn't seem to see it then, but now you're chiding me for not being able to see it now? Either we're in danger or we're not. Either capitalists are losing sleep or they're not. Selective editing allows for loss of context. My "Where are [was supposed to be a "we" in at this spot] in danger..." question was in response to your comment: "I just don’t want to see the country’s economy sink so low that it leads to riots, people burning stuff down, killing people – and possibly an extremist tyrannical regime taking power. This is what we should seek to avoid." You didn't include that part when you responded. quote: I think "government" at any level can encroach on our liberty and freedom. I doubt that very many wealthy neighborhoods have to contend with cops shining their lights in their windows in the middle of the night, or helicopters flying overhead, or SWAT teams busting down people's doors only to discover that they came to the wrong house. For some neighborhoods, that shit's been going on since, like, forever. The Border Patrol has checkpoints and patrols all over the place around here, and it's been that way even before 9/11 or the Patriot Act. Believe me, I've seen more than just "encroachment" upon people's liberty and freedom - and by more than just the Federal government - and it's been going on a hell of a lot longer than the past few years. I will give the Feds some credit; at least they're better now than they were in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. That may not be saying much, but seriously, this is nothing compared to the level of atrocities and abuses of power which took place back then. You say that we should compare how it is to be poor in the US to "third world" countries, but shouldn't we also make similar comparisons about the level of freedom and liberty in these same "free market" countries which capitalists glorify and idolize so much? We should compare them, apples to apples, though.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/4/2014 8:59:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 Yes, I have posted about those sneaky backroom tax deals corps can negotiate with the IRS before, they are called Advance Pricing Agreements "When Oracle reported its latest quarterly earnings last month, most investors focused on the fact that its dividend doubled. The number that got less notice in its annual report a week later was its low tax bill — nearly half the standard 35% corporate rate. It’s a significant change from a decade ago, when the software giant began thinking about higher tax costs amid plans for growth. It turned to an obscure solution: confidential pacts forged between the Internal Revenue Service and multinational corporations that critics say can unwittingly bless aggressive tax strategies. In 2003 Oracle disclosed for the first time that it had sealed two such long-term pacts with the IRS and was negotiating additional ones. The pacts, known as advance pricing agreements, effectively lock the IRS into agreeing with a company’s tax planning over many years, both future and past. Despite costing companies up to millions of dollars in fees to prepare and taking up to four years to seal, the agreements are nonetheless worth it to an elite group of big corporations that have them, including Google ( GOOG ) , Apple ( AAPL ) , and Amazon ( AMZN ) . The inner workings of the pacts, whose effects are sometimes not seen until years later, are not disclosed due to taxpayer confidentiality laws." http://fortune.com/2013/07/22/the-tax-break-that-corporate-america-wants-kept-secret/ Don't remember seeing that post. Thanks for reposting it, though. That's a big shit sandwich for us regular schmoes. That's the sort of thing I am completely in favor of halting stopping, though.

Zonie63 -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/4/2014 11:42:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Really? So, if they're not in danger of being nationalized (wasn't it Venezuela that was doing that?), they shouldn't attempt to lower their costs as much as possible? I didn't say that, but we also should try to lower our costs as well. If there are policies which cost us more than we get back in return, then I would say that they're bad policies which should be repealed. quote: The wealthy aren't complaining about having to pay taxes. They're complaining about having to pay more taxes. In other times and places, even I might sympathize with such a complaint, but in actuality, everyone is feeling the squeeze right now. These are tough times. We're saddling future generations with enormous debts. We're all stuck with higher prices, higher taxes. We're all in the same boat, and perhaps we all have reason to complain in one form or another. But some complaints seem more frivolous than others. quote: We don't tax wealth, though. We tax income. There is a huge difference. And, if we did end up taxing wealth, you'd see a lot more people leaving. Not everyone would be terribly heartbroken over that. quote: quote: quote: OF course not. Politicians, generally, aren't that open and honest. Neither are capitalists or economists, for that matter. A lying Capitalist will tell you they are doing something for a reason other than profit. Those Capitalists are attempting to show that they are "good" and will use it to market themselves. Business isn't about anything but profits. Yes, that's true, and that's exactly why they're the last people anyone should listen to when it comes to formulating this country's economic policies. quote: quote: quote: You trust government too much. Any "fair and equitable" standard is still available for "modernizing," or "updating." At least we can still vote for government - or at least part of it. No such luxury when it comes to private business. Government is the lesser of two evils. I disagree on both counts. Regarding businesses, we vote with our dollars. If we don't want their products, we don't buy them. If we don't want them in our lives, it's a whole lot easier to keep them out. Not so with government. At least we have a choice with business. If some out-and-out liberal business opens in Toledo, I can choose to not shop there. If some out-and-out liberal government gets elected in, there's no way for me to avoid that. That is, there's no choice there. Regarding businesses, it really depends on what the product is and how much we need it or how badly we want it. We need some things to survive, such as food and housing, at minimum. There are many other things that people want and even need to buy, so they have no other choice but to deal with private businesses to obtain the necessities of life. Food, gas, electricity, medicine, etc. It's not that easy to simply "not buy the product" and keep them out of our lives. We might have some limited choices of going to one business or another - although that's a bit difficult when it comes to the local electric company. Still, I think the idea of "voting with our dollars" is not so cut-and-dried as it sounds. As long as our government abides by the Constitution and the laws of the land, and as long as the people can still choose their leaders and elected representatives, then I believe that we still have some measure of choice and control over our government. This is how we keep them out of our lives, by maintaining control over our own government - which is our right and responsibility as citizens anyway. quote: quote: quote: Maybe to get a feel for what "poor" truly is? So, what does this mean? That our country has to become as poor and powerless as Chad or Somalia before capitalists will ever admit that there might be a problem with the way they're doing things? Nope, but all the whining about "the poor" certainly may be misplaced. Our "poor" aren't really all that poor in comparison. There are some pretty poor areas of this country and potential for getting worse. Whether it's "whining" about the poor is beside the point; the larger issue is what it does to the country as a whole. Increasing the number of poor people in this country certainly won't do well for the standard of living in this country. quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: No one wants that. Where are in danger of that happening in the US? I don’t think anyone wants it either, and I’m not even saying that there’s any danger right now. But there are certain trends which might be considered troubling. After all, even the author of the article in your OP suggested that capitalists were losing sleep and worried that the people would give up their freedom and choose an omnipotent government. I don’t think there’s any immediate danger of that happening, but I suppose it could happen, if the people feel they have no other choice. Huh?!? It's not happening already? We, as a Nation, are continually allowing the Federal Government to encroach on our liberty and freedom. Some people are even voting in favor of it. How do you not see that?!? I'm not sure what you mean now. Just a few quotes up, you're saying "Where are in danger of that happening in the US?" You didn't seem to see it then, but now you're chiding me for not being able to see it now? Either we're in danger or we're not. Either capitalists are losing sleep or they're not. Selective editing allows for loss of context. My "Where are [was supposed to be a "we" in at this spot] in danger..." question was in response to your comment: "I just don’t want to see the country’s economy sink so low that it leads to riots, people burning stuff down, killing people – and possibly an extremist tyrannical regime taking power. This is what we should seek to avoid." You didn't include that part when you responded. I wasn't sure exactly which part of the previously quoted section you were addressing, so I thought it was the very last sentence. Still, how do you think an "omnipotent government" (which were the words used in the article) would come to power in the first place? In our history, we have had labor riots, some minor insurrections, and even a Civil War, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. But my point was that people would have to be pretty desperate to choose an "omnipotent government," which implies an extremist tyrannical regime. A lot of shit would have to come about before it even got to that point, so it was already implied in the article. My only real point in this part was to say that I think that we all have a stake in trying to avoid something like that happening in this country. Even the business community should see the merit in that. I think we have the choice now to exercise the prerogatives of responsible government to take whatever initiatives are necessary to get us back on our feet - even if it means the capitalists have to grin and bear it for a while. It would be nice if they would actually pitch in and help the country for a change, cooperating with the people for a better future for all. But as you pointed out above, they just want to make money for themselves. How can anyone trust them when they're only out for themselves and don't care about the country as a whole? You say that I trust the government too much, but the government is nothing more than a collection of different voices and factions in society trying to sort things out and achieve some sort of balance and fairness through the processes available in a democratic-republic. But if those processes are not allowed to work or are thrown into haywire without adequate resolution, then it's only a matter of time before the government's ability to do its job will be diminished - which is what we're already seeing anyway. You've said that you want limited government that stays out of your life, but the way things are going, you may very well get your wish someday. However, as they say, be careful what you wish for. quote: We should compare them, apples to apples, though. Yes, but when capitalists talk about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty, what exactly do they mean? If it's just complaining about higher taxes, that's hardly anything compared to many other things the government has done - which the capitalists haven't exactly been at the forefront in challenging or calling to the public's attention. When capitalists say they support freedom and liberty yet support business-friendly military dictatorships in other countries (where the poor have it much worse, as you noted earlier), then I have to question whether their protests about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty are truly genuine and sincere. As you also noted, capitalists are only interested in making money. They don't need freedom and liberty for that.

Zonie63 -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/4/2014 11:55:47 PM)
By the way, DS, are you having to drink bottled water these days? I've been reading about the water troubles in Toledo.

tj444 -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/5/2014 7:24:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 Yes, I have posted about those sneaky backroom tax deals corps can negotiate with the IRS before, they are called Advance Pricing Agreements "When Oracle reported its latest quarterly earnings last month, most investors focused on the fact that its dividend doubled. The number that got less notice in its annual report a week later was its low tax bill — nearly half the standard 35% corporate rate. It’s a significant change from a decade ago, when the software giant began thinking about higher tax costs amid plans for growth. It turned to an obscure solution: confidential pacts forged between the Internal Revenue Service and multinational corporations that critics say can unwittingly bless aggressive tax strategies. In 2003 Oracle disclosed for the first time that it had sealed two such long-term pacts with the IRS and was negotiating additional ones. The pacts, known as advance pricing agreements, effectively lock the IRS into agreeing with a company’s tax planning over many years, both future and past. Despite costing companies up to millions of dollars in fees to prepare and taking up to four years to seal, the agreements are nonetheless worth it to an elite group of big corporations that have them, including Google ( GOOG ) , Apple ( AAPL ) , and Amazon ( AMZN ) . The inner workings of the pacts, whose effects are sometimes not seen until years later, are not disclosed due to taxpayer confidentiality laws." http://fortune.com/2013/07/22/the-tax-break-that-corporate-america-wants-kept-secret/ Don't remember seeing that post. Thanks for reposting it, though. That's a big shit sandwich for us regular schmoes. That's the sort of thing I am completely in favor of halting stopping, though. I posted about Advance Pricing Agreements before but a different article or maybe it was a youtube vid, not sure tho.. but this article shows much better just how good a tax deal these big US corps are getting!.. who doesn't want half off on their tax bill??? I only heard about this scheme recently tho and yeah, I was surprised by it cuz I thought the corps that had low tax on their balance sheets had legit deductions like previous year losses or extra costs for machinery, new workers, or charity deductions, etc... It makes me wonder if Buffett has this kinda deal for his corps.. hmmmmm...

Lucylastic -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/5/2014 7:55:26 AM)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/05/rating-agency-sp-finds-wealth-gap-is-contributing-to-slower-us-recovery/ Rating agency S&P finds wealth gap is contributing to a slower US recovery Published August 05, 2014Associated PressFacebook0 Twitter2 WASHINGTON – Economists have long argued that a rising wealth gap has complicated the U.S. rebound from the Great Recession. Now, an analysis by the rating agency Standard & Poor's lends its weight to the argument: The widening gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else has made the economy more prone to boom-bust cycles and slowed the 5-year-old recovery from the recession. Economic disparities appear to be reaching extremes that "need to be watched because they're damaging to growth," said Beth Ann Bovino, chief U.S. economist at S&P. The rising concentration of income among the top 1 percent of earners has contributed to S&P's cutting its growth estimates for the economy. In part because of the disparity, it estimates that the economy will grow at a 2.5 percent annual pace in the next decade, down from a forecast five years ago of a 2.8 percent rate. The S&P report advises against using the tax code to try to narrow the gap. Instead, it suggests that greater access to education would help ease wealth disparities. Part of the problem is that educational achievement has stalled in recent decades. More schooling usually translates into higher wages. S&P estimates that the U.S. economy would grow annually by an additional half a percentage point — or $105 billion — over the next five years, if the average the American worker had completed just one more year of school. By contrast, S&P concludes, heavy taxes that would be meant to reduce inequality could remove incentives for people to work and cause businesses to hire fewer employees because of the costs involved. The report builds on data from the Congressional Budget Office, the International Monetary Fund and academic economists to explain how income disparities can hurt growth. Many consumers tend to become more dependent on debt to continue spending, thereby worsening the boom-bust cycle. Or they curb their spending, and growth improves only modestly, as it has during the current recovery. Tax data tracked as part of the World Top Incomes Database project reveal just how much the economic chasm has expanded. An American in the top 1 percent of earners had an average income of $1.3 million in 2012, the most recent year for which data are available. Average income jumps to $30.8 million for the top 0.01 percent. Adjusted for inflation, the top 0.01 percent's average earnings have jumped by a factor of seven since 1913. For the bottom 90 percent of Americans, average incomes after inflation have grown by a factor of just three since 1917 and have declined for the past 13 years. Yet not all economists agree on how much, or even whether, the wealth gap slows growth. Harvard University economist Greg Mankiw wrote in a 2013 paper that "the evidence is that most of the very wealthy get that way by making substantial economic contributions, not by gaming the system." But S&P challenges the notion that a rising tide automatically will lift all boats: "A lifeboat carrying a few, surrounded by many treading water, risks capsizing," it argues. An A& P story going around todays aggregate sites and other outside US sites too http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/income-inequality-slowing-u-s-recovery-ratings-agency-says-1.2727636

MrRodgers -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/5/2014 10:38:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/05/rating-agency-sp-finds-wealth-gap-is-contributing-to-slower-us-recovery/ Rating agency S&P finds wealth gap is contributing to a slower US recovery Published August 05, 2014Associated PressFacebook0 Twitter2 WASHINGTON – Economists have long argued that a rising wealth gap has complicated the U.S. rebound from the Great Recession. Harvard University economist Greg Mankiw wrote in a 2013 paper that "the evidence is that most of the very wealthy get that way by making substantial economic contributions, not by gaming the system." But S&P challenges the notion that a rising tide automatically will lift all boats: "A lifeboat carrying a few, surrounded by many treading water, risks capsizing," it argues. An A& P story going around todays aggregate sites and other outside US sites too http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/income-inequality-slowing-u-s-recovery-ratings-agency-says-1.2727636 Mr. Mankiw is patently incorrect. The wealthy enjoying most of their income from capital gains and with 80-90% capital gains being enjoyed by the top .01% of income earners means by definition they are 'gaming' the system. When taxes on stock dividends was reduced to 15%, they further...'gamed the system.' The disparity between the taxes on capital gains together with stock dividends and the federal income tax on wages, salaries and tips is patently and egregiously...immoral. But then far too many aspects of our current 'capitalist' system...is immoral. I much prefer the antithesis of capitalism...a free market. The capitalist has successfully 'gamed' the marketplace to his market and the last thing [he] wants is...a free market.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/5/2014 11:02:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Really? So, if they're not in danger of being nationalized (wasn't it Venezuela that was doing that?), they shouldn't attempt to lower their costs as much as possible? I didn't say that, but we also should try to lower our costs as well. If there are policies which cost us more than we get back in return, then I would say that they're bad policies which should be repealed. quote: The wealthy aren't complaining about having to pay taxes. They're complaining about having to pay more taxes. In other times and places, even I might sympathize with such a complaint, but in actuality, everyone is feeling the squeeze right now. These are tough times. We're saddling future generations with enormous debts. We're all stuck with higher prices, higher taxes. We're all in the same boat, and perhaps we all have reason to complain in one form or another. But some complaints seem more frivolous than others. We may all be in the boat, but we're not all paddling. And, the only reason we're going to be stuck with higher taxes (and I'm nowhere near the top 10%, yet I know my taxes are going to end up rising), is because we accept the spending. If you cut don't accept current spending levels, you won't see the need to raise taxes as much as they want. With liberals, the only time they care about the spending, is to point out the revenues aren't as high as the spending. Conservatives see the spending being too much over revenues. quote: quote: We don't tax wealth, though. We tax income. There is a huge difference. And, if we did end up taxing wealth, you'd see a lot more people leaving. Not everyone would be terribly heartbroken over that. DomKen would be. Where would demand come from? Where would the tax revenues come from? The whole entitlement nation would collapse. quote: quote: quote: quote: OF course not. Politicians, generally, aren't that open and honest. Neither are capitalists or economists, for that matter. A lying Capitalist will tell you they are doing something for a reason other than profit. Those Capitalists are attempting to show that they are "good" and will use it to market themselves. Business isn't about anything but profits. Yes, that's true, and that's exactly why they're the last people anyone should listen to when it comes to formulating this country's economic policies. I disagree. They shouldn't be the only ones you listen to, either. quote: quote: quote: quote: You trust government too much. Any "fair and equitable" standard is still available for "modernizing," or "updating." At least we can still vote for government - or at least part of it. No such luxury when it comes to private business. Government is the lesser of two evils. I disagree on both counts. Regarding businesses, we vote with our dollars. If we don't want their products, we don't buy them. If we don't want them in our lives, it's a whole lot easier to keep them out. Not so with government. At least we have a choice with business. If some out-and-out liberal business opens in Toledo, I can choose to not shop there. If some out-and-out liberal government gets elected in, there's no way for me to avoid that. That is, there's no choice there. Regarding businesses, it really depends on what the product is and how much we need it or how badly we want it. We need some things to survive, such as food and housing, at minimum. There are many other things that people want and even need to buy, so they have no other choice but to deal with private businesses to obtain the necessities of life. Food, gas, electricity, medicine, etc. It's not that easy to simply "not buy the product" and keep them out of our lives. We might have some limited choices of going to one business or another - although that's a bit difficult when it comes to the local electric company. Still, I think the idea of "voting with our dollars" is not so cut-and-dried as it sounds. Sure it is. Those things that are "needed" have greater value than those things not "needed," unless they aren't scarce. If no one wanted it or needed it, no one would buy it, and it would leave the market. If government decides we should have something we don't want, or don't want as badly as government wants us to have it, where is the choice? We'll end up having it, and paying for it, through threat of government force. quote: As long as our government abides by the Constitution and the laws of the land, and as long as the people can still choose their leaders and elected representatives, then I believe that we still have some measure of choice and control over our government. This is how we keep them out of our lives, by maintaining control over our own government - which is our right and responsibility as citizens anyway. Here's where the rubber meets the road, though. If an Administration can legally twist the Constitution and/or the laws of the land, there is no longer any metric to judge if they are "abiding" by them. Obama and Co. think the War Powers Act is unConstitutional, but it is the law of the land. Bush had a legal brief showing that some actions weren't torture. Both parties have passed and re-passed the Patriot Act. quote: quote: quote: quote: Maybe to get a feel for what "poor" truly is? So, what does this mean? That our country has to become as poor and powerless as Chad or Somalia before capitalists will ever admit that there might be a problem with the way they're doing things? Nope, but all the whining about "the poor" certainly may be misplaced. Our "poor" aren't really all that poor in comparison. There are some pretty poor areas of this country and potential for getting worse. Whether it's "whining" about the poor is beside the point; the larger issue is what it does to the country as a whole. Increasing the number of poor people in this country certainly won't do well for the standard of living in this country. I completely agree. So, how do we define who is "poor?" quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: No one wants that. Where are in danger of that happening in the US? I don’t think anyone wants it either, and I’m not even saying that there’s any danger right now. But there are certain trends which might be considered troubling. After all, even the author of the article in your OP suggested that capitalists were losing sleep and worried that the people would give up their freedom and choose an omnipotent government. I don’t think there’s any immediate danger of that happening, but I suppose it could happen, if the people feel they have no other choice. Huh?!? It's not happening already? We, as a Nation, are continually allowing the Federal Government to encroach on our liberty and freedom. Some people are even voting in favor of it. How do you not see that?!? I'm not sure what you mean now. Just a few quotes up, you're saying "Where are in danger of that happening in the US?" You didn't seem to see it then, but now you're chiding me for not being able to see it now? Either we're in danger or we're not. Either capitalists are losing sleep or they're not. Selective editing allows for loss of context. My "Where are [was supposed to be a "we" in at this spot] in danger..." question was in response to your comment: "I just don’t want to see the country’s economy sink so low that it leads to riots, people burning stuff down, killing people – and possibly an extremist tyrannical regime taking power. This is what we should seek to avoid." You didn't include that part when you responded. I wasn't sure exactly which part of the previously quoted section you were addressing, so I thought it was the very last sentence. Still, how do you think an "omnipotent government" (which were the words used in the article) would come to power in the first place? In our history, we have had labor riots, some minor insurrections, and even a Civil War, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. But my point was that people would have to be pretty desperate to choose an "omnipotent government," which implies an extremist tyrannical regime. A lot of shit would have to come about before it even got to that point, so it was already implied in the article. It's going to come slowly; bit by bit. You won't see an extremist, tyrannical regime overnight. But, until we stop government encroachment on our daily lives, we'll wake up one day (or our later generations) with an extremist tyrannical regime in power. quote: My only real point in this part was to say that I think that we all have a stake in trying to avoid something like that happening in this country. Even the business community should see the merit in that. I think we have the choice now to exercise the prerogatives of responsible government to take whatever initiatives are necessary to get us back on our feet - even if it means the capitalists have to grin and bear it for a while. It would be nice if they would actually pitch in and help the country for a change, cooperating with the people for a better future for all. But as you pointed out above, they just want to make money for themselves. How can anyone trust them when they're only out for themselves and don't care about the country as a whole? You say that I trust the government too much, but the government is nothing more than a collection of different voices and factions in society trying to sort things out and achieve some sort of balance and fairness through the processes available in a democratic-republic. But if those processes are not allowed to work or are thrown into haywire without adequate resolution, then it's only a matter of time before the government's ability to do its job will be diminished - which is what we're already seeing anyway. You've said that you want limited government that stays out of your life, but the way things are going, you may very well get your wish someday. However, as they say, be careful what you wish for. Yes, we all do have a stake in our government and our country. How do you see that we might have a limited government because of "the way things are going?" quote: quote: We should compare them, apples to apples, though. Yes, but when capitalists talk about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty, what exactly do they mean? If it's just complaining about higher taxes, that's hardly anything compared to many other things the government has done - which the capitalists haven't exactly been at the forefront in challenging or calling to the public's attention. When capitalists say they support freedom and liberty yet support business-friendly military dictatorships in other countries (where the poor have it much worse, as you noted earlier), then I have to question whether their protests about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty are truly genuine and sincere. As you also noted, capitalists are only interested in making money. They don't need freedom and liberty for that. Yes, they do need freedom and liberty for that.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/5/2014 11:10:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 By the way, DS, are you having to drink bottled water these days? I've been reading about the water troubles in Toledo. The ban has been lifted. Thanks for the concern. I'm not really sure there was much of an issue, to be honest. The ban was announced Saturday around 1am. I didn't find out about it until about 4am (I was at work). After work, I went to Meijers (smaller "WalMart," if you don't know). The bottled water was cleared off the shelves and they were pulling pallets of bottled water cases out of the back stock areas. The lines were long. I grabbed 3 gallons of PowerAde and some frozen food, and went on my merry way. I had some bottled water, but limited that for brushing teeth and other things water is the only thing that can be used. Even Saturday, it was announced that "healthy adults" were at no risk taking a shower in the tap water, unless they had sensitive skin. All in all, I went through 1½ bottles of water, or 750 mL of bottled water. I still have PowerAde left from the weekend. lol After the ban was lifted, we were asked to limit our water use to only essential uses (so things like watering your lawn weren't encouraged) to limit the burden on the wastewater treatment facilities. Now, if we had tainted water in the lines, wouldn't you want people to use that water up as fast as possible to clear the lines? There were no instructions to run your water to flush your lines or anything. Things just don't quite add up, imo.

Zonie63 -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/6/2014 9:09:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri We may all be in the boat, but we're not all paddling. And, the only reason we're going to be stuck with higher taxes (and I'm nowhere near the top 10%, yet I know my taxes are going to end up rising), is because we accept the spending. If you cut don't accept current spending levels, you won't see the need to raise taxes as much as they want. With liberals, the only time they care about the spending, is to point out the revenues aren't as high as the spending. Conservatives see the spending being too much over revenues. Yes, that's what conservatives and liberals often say, but I never really believed it. They both overspend beyond their means, including conservatives and their defense budgets. There's clearly insufficient oversight and inadequate penalties for corruption and abuse. My biggest frustration is with those conservatives (and some liberals) who take an extremely "protective" attitude of governmental sacred cows. That's how a lot of corruption and abuse is allowed to occur, since so many people believe that our government is beyond reproach. That's why I tend to dismiss most conservative commentary about "Big Gov," since in their eyes, the police can do no wrong, the military can do no wrong, the intelligence agencies can do no wrong. They insist on giving them a blank check and letting them do whatever they want. That shows a lot of blind, unconditional love of our government - which seems incongruous from those who say they want to "get government off our backs." The only real complaint conservatives have about our government is that the Department of Health and Human Services exists (and maybe the IRS and EPA). Other than that, conservatives simply adore big government. quote: quote: quote: We don't tax wealth, though. We tax income. There is a huge difference. And, if we did end up taxing wealth, you'd see a lot more people leaving. Not everyone would be terribly heartbroken over that. DomKen would be. Where would demand come from? Where would the tax revenues come from? The whole entitlement nation would collapse. But the nation itself would still be standing. Your questions here reveal something interesting, as they seem to insinuate that if wealthy people left the country, the rest of us helpless "peasants" would starve. As if the wealthy aristocrats of this world created the land under our feet and the air we breathe. It sounds somewhat similar to the notion that monarchs are chosen by "Divine Providence." I don't buy it. quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: OF course not. Politicians, generally, aren't that open and honest. Neither are capitalists or economists, for that matter. A lying Capitalist will tell you they are doing something for a reason other than profit. Those Capitalists are attempting to show that they are "good" and will use it to market themselves. Business isn't about anything but profits. Yes, that's true, and that's exactly why they're the last people anyone should listen to when it comes to formulating this country's economic policies. I disagree. They shouldn't be the only ones you listen to, either. But if a capitalist is only doing something for profit, then anything they propose regarding our economic policies must be taken in that context. In that sense, they're less trustworthy than politicians, since politicians earn a rather meager salary by comparison and do not enjoy any huge benefit from the power of "Big Gov." If you look at the question of "who benefits," it's obvious that capitalists benefit far more from the present system than anything one could discern about politicians. Even the Clintons may be very well off, but they're hardly billionaires. That doesn't mean that the politicians are honest - far from it. But in most cases, their dishonesty is done in service to the capitalists, and whatever personal gain they might receive is relatively petty by comparison. quote: quote: Regarding businesses, it really depends on what the product is and how much we need it or how badly we want it. We need some things to survive, such as food and housing, at minimum. There are many other things that people want and even need to buy, so they have no other choice but to deal with private businesses to obtain the necessities of life. Food, gas, electricity, medicine, etc. It's not that easy to simply "not buy the product" and keep them out of our lives. We might have some limited choices of going to one business or another - although that's a bit difficult when it comes to the local electric company. Still, I think the idea of "voting with our dollars" is not so cut-and-dried as it sounds. Sure it is. Those things that are "needed" have greater value than those things not "needed," unless they aren't scarce. If no one wanted it or needed it, no one would buy it, and it would leave the market. What about things that are needed? quote: If government decides we should have something we don't want, or don't want as badly as government wants us to have it, where is the choice? We'll end up having it, and paying for it, through threat of government force. The voters have the power to exert force upon the government. quote: quote: As long as our government abides by the Constitution and the laws of the land, and as long as the people can still choose their leaders and elected representatives, then I believe that we still have some measure of choice and control over our government. This is how we keep them out of our lives, by maintaining control over our own government - which is our right and responsibility as citizens anyway. Here's where the rubber meets the road, though. If an Administration can legally twist the Constitution and/or the laws of the land, there is no longer any metric to judge if they are "abiding" by them. Obama and Co. think the War Powers Act is unConstitutional, but it is the law of the land. Bush had a legal brief showing that some actions weren't torture. Both parties have passed and re-passed the Patriot Act. I would still stand by my point that the citizenry still has power over the government. Squabbling among political parties and factions is an unfortunate reality in the system (and probably any political system that has ever existed). For right or wrong, the Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter to determine what is constitutional or not, but sometimes their decisions might still leave many people dissatisfied. I know that there's a lot of things about our government which are wrong and definitely need to be fixed, particularly when it comes to things like war and torture, as well as the police powers of government. But one hardly ever sees very many conservatives or capitalists coming out very strongly against these things. All they ever do is complain about taxes. quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Maybe to get a feel for what "poor" truly is? So, what does this mean? That our country has to become as poor and powerless as Chad or Somalia before capitalists will ever admit that there might be a problem with the way they're doing things? Nope, but all the whining about "the poor" certainly may be misplaced. Our "poor" aren't really all that poor in comparison. There are some pretty poor areas of this country and potential for getting worse. Whether it's "whining" about the poor is beside the point; the larger issue is what it does to the country as a whole. Increasing the number of poor people in this country certainly won't do well for the standard of living in this country. I completely agree. So, how do we define who is "poor?" I think it would probably depend more on just income or net worth, but also on general quality of life, access to education, access to healthcare, availability/affordability of food and other necessities of life, percentage of housing with electricity/fixed plumbing, literacy rate, life expectancy, crime, access to emergency services, roads, infrastructure. There are a lot of factors to consider, not so much in defining who is "poor" but more along the lines of "how well do the people as a whole actually live." There are also intangible factors which might be considered. I've heard some people say that it's actually worse to be poor in America, since one sees and is surrounded by so much wealth. In the case of the developing world where poverty is more widespread, they're not inclined to see very many people going around flaunting their wealth. It's one thing to be poor and not realize it, but when one is reminded of it on a daily basis, it might tend to rub some people the wrong way. And as far as those other countries go, there are very definite and tangible reasons why many of those people are poor, things that can be explained, but when it comes to a country like the United States, one might wonder how we could have any poor people at all. quote: quote: I wasn't sure exactly which part of the previously quoted section you were addressing, so I thought it was the very last sentence. Still, how do you think an "omnipotent government" (which were the words used in the article) would come to power in the first place? In our history, we have had labor riots, some minor insurrections, and even a Civil War, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. But my point was that people would have to be pretty desperate to choose an "omnipotent government," which implies an extremist tyrannical regime. A lot of shit would have to come about before it even got to that point, so it was already implied in the article. It's going to come slowly; bit by bit. You won't see an extremist, tyrannical regime overnight. But, until we stop government encroachment on our daily lives, we'll wake up one day (or our later generations) with an extremist tyrannical regime in power. I see what you're saying, although if history is anything to go by, such changes are usually highly noticeable. Even Rip Van Winkle would have noticed something was afoot. I agree that we should stop government encroachment on our daily lives, depending on what the government does, although I think there's a difference between bureaucratic intransigence/incompetence and actual tyranny. quote: quote: My only real point in this part was to say that I think that we all have a stake in trying to avoid something like that happening in this country. Even the business community should see the merit in that. I think we have the choice now to exercise the prerogatives of responsible government to take whatever initiatives are necessary to get us back on our feet - even if it means the capitalists have to grin and bear it for a while. It would be nice if they would actually pitch in and help the country for a change, cooperating with the people for a better future for all. But as you pointed out above, they just want to make money for themselves. How can anyone trust them when they're only out for themselves and don't care about the country as a whole? You say that I trust the government too much, but the government is nothing more than a collection of different voices and factions in society trying to sort things out and achieve some sort of balance and fairness through the processes available in a democratic-republic. But if those processes are not allowed to work or are thrown into haywire without adequate resolution, then it's only a matter of time before the government's ability to do its job will be diminished - which is what we're already seeing anyway. You've said that you want limited government that stays out of your life, but the way things are going, you may very well get your wish someday. However, as they say, be careful what you wish for. Yes, we all do have a stake in our government and our country. How do you see that we might have a limited government because of "the way things are going?" Well, with budget cuts and other strains on government, it seems that there may not be enough money to pay for everything that the government currently pays for. If we lower taxes and cut spending, then there will be even less revenue for the government, and some programs will eventually have to be cut or curtailed significantly. That's less money to fix roads, for one thing. (Locally, our pothole problem is turning out to be an embarrassment to local government, although they blame it on the State government, and the State government blames everything on the Feds.) More people will fall through the safety net and on the actual "floor," which will likely mean more homeless people out on the streets, more crime, and an increase in other social ills. What conservatives and capitalists argue for when they want limited government will result in problems like these being magnified and increased. quote: quote: quote: We should compare them, apples to apples, though. Yes, but when capitalists talk about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty, what exactly do they mean? If it's just complaining about higher taxes, that's hardly anything compared to many other things the government has done - which the capitalists haven't exactly been at the forefront in challenging or calling to the public's attention. When capitalists say they support freedom and liberty yet support business-friendly military dictatorships in other countries (where the poor have it much worse, as you noted earlier), then I have to question whether their protests about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty are truly genuine and sincere. As you also noted, capitalists are only interested in making money. They don't need freedom and liberty for that. Yes, they do need freedom and liberty for that. You think so? The capitalists and business community of Saudi Arabia might disagree with you.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/6/2014 9:34:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri We may all be in the boat, but we're not all paddling. And, the only reason we're going to be stuck with higher taxes (and I'm nowhere near the top 10%, yet I know my taxes are going to end up rising), is because we accept the spending. If you cut don't accept current spending levels, you won't see the need to raise taxes as much as they want. With liberals, the only time they care about the spending, is to point out the revenues aren't as high as the spending. Conservatives see the spending being too much over revenues. Yes, that's what conservatives and liberals often say, but I never really believed it. They both overspend beyond their means, including conservatives and their defense budgets. There's clearly insufficient oversight and inadequate penalties for corruption and abuse. My biggest frustration is with those conservatives (and some liberals) who take an extremely "protective" attitude of governmental sacred cows. That's how a lot of corruption and abuse is allowed to occur, since so many people believe that our government is beyond reproach. That's why I tend to dismiss most conservative commentary about "Big Gov," since in their eyes, the police can do no wrong, the military can do no wrong, the intelligence agencies can do no wrong. They insist on giving them a blank check and letting them do whatever they want. That shows a lot of blind, unconditional love of our government - which seems incongruous from those who say they want to "get government off our backs." The only real complaint conservatives have about our government is that the Department of Health and Human Services exists (and maybe the IRS and EPA). Other than that, conservatives simply adore big government. I don't disagree at all. quote: quote: quote: quote: We don't tax wealth, though. We tax income. There is a huge difference. And, if we did end up taxing wealth, you'd see a lot more people leaving. Not everyone would be terribly heartbroken over that. DomKen would be. Where would demand come from? Where would the tax revenues come from? The whole entitlement nation would collapse. But the nation itself would still be standing. Your questions here reveal something interesting, as they seem to insinuate that if wealthy people left the country, the rest of us helpless "peasants" would starve. As if the wealthy aristocrats of this world created the land under our feet and the air we breathe. It sounds somewhat similar to the notion that monarchs are chosen by "Divine Providence." I don't buy it. There are too many people that rely on government. That stuff costs money. What happens when those that are paying the majority of taxes leave? Where is funding going to come from? Where is the money for the Entitlement Nation going to come from? It's not that people can't do for themselves. Too many have chosen not to. quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: OF course not. Politicians, generally, aren't that open and honest. Neither are capitalists or economists, for that matter. A lying Capitalist will tell you they are doing something for a reason other than profit. Those Capitalists are attempting to show that they are "good" and will use it to market themselves. Business isn't about anything but profits. Yes, that's true, and that's exactly why they're the last people anyone should listen to when it comes to formulating this country's economic policies. I disagree. They shouldn't be the only ones you listen to, either. But if a capitalist is only doing something for profit, then anything they propose regarding our economic policies must be taken in that context. In that sense, they're less trustworthy than politicians, since politicians earn a rather meager salary by comparison and do not enjoy any huge benefit from the power of "Big Gov." If you look at the question of "who benefits," it's obvious that capitalists benefit far more from the present system than anything one could discern about politicians. Even the Clintons may be very well off, but they're hardly billionaires. That doesn't mean that the politicians are honest - far from it. But in most cases, their dishonesty is done in service to the capitalists, and whatever personal gain they might receive is relatively petty by comparison. Politicians are going to tell you what's good for their re-election. quote: quote: quote: Regarding businesses, it really depends on what the product is and how much we need it or how badly we want it. We need some things to survive, such as food and housing, at minimum. There are many other things that people want and even need to buy, so they have no other choice but to deal with private businesses to obtain the necessities of life. Food, gas, electricity, medicine, etc. It's not that easy to simply "not buy the product" and keep them out of our lives. We might have some limited choices of going to one business or another - although that's a bit difficult when it comes to the local electric company. Still, I think the idea of "voting with our dollars" is not so cut-and-dried as it sounds. Sure it is. Those things that are "needed" have greater value than those things not "needed," unless they aren't scarce. If no one wanted it or needed it, no one would buy it, and it would leave the market. What about things that are needed? If they are needed, you'll have to buy them. If they are needed, and you have to buy them, there will be someone willing to sell them to you. If there is too much profit, others will bring their investment dollars to compete for those profits. You'll likely pay a higher price for the value than if it was just a want, but it will still end up closing in on low profits for the sellers. quote: quote: If government decides we should have something we don't want, or don't want as badly as government wants us to have it, where is the choice? We'll end up having it, and paying for it, through threat of government force. The voters have the power to exert force upon the government. Unless the voters aren't educated enough about what's going on, and vote shit for themselves. quote: quote: quote: As long as our government abides by the Constitution and the laws of the land, and as long as the people can still choose their leaders and elected representatives, then I believe that we still have some measure of choice and control over our government. This is how we keep them out of our lives, by maintaining control over our own government - which is our right and responsibility as citizens anyway. Here's where the rubber meets the road, though. If an Administration can legally twist the Constitution and/or the laws of the land, there is no longer any metric to judge if they are "abiding" by them. Obama and Co. think the War Powers Act is unConstitutional, but it is the law of the land. Bush had a legal brief showing that some actions weren't torture. Both parties have passed and re-passed the Patriot Act. I would still stand by my point that the citizenry still has power over the government. Squabbling among political parties and factions is an unfortunate reality in the system (and probably any political system that has ever existed). For right or wrong, the Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter to determine what is constitutional or not, but sometimes their decisions might still leave many people dissatisfied. I know that there's a lot of things about our government which are wrong and definitely need to be fixed, particularly when it comes to things like war and torture, as well as the police powers of government. But one hardly ever sees very many conservatives or capitalists coming out very strongly against these things. All they ever do is complain about taxes. You realize the Market works best when those coming to the Market are there for their own interests, right? quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Maybe to get a feel for what "poor" truly is? So, what does this mean? That our country has to become as poor and powerless as Chad or Somalia before capitalists will ever admit that there might be a problem with the way they're doing things? Nope, but all the whining about "the poor" certainly may be misplaced. Our "poor" aren't really all that poor in comparison. There are some pretty poor areas of this country and potential for getting worse. Whether it's "whining" about the poor is beside the point; the larger issue is what it does to the country as a whole. Increasing the number of poor people in this country certainly won't do well for the standard of living in this country. I completely agree. So, how do we define who is "poor?" I think it would probably depend more on just income or net worth, but also on general quality of life, access to education, access to healthcare, availability/affordability of food and other necessities of life, percentage of housing with electricity/fixed plumbing, literacy rate, life expectancy, crime, access to emergency services, roads, infrastructure. There are a lot of factors to consider, not so much in defining who is "poor" but more along the lines of "how well do the people as a whole actually live." So, it's not really about the poor then? quote: There are also intangible factors which might be considered. I've heard some people say that it's actually worse to be poor in America, since one sees and is surrounded by so much wealth. In the case of the developing world where poverty is more widespread, they're not inclined to see very many people going around flaunting their wealth. It's one thing to be poor and not realize it, but when one is reminded of it on a daily basis, it might tend to rub some people the wrong way. And as far as those other countries go, there are very definite and tangible reasons why many of those people are poor, things that can be explained, but when it comes to a country like the United States, one might wonder how we could have any poor people at all. For the vast majority of the poor in America, it's their own choices. quote: quote: quote: I wasn't sure exactly which part of the previously quoted section you were addressing, so I thought it was the very last sentence. Still, how do you think an "omnipotent government" (which were the words used in the article) would come to power in the first place? In our history, we have had labor riots, some minor insurrections, and even a Civil War, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. But my point was that people would have to be pretty desperate to choose an "omnipotent government," which implies an extremist tyrannical regime. A lot of shit would have to come about before it even got to that point, so it was already implied in the article. It's going to come slowly; bit by bit. You won't see an extremist, tyrannical regime overnight. But, until we stop government encroachment on our daily lives, we'll wake up one day (or our later generations) with an extremist tyrannical regime in power. I see what you're saying, although if history is anything to go by, such changes are usually highly noticeable. Even Rip Van Winkle would have noticed something was afoot. I agree that we should stop government encroachment on our daily lives, depending on what the government does, although I think there's a difference between bureaucratic intransigence/incompetence and actual tyranny. There certainly is a difference. But, tyranny can sprout from bureaucratic incompetence that is being led by people who are not only more competent, but also focused on setting the snare. Alex Jones makes a killing on twisting every little thing into a conspiracy. Why? Because there are grains of truth everywhere, and people don't trust government. If you're organized enough, you can put a lot of seemingly unconnected stuff together to set the trap, and few will notice. It can happen. I don't think it is, but it's not out of the realm of the possible. quote: quote: quote: My only real point in this part was to say that I think that we all have a stake in trying to avoid something like that happening in this country. Even the business community should see the merit in that. I think we have the choice now to exercise the prerogatives of responsible government to take whatever initiatives are necessary to get us back on our feet - even if it means the capitalists have to grin and bear it for a while. It would be nice if they would actually pitch in and help the country for a change, cooperating with the people for a better future for all. But as you pointed out above, they just want to make money for themselves. How can anyone trust them when they're only out for themselves and don't care about the country as a whole? You say that I trust the government too much, but the government is nothing more than a collection of different voices and factions in society trying to sort things out and achieve some sort of balance and fairness through the processes available in a democratic-republic. But if those processes are not allowed to work or are thrown into haywire without adequate resolution, then it's only a matter of time before the government's ability to do its job will be diminished - which is what we're already seeing anyway. You've said that you want limited government that stays out of your life, but the way things are going, you may very well get your wish someday. However, as they say, be careful what you wish for. Yes, we all do have a stake in our government and our country. How do you see that we might have a limited government because of "the way things are going?" Well, with budget cuts and other strains on government, it seems that there may not be enough money to pay for everything that the government currently pays for. If we lower taxes and cut spending, then there will be even less revenue for the government, and some programs will eventually have to be cut or curtailed significantly. That's less money to fix roads, for one thing. (Locally, our pothole problem is turning out to be an embarrassment to local government, although they blame it on the State government, and the State government blames everything on the Feds.) You are working under the assumption that our current level of spending is acceptable. quote: More people will fall through the safety net and on the actual "floor," which will likely mean more homeless people out on the streets, more crime, and an increase in other social ills. What conservatives and capitalists argue for when they want limited government will result in problems like these being magnified and increased. I agree it's likely for that to happen. But, that's only because government will choose for that to happen. Government will cut the important stuff and keep the less important stuff to convince us of our need for more government. That's the way they work. quote: quote: quote: quote: We should compare them, apples to apples, though. Yes, but when capitalists talk about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty, what exactly do they mean? If it's just complaining about higher taxes, that's hardly anything compared to many other things the government has done - which the capitalists haven't exactly been at the forefront in challenging or calling to the public's attention. When capitalists say they support freedom and liberty yet support business-friendly military dictatorships in other countries (where the poor have it much worse, as you noted earlier), then I have to question whether their protests about "encroachments" on their freedom and liberty are truly genuine and sincere. As you also noted, capitalists are only interested in making money. They don't need freedom and liberty for that. Yes, they do need freedom and liberty for that. You think so? The capitalists and business community of Saudi Arabia might disagree with you. Yes, I think so.

DomKen -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/6/2014 3:04:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/05/rating-agency-sp-finds-wealth-gap-is-contributing-to-slower-us-recovery/ Rating agency S&P finds wealth gap is contributing to a slower US recovery Published August 05, 2014Associated PressFacebook0 Twitter2 WASHINGTON – Economists have long argued that a rising wealth gap has complicated the U.S. rebound from the Great Recession. The report is being under reported and misreported. It makes clear that the wealthy cannot drive demand to drive the economy on their own. So income inequality drives down demand which acts as drag on the entire economy which is why they are saying the economy will grow more slowly over the next generation. The authors, working at S&P, could not actually openly state that we have to reform the tax code to stop concentrating wealth in the hands of the 1% but that is what it really says.

thompsonx -> RE: Another interesting article... (8/6/2014 8:09:13 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That's my point. They are still paying taxes right here in good old USA, even though they aren't here. We don't assess taxes on the entirety of their global revenues, though. That's yet another thing that the Liberals have been talking about. When GE makes a kajillion bucks outside North America, they don't pay taxes to the US on that, though they are paying whatever taxes are applicable where they are making that revenue. If GE turns a profit in foreign markets and takes losses in the US, if that revenue never comes back into the US, why should it get taxed? Where the fuck do you think it goes you fucking moron? If you are a u.s. citizen and you have have assets why would the govt not be able to tax them? They really do not care where or how you make your money they want some. One of the obligations of citizenship is to contribute to the maintainance of our system...unless you prefer to be a freeloading punkassmotherfucker. I understand you here, but, You do not understand shit what's wrong with them being out of the loop with us working stiffs? There is lots wrong with them being out or the loop. We are interdependent. Without labor who the phoque do you think management will manage? There will always be those types. Why isn't it okay for there to be income inequality, anyway? Isn't that an incentive for "working stiffs" to find a better way? That is the falacy. How does a "working stiff" move up to where the money is? If all of those working stiffs move up who the phoque is going to do the work? Does a workin stiff need less air to breath? Fewer calories of energy to survive? Does the workin' stiff need less down time? Does the workin stiff need less medical care? All that shit cost money if you do not pay the workin' stiff what he is worth you will wind up with the sort of thing that happened in russia in 1917. I'm less critical of our educational system. Seriously. What I think is wrong with our educational system is all the non-curricular shit demanded of it. Which non-curricular shit are we speaking of here? Foot ball? Basket ball?Band? Baseball? Ceramics?Girls atheletics? Parents need to play a bigger role in their kids' academic lives, and need to take care of all the non-curricular shit. Let schools go back to just teaching. Just teaching what? I honestly don't think there's enough time for our schools to teach critical thinking skills because of all the other stuff they have to deal with. Such as? Lazy Americans. I used to be one. Does this mean to imply that you still are? Why increasingly tax increasing success? Why does government get to say "you make too much, so we'll take more" anyway? Perhaps you might want to read the constitution you keep wanting a conservative interpretation of. Just who would you have set the tax rates? General motors? Westinghouse? Ge? I'm sorry for your loss How phoquing disingenuous can you get Who gets to decide their utility, though? Do the Democrats, when in power, get to say that any non-Volt's are going to get taxed higher, only to have the GOP make changes when they take over? Since it is all one party(the party of the rich) they will vote for what makes them the most money. The fact that there are people who do work and succeed should give hope to anyone not doing as well. Please tell us of all the success stories you know of or have heard of or have made up. Now please use your talents in math to show us what fraction of a single digit percentage of the not rich have made it to the ranks of the rich?[8\|] I watch people come into work and do whatever they can get away with to not have to work, and they are getting paid upwards of $14 to start. A phoquing baby sitter gets $15. Why would you expect a grown man to do much more than show up and be reasonably sober(as in not falling down more than once or twice in a dozen steps)for a chicken shit $14 bux an hour? All the while, they bitch and moan about how shitty their job is. It is pretty obvious that you do not do their job nor do you make a chickenshit $14 bux an hour. There will never be a minimum wage that will be "enough." A little historical research could disabuse you of your mind numbing ignorance That's the problem. As soon as we set a floor, the politicians will start to raise it in an effort to get elected. The hungry do have a habit of not voting for those who would stuff a cock down their throats instead of a burger and fries.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375