[Illuyankas]

"Are you telling me I should only personally bank $40 million profit this year instead of $50 million? Preposterous! Give me and my company more tax breaks instead! That'll fix EVERYTHING."

[Dolorous Menhir]

Presumably wealth creators (business & the wealthy) are the best source of tax revenue? Don't think taxing the unemployed is the first step to fiscal solvency.

This post has been edited by Dolorous Menhir: 26 July 2011 - 07:33 PM

[Daemonwolf]

Honestly speaking, in my opinion. No single thing (reduce spending, increase taxes, entitlement programs for citizens only, etc.) is going to fix anything in the current state the US is in.

Don't get me wrong, they all have their own merits, but individually they can get nothing done. If ya wanna go read my rant in "The Space Program" thread, go for it, as I'm not about to go over it all again. My statement in this thread was merely reflecting how people are quick to realize that taxes have a big hand in all the companies going overseas, yet still cry that the wealthy need to pay more in taxes.



http://www.youtube.c...ZpWej8pF4&hl=en

a somewhat funny (though not 100% accurate) video that kinda explains part of the problem.

[Daemonwolf]

Dolorous Menhir, on 26 July 2011 - 07:32 PM, said:

Presumably wealth creators (business & the wealthy) are the best source of tax revenue? Don't think taxing the unemployed is the first step to fiscal solvency.

Taxing the unemployed; funnily enough, the unemployed are required to pay taxes on their unemployment check, which when i was eligible for it maxed out at $406/week, before taxes.


edit: part of what might help though, is to quit with the tax refund crap. If we are supposed to pay taxes, then lets pay them, if you owe more, then pay, if not congrats you paid your taxes. http://money.cnn.com...efund/index.htm indicated $328 Billion was returned to approx 110 million americans, avg $3003 each. and 51 million people in the US (roughly figured from recent 1 in 6 people use government assistance) that use government assistance.

This post has been edited by Daemonwolf: 26 July 2011 - 08:11 PM

[HiddenOne]

Daemonwolf, on 26 July 2011 - 05:05 PM, said:

HiddenOne, on 22 July 2011 - 12:39 PM, said:

1. Corporate welfare - The effort to entice business to operate in the US goes too far. We've lost way too many jobs overseas due to cheaper labor, taxes, whatever.
3. Tax reform - Tax the rich, tax the upper middle class, tax them all. End loopholes that let people get away with it. Our country is being sold to foreign interests at an alarming rate because the US can't afford to continue pretending everything is cool.

While I enjoyed your post, these two comments are what always confuses me on the "tax the wealthy" debate.

Everyone seems to understand that businesses are finding it more and more expensive to try and operate in the US, versus cheaper out of country expenses, yet still manages to think that raising taxes even higher on the wealthy (the people who own and oversee these same companies) is the best idea, while concurrently allowing the number of people living on entitlement programs to increase thus reducing revenue options.... It's just baffling to me.

I don't have the resources to answer these questions as I would like to, but I suppose no one really does. It's a privelege to be able to operate a business & make money that should be worth a lot to those who can take advantage of it. I guess my ire is not with small businesses but large corporations, which I perceive negatively in some respects. There must be certain allowances made, but within reason. I also blame politicians. I believe in civic duty that should take precedence over pure profit. /idealism

@ Dolorous - I think those most able should bear the burden proportionately. I know that's noncommittal, but I doubt anybody else can do much better.

[Daemonwolf]

HiddenOne, on 26 July 2011 - 08:03 PM, said:

Daemonwolf, on 26 July 2011 - 05:05 PM, said:

HiddenOne, on 22 July 2011 - 12:39 PM, said:

1. Corporate welfare - The effort to entice business to operate in the US goes too far. We've lost way too many jobs overseas due to cheaper labor, taxes, whatever.
3. Tax reform - Tax the rich, tax the upper middle class, tax them all. End loopholes that let people get away with it. Our country is being sold to foreign interests at an alarming rate because the US can't afford to continue pretending everything is cool.

While I enjoyed your post, these two comments are what always confuses me on the "tax the wealthy" debate.

Everyone seems to understand that businesses are finding it more and more expensive to try and operate in the US, versus cheaper out of country expenses, yet still manages to think that raising taxes even higher on the wealthy (the people who own and oversee these same companies) is the best idea, while concurrently allowing the number of people living on entitlement programs to increase thus reducing revenue options.... It's just baffling to me.

I don't have the resources to answer these questions as I would like to, but I suppose no one really does. It's a privelege to be able to operate a business & make money that should be worth a lot to those who can take advantage of it. I guess my ire is not with small businesses but large corporations, which I perceive negatively in some respects. There must be certain allowances made, but within reason. I also blame politicians. I believe in civic duty that should take precedence over pure profit. /idealism

@ Dolorous - I think those most able should bear the burden proportionately. I know that's noncommittal, but I doubt anybody else can do much better.

I perceive large businesses in a negative light as well, believe it or not. I absolutely despise the whole "profit, profit, profit" mentality as I think it results in a dead end, as no real innovation or breakthroughs come without cost. Its similar to the space program, many people see it as a worthless endeavor but don't realize all the side benefits.

That said, big government is no better. In fact, if you've read current news you may have noticed that while the government is screaming to the people about how the "republicans" risking people's jobs, the government itself is laying off people left and right. It's laying off NASA employees to the tune of roughly 12,000 jobs. It's looking to reduce its armed forces by approximately 30,000. So in just 2 places, they have managed to cut 42,000 jobs from the economy that they are trying to "protect".

http://commentarama....yers-party.html Just an interesting article as well.

[RaRugged]

The best scenario is if the government just went hands-off. All this military spending, social welfare spending, lobbying, subsidies, taxes...

More money does NOT equate to better results. Troops in 100+ countries, food stamps, energy subsidies, corporate taxes, etc. does NOT make our society function better.

It's funny how more people above the poverty line are pro-welfare than people below the poverty line. Welfare is simply a continual cycle of dependency that only gives minimally and does NOT prepare the majority to be self-sustainable. Also, it costs a ton and ironically, is being paid for by others. Like it or not, it's wealth distribution. What I want is a society where everyone is accountable for their own expenses... People argue that the rich have gotten so many benefits through lobbying, etc. so they should pay for the poor. I suppose that is true to an extend. The ideal society would be one where no one gets ahead artificially (bailouts, subsidies) and no one needs must shoulder the burden of someone else. It's one reason why universal health-care in a nation of 300 million+ will never work... people don't care about the costs, as long as someone else is paying it.

It's equally funny how people believe it's necessary for our foreign policy to be pro-interventionist. Our presence in foreign nations 1) violates sovereignty 2) rallies people against the United States. Our democracy-building efforts in Iraq are a debacle. I agree that we cannot simply "pull-out" (that would anger them even more), but the burden-changing process of equipping Iraq with a functioning government needs to happen faster. The missions in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and the foreign aid to Pakistan, Saudi, etc. are unsustainable and ridiculous. Why must American tax money go somewhere that doesn't return to us in some sort of benefits?

Both sides of the spectrum are dead-wrong and hypocrites in this respect. Republicans want the government out of your wallet but into your bedroom. Democrats want the government out of your bedroom but into your wallet.... and the worst part is our two-party, plurality system literally guarantees that third-parties are out of the picture.

There is a simple concept that sums up my political ideology: contract. The only reason government was created was to provide us with some basic privileges we wanted in exchange for something of ours. 1) We don't want to be attacked by another individual 2) We need courts to sue others in tort law, civil law, etc. 3) National defense, when others attack us. Nothing else is an inherent function of government. We should NEVER be forced to pay for something we neither want nor use.

Anyways, our political system is disastrous and the influence of media on the unwary is laughable.

[RaRugged]

Oh, and for the love of God, it's amusing how people demonize profit.

What isn't based on profit? You say businesses want to make a profit? Of course. Labor unions love saying how businesses are greedy, but aren't labor unions similarly "greedy", if they simply want to make a profit off lobbying the govt.? Everything is profit. Everything we do is to make our lives better, aka get ahead.

If you don't believe that, you don't believe life. There is NO system that could ever work that punishes profit-mentality. The only reason our world works is because we all want profit. Animals kill others for "profit". The poor complains about the rich so they can get "profit", in the form of tax breaks. The rich complains to Congress so they can get "profit", in the form of bailouts.

Profit is intrinsic in any society. Any rational person sees it clearly.

[Daemonwolf]

RaRugged, on 26 July 2011 - 08:26 PM, said:

The best scenario is if the government just went hands-off. All this military spending, social welfare spending, lobbying, subsidies, taxes...

More money does NOT equate to better results. Troops in 100+ countries, food stamps, energy subsidies, corporate taxes, etc. does NOT make our society function better.

It's funny how more people above the poverty line are pro-welfare than people below the poverty line. Welfare is simply a continual cycle of dependency that only gives minimally and does NOT prepare the majority to be self-sustainable. Also, it costs a ton and ironically, is being paid for by others. Like it or not, it's wealth distribution. What I want is a society where everyone is accountable for their own expenses... People argue that the rich have gotten so many benefits through lobbying, etc. so they should pay for the poor. I suppose that is true to an extend. The ideal society would be one where no one gets ahead artificially (bailouts, subsidies) and no one needs must shoulder the burden of someone else. It's one reason why universal health-care in a nation of 300 million+ will never work... people don't care about the costs, as long as someone else is paying it.

It's equally funny how people believe it's necessary for our foreign policy to be pro-interventionist. Our presence in foreign nations 1) violates sovereignty 2) rallies people against the United States. Our democracy-building efforts in Iraq are a debacle. I agree that we cannot simply "pull-out" (that would anger them even more), but the burden-changing process of equipping Iraq with a functioning government needs to happen faster. The missions in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and the foreign aid to Pakistan, Saudi, etc. are unsustainable and ridiculous. Why must American tax money go somewhere that doesn't return to us in some sort of benefits?

Both sides of the spectrum are dead-wrong and hypocrites in this respect. Republicans want the government out of your wallet but into your bedroom. Democrats want the government out of your bedroom but into your wallet.... and the worst part is our two-party, plurality system literally guarantees that third-parties are out of the picture.

There is a simple concept that sums up my political ideology: contract. The only reason government was created was to provide us with some basic privileges we wanted in exchange for something of ours. 1) We don't want to be attacked by another individual 2) We need courts to sue others in tort law, civil law, etc. 3) National defense, when others attack us. Nothing else is an inherent function of government. We should NEVER be forced to pay for something we neither want nor use.

Anyways, our political system is disastrous and the influence of media on the unwary is laughable.

LOL, currently not seeing much to disagree with. The government is in fact broken, and also we are stuck with it. It needs to have a 20 year goal put in place by Law to slowly and surely return power to the individual states, and go back to being a unifying organization.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Daemonwolf, on 26 July 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

That said, big government is no better. In fact, if you've read current news you may have noticed that while the government is screaming to the people about how the "republicans" risking people's jobs, the government itself is laying off people left and right. It's laying off NASA employees to the tune of roughly 12,000 jobs. It's looking to reduce its armed forces by approximately 30,000. So in just 2 places, they have managed to cut 42,000 jobs from the economy that they are trying to "protect".

http://commentarama....yers-party.html Just an interesting article as well.

On your last point here, curious about your complaint. Are you angry at big government for being big, or at big government for getting smaller?

There are a wealth of stories in the UK about large companies creatively avoiding tax, getting cosy deals with the tax authorities. In effect they pay extremely low rates, well below the apparently straightforward corporate tax rate, currently 26%. No doubt it is the same in the US.

This post has been edited by Dolorous Menhir: 26 July 2011 - 10:39 PM

[worry]

We can all go ahead and stop pretending that the lobbyists/US Chamber of Commerce/et al represent small businesses in any significant capacity. They are big business/multi-national teat-sucklers and simply do not care about the "little guy". I'm not saying it's roses for small businesses under either party, but pretending it's better for them under tea party or neo-con policies is ludicrous.

http://economix.blog...all-businesses/

The biggest single problem facing America’s small businesses isn’t taxes or overregulation. It’s low demand, according to a new report released by the National Federation of Independent Business.

Thirty-one percent of small businesses surveyed by the N.F.I.B. said that “poor sales” are their company’s “single most important problem.” The other options included were competition from large businesses, insurance costs and availability, financing and interest rates, government requirements and red tape, inflation, quality of labor, cost of labor and “other.”

______________________________________________________________

Not that any of this matters much anymore. The USA has decided to call it quits, I guess, come August 2. It was a pleasure posting with all of you.

[Daemonwolf]

Dolorous Menhir, on 26 July 2011 - 10:39 PM, said:

Daemonwolf, on 26 July 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

That said, big government is no better. In fact, if you've read current news you may have noticed that while the government is screaming to the people about how the "republicans" risking people's jobs, the government itself is laying off people left and right. It's laying off NASA employees to the tune of roughly 12,000 jobs. It's looking to reduce its armed forces by approximately 30,000. So in just 2 places, they have managed to cut 42,000 jobs from the economy that they are trying to "protect".

http://commentarama....yers-party.html Just an interesting article as well.

On your last point here, curious about your complaint. Are you angry at big government for being big, or at big government for getting smaller?

There are a wealth of stories in the UK about large companies creatively avoiding tax, getting cosy deals with the tax authorities. In effect they pay extremely low rates, well below the apparently straightforward corporate tax rate, currently 26%. No doubt it is the same in the US.

I'm not angry at all, annoyed at the hypocrisy, yes. I personally don't understand how any entity (person, government, corporation, etc.) can call out a different entity for a transgression they are likewise committing.

If I'm gonna be angry at someone for not creating jobs, while I'm reducing my workforce, I fully expect people to call me an idiot. You want job and employment results, then get the politicians to work with job makers and providers.

Laws alone aren't going to fix anything, in any country. You have to work with the people to make anything happen. If you want businesses to hire more people, work with the businesses to find a way to make it happen. Fuck a politician, writing a letter to my representative isn't going to get me a job, submitting a resume to an employer might though.

[Daemonwolf]

worrywort, on 26 July 2011 - 11:31 PM, said:

We can all go ahead and stop pretending that the lobbyists/US Chamber of Commerce/et al represent small businesses in any significant capacity. They are big business/multi-national teat-sucklers and simply do not care about the "little guy". I'm not saying it's roses for small businesses under either party, but pretending it's better for them under tea party or neo-con policies is ludicrous.

http://economix.blog...all-businesses/

The biggest single problem facing America’s small businesses isn’t taxes or overregulation. It’s low demand, according to a new report released by the National Federation of Independent Business.

Thirty-one percent of small businesses surveyed by the N.F.I.B. said that “poor sales” are their company’s “single most important problem.” The other options included were competition from large businesses, insurance costs and availability, financing and interest rates, government requirements and red tape, inflation, quality of labor, cost of labor and “other.”

______________________________________________________________

Not that any of this matters much anymore. The USA has decided to call it quits, I guess, come August 2. It was a pleasure posting with all of you.

The first comment below your article has a valid point, if you combine government related "taxes" and "regulation, red tape" into a category as broad as "poor sales" it comes to 36% of government holding them back.

Either way, poor sales is of course going to be an issue.
http://www.ecoeffect...unemployed.html checking out that roughly 40% of the fit for work population is unemployed, could certainly explain why sales are down and government spending is up.

[worry]

I take your point, but it's only problematic if you consider "poor sales" a broad category, which I don't. It's a valid single category (as are taxes and regulation, respectively, by the way). Point being, the rhetoric from lobbyists is a funhouse mirror reflection of actual on-the-ground perspective, for ideological reasons.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Daemonwolf, on 26 July 2011 - 05:05 PM, said:

HiddenOne, on 22 July 2011 - 12:39 PM, said:

1. Corporate welfare - The effort to entice business to operate in the US goes too far. We've lost way too many jobs overseas due to cheaper labor, taxes, whatever.
3. Tax reform - Tax the rich, tax the upper middle class, tax them all. End loopholes that let people get away with it. Our country is being sold to foreign interests at an alarming rate because the US can't afford to continue pretending everything is cool.

While I enjoyed your post, these two comments are what always confuses me on the "tax the wealthy" debate.

Everyone seems to understand that businesses are finding it more and more expensive to try and operate in the US, versus cheaper out of country expenses, yet still manages to think that raising taxes even higher on the wealthy (the people who own and oversee these same companies) is the best idea, while concurrently allowing the number of people living on entitlement programs to increase thus reducing revenue options.... It's just baffling to me.

Taxes on the wealthy, ie. owners, board members etc. in this case, are not business taxes nor do they encourage businesses to move overseas. They are income taxes on individual persons, not on the business entity.

[worry]

Indeed. The only problem there is the implication that even corporate taxes cause large businesses to move overseas. That might be an excuse, but the prime motivator is simple greed. Corporate tax rates have never even approached a level that would reasonably be considered stifling. These corporations don't want to pay any share, let alone a "fair" share. And you know what? Many have already got their wish granted: http://motherjones.c...10-tax-avoiders

[Daemonwolf]

@gwynn - The flip side of what you said, while true, is that those CEO's, board members, executives, etc. all generally make their "real" money off either stock, or bonuses. Stock and bonuses are generally reliant upon business profits, which is money the company has made after paying all their bills, wages, lawsuits, stripper fueled business meetings, taxes, and corporate retreats to exotic islands, etc. So while its accurate to say they are individuals that have to pay these things and not the business itself, one is dependent on the other. Please understand, I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't pay taxes or anything of the sort. What I am trying to get across is people need to quit making the wealthy people the scapegoat. Every level of society is dependent on every other level of society. The wealthy need us common folk to work for them, us common folk need the wealthy to work for (this is oversimplified but catches the general concept)

@worrywort - Greed is certainly the largest motivator behind most anything, sadly. What I really wanted to tell you though, is the reason I said "poor sales" is a broad range. "Poor sales" doesn't account for why there are poor sales, the poor sales could result from bad marketing, bad product concepts, lack of research to placate the consumer, etc. There's too many things that can cause a product to not do well.

http://listverse.com...ulous-products/

http://www.businessa...t-actually-sell

http://www.cracked.c...-money-can-buy/

just a couple links with products that likely wont find a home with the average american. This is why I say "poor sales" is a broad category. Any business can claim poor sales if their product just really isn't worth buying.

http://www.walletpop...ps-of-all-time/

http://www.cracked.c...ic-reviews.html

marketing can make or break a lot of products as well.

I humbly present all this for consideration.

[worry]

That actually clarifies your point quite a bit, actually. Thanks!

In terms of the rich being "scapegoats" I just can't agree. When children throw tantrums, it's upsetting but not necessarily surprising. When adults do it, it's off-putting, pathetic, and kind of bizarre. When the wealthiest, most powerful, most fortunate people in the wealthiest, most powerful, most fortunate nation on earth do it...it's all of those things times a thousand, and, to me at least, verges on evil. The love of money being the root of that and all. They have, are, and will continue to be getting off light for the suffering they've allowed on their watch, and it truly is shameful. That's not scapegoating.

[Daemonwolf]

You have a valid point, I've never said not to tax them. Greed sucks, period. Raising taxes on people that care so much about money though, isn't getting anything done that's of benefit to us the "common" folk. When you jeopardize the money they so covet, they find new ways to get it back, which inevitably lead to downsizing, relocating, and restructuring. All of which lowers the job markets, while the government is expected to go ahead and provide for all of us, since they are already taking all the wealthy peoples money, who then get it back all over again as we go make purchases.

It's just a vicious cycle, which is going to become more so, as more paper money is worth less and less, since its not backed any longer by anything quantifiable. Maybe that's really where all of this began, the printing of unbacked currency. http://alvin.foo.my/...s-currency.html is a list of some of the most worthless currency in the world, because its been printed so much with no backing, worth noting. http://www.visualeco...in-circulation/ is just informative on the amount of currency in circulation, but noticeable that it doesnt even (from my understanding) cover 1/5th of the US debt.

I dunno though. Each argument has its own merits, and I probably need to sit down and figure out the full economic spreadsheet to account for every factor at some point. Sadly even if I devised a 100% fool-proof plan to reduce the debt to a negligible level, in 10 years time. I'd be ignored.

[worry]

I love discussions in which people politely agree to disagree, and where we've attempted to at least find some common ground. Even better when that common ground is "Everything is hopeless!"