HIllary Clinton and the Neo-Socialist movement.

Originally posted by Odium
Even if you own a business and it gets taxed 40%, that tax doesn't get taken directly from the owner. Say the company makes: $100.
Out of that 100, 40 is taken as tax. Thus you are left with 60 to pay all of the workers. If you were not taxed that 40% your work force would expect higher pay, so on and so fourth. Thus you don't loose 40% there are so many other things to take into account and you refuse to do that to try and make your point.

Not true, if that were the case, then all the states in the United States with low taxes wouldn't have all the industry running to them. It isn't a coincidence that states such as Nevada, Texas, Florida, etc...have the lowest taxes, and also are ranked amongst the best states to start a business, yet states such as New York, California, Massachusettes, etc...have the highest taxes and are ranked the worst. For example, Nevada has no corporate, state, personal, franchise, or estate tax, and consequently has the largest growing population in America.

What's ironic is how much more industry California could have if they lowered their taxes, I mean they have the world's fourth largest economy alone! The United States overall as a country should lower our corporate income tax, it's the highest in the world aside from Japan, this would bring back more business, it is working for Ireland and the Swiss.

As for workers wanting more money, I'd pay them what's fair to pay them, otherwise tell them to go somewhere else. The market regulates prices and salaries for the most part. My salaries would be competitive with other businesses; if they still wanted more, tough, go somewhere else, though likely nowhere else would pay much more. Unions force this, and thus kill off businesses. Unions were helpful for some things, but most unions are ridiculous and force businesses overseas. For example, the airline pilot's union, the flight attendant's union, etc...

And if I DID give them more, well it's money in the hands of individuals instead of some government agency or bureaucracy that would likely spend it in inefficient ways.

You did nothing but to change your arguement as soon as you were proven wrong you change it.

If I didn't admit I was wrong on that 80% business tax thing, then I apologize, I meant to. However, I do know that France is losing a lot of wealthy people because of how much they tax them.

Italy is at roughly 7%, according to the National Institute of Statistic.

Yes, but France's unemployment rate is about 8.7% according to the CIA World Factbook.

Explain why it was fine for over 600 years than? Why did it suddenyl change when people started to get laws to make it change...odd that. What a lucky break for you. That the same moment people made laws reguarding working conditions they got better, of course when there were no laws and we lived under extreme capitalism nothing changed - the rich got richer, we slaved in farms for them but they never changed things.

Since when was anything "fine" for 600 years? Life was a hard struggle for most everyone during that time, except for those born to wealth. The very elements of capitalism may have started as early as the 1600s and 1700s, but modern capitalism didn't start until the 1800s. And no, "the rich did not get richer." During capitalism, many non-rich people became rich, richer than "the rich." For certain industries, you are correct, regulations were needed. The problem is that there is far too much regulation now, so much so that certain government regulatory agencies work directly against each other.

Capitalism changed the world. In the past, to become wealthy, one had to be born into it or steal it from someone else. Capitalism for the first time in history, allowed people to CREATE wealth, thus bringing about many new and wealthy people.

Governmetn intervention into business actually hurt the workers in some instances, for example miners. The mining companies were facing competition from foreign mining companies, so what did they do? They asked the government to place such a high import tax on those foreign mining companies that the foreigners never bothered coming here. This gave the American mining companies a strict monopoly, thus allowing them to treat the workers as they pleased.

One thing to remember with people is PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. It isn't as if a government regulatory agency is good and a corporation is bad. Corporations and government agencies look out for themselves, only corporations have competition to check their corruption, whereas government agencies do not. Corporations also do their best to spend as little money as possible. Government agencies do their best to spend it all (thus being wasteful and purposely inefficient) so they can demand more, and increase in size.

In some industries, if a monopoly forms, government is needed though, for example, in one country, the water company gained a monopoly and charged the people 1/3 their salary. The people tried collecting rainwater, but the government stopped them. The people rioted, and the police were under government control.

In America, the government would demand such a corporation not charge that much because water is too necessary. And if it did, the people have a right to firearms to fight back.

Generally monopolies go away after a certain amount of years (10 - 30 years), but for something like water, you can't wait that long. Now if Nike shoes gain a monopoly and start charging 1/3 of people's salary for shoes, they'd probably go out of business as people would find alternative means.

Monopolies that came and went are Microsoft (now against Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Ebay, etc...), and Toys R Us (had a monopoly, now facing competition from Wal Mart, Internet toy stores, etc...).

A fully free capitalist society is a pipedream, you need SOME regulation from government, but right now we have way too much in America, even though we are the freest economy for the most part still (this is gradually declining).

Observe the growth in countries like China and Ireland that have adopted capitalist policies.

cont'd

[edit on 9-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

[edit on 9-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

Indeed - which is why social programs to remove child poverty changed things. It wasn't the laws to stop children from working, nor was it the rich, it was placing a burden on parents (and thus forcing them in many reguards to have less children), along with a free education, etcetera that changed things.

It was the education (which was given to all) that allowed children to escape having to work. Not the child labour laws.

Not necessarily, it was not. The reason children had to work in such families was because they absolutely needed the income. Forcing them not to work simply forced the children into other areas of employment.

Why do so many groups not live like this? I can go on and on.

Fact is, capitalism isn't human nature. They do not go hand-in-hand with one another, there are thousands of instances of large scale groups (in the hundreds) happily sharing everything. Capitalism is a product of socialization.

In very small groups, yes, communism can work, when people are raised into a specific culture like that, but on a national level, it always fails. And I disagree, capitalism goes very much with human nature. Humans are individuals who think for themselves. If you form a town, everyone will build their own home and grow their own food, or one person may offer to grow other people's food if those people will build him a home, etc...trade and mercantilism, the very basics of capitalism, are what has defined humanity for centuries. Also, that form of lifestyle may not be what many other people prefer. Those tribes may follow it because it is all they know, and works best for them. if you introduced them to civilized nations, they might change their minds. People should be free to make their own choices.

Furthermore, the problem with the tribes you talk of, is everyone acts that way voluntarily. But what if on a national level, a lot of people do not? The communist society then fails, unless you put into power a very powerful central government to force them to obey.

Also, put a group of kids together and ask them to build a LEGO town. Likely, they'll each build their own buildings, not build public buildings. You also use tribes as an example. Why do you think they remain tribes?

Why is South Korea below:
Italy.
The United Kingdom
France.
I can go on and on.

I think you'll find Sweden also has a higher Per-Capita Income than Japan does. Japan is in fact 20th in the World in this reguard, below a lot of Nations with National Health Care and Poverty schemes. (International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2007)

According to the CIA World Factbook:

South Korea's GDP is $1.18 trillion, unemployment 3.3%, GDP growth rate 4.8%, equal to lower economies of EU

Japan's GDP $4.22 trillion, third largest economy in world, unemployment 4.1%, GDP growth rate 2.8%, GDP per capita is $33,100

Sweden has a per capita GDP of $31,600.

France GDP $1.87 trillion, unemployment 8.7%, GDP growth rate 2.2%, has switched recently from an economy of government ownership to more private ownership, has one of the highest tax burdens in the world

Italy GDP $1.7 trillion, unemployment 7%, GDP growth rate 1.6%, is moving towards increasing competitiveness, but slow at decreasing its high tax burden.

UK: GDP $1.9 trillion, unemployment 2.9%, GDP growth rate 2.7%,, government over the years has been greatly reducing public ownership and contained the growth of social welfre programs

Germany: GDP $2.85 trillion, fifth largest in world, unemployment 7.1% according to International Labor Organization, according to Germany's Federal Employment Office, when seasonally adjusted, 10.8%. GDP growth rate 2.2%, experienced high unemployment and economic growth, unemployment because of lack of competition in service sector.

So South Korea has a lower overall GDP, but higher growth rate, and less unemployment, then Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

Tell that to those in Norway who on average earn: $28,000 more in Norway than you do in the USA. In fact the USA only has a $2000 more Per-Capita Income than Sweden does.

Sweden has a protestant work ethic like America, but it is hamstringed by their taxes and government intervention at the moment. Their per capita GDP is $47, 800, and they have in recent times decreased the tax burden and encouraged more private enterprise. They generate a high standard of living, and they do not seem to take advantage of their welfare state, evidenced by their low unemployment rates.

Norway's people work 75% as much as Americans, but they get a huge amount of GDP from oil (24%, Norway's Ministry of Petroleum and Energy), which is why their standard of living is equal. If you look at how their standard of living would be w/o oil, it would be about 75% of America's (OECD and Norway Ministry of Petroleum and Energy)

Lie.

You are right, I meant Norway, not Sweden.

Sweden emerged as a welfare state, consistently achieving a high position among the top-ranking countries in the UN Human Development Index (HDI). Sweden has a rich supply of water power, but lacks significant oil and coal deposits.

The UN Human Development index is not at all a reliable indicator of the welfare of a nation. It is only 17 years-old. Much more reliable is per capita GDP, which has been around far longer. I also don't trust Wikipedia too much. Sweden's GDP is $31,600, and that's with highway robbery taxes. In the U.S., its $43,500.

If you look at Ireland, which had very stagnant economic growth, it has seen a boom in its economy since lowering taxes (corporate tax rate only a flat 12.5%). Industry is flocking there and their standard of living has goen from below EU levels to equaling American levels.

Which is why you have no understanding of what I suggest. So don't assume you do.

Switzerland has a very weak central government and very strong market economy. It is not socialist. It is actually stealing so much industry from the EU that they ahve filed a complaint about it. Tell me what your idea of socialism is, I told you my definitions. I think you are trying to create a "perfect" society too much. Capitalist societies come closest to being perfect, but nothing can ever be a full-on utopia.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by WheelsRCool]

Originally posted by WheelsRCool


Oh, they need their defending, or else we can turn into France, where all the wealthy there are leaving because they tax them 80% of their income.

Best of luck getting into that tax bracket sport. You're gonna need it.

Very true, but a good deal of them should be eliminated. That in itself will eliminate poverty a good deal because it will force people to get off their butts and start working.

Again, I have to remind you here, there are alot of people who are incapable of managing themselves. There are alot of people out there with alot of complex problems that a checkwriting-managing course won't get near fixing.

I think more than you realize.

But right now, we have way too many social programs, and usually working-class Americans do not qualify for most of them.

You got proof to back that statement up?

You know a lot of teenage girls get pregnant specifically because the State will provide them with free healthcare and free education even, and other free stuff.

That is absolute crap. Im not saying girls don't do that sometimes, cos I know they do (to get out of war for example - like during the Gulf War which I was in). But those girls are a shred or a hair thin fragment of our society. By and large people want to earn their own way.

Sorry if people you know or are related to are scamming on the system. It hurts people who really need the help.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Best of luck getting into that tax bracket sport. You're gonna need it.

I think you mis-understand a couple things though. For one, this is the United States of America. It is very possible to get into that income bracket, you just have to be willing to work hard. Nothing magical to it.

Secondly, that income bracket is not the area solely of the super-rich; it generally starts at someone making an income of $300,000 a year. $300,000 a year is what many doctors, lawyers, etc...make, which is far from impossible, and then there's the much higher incomes.

And regardless, even if you are not a member of that income bracket, you should still be against taxing it highly for the following reasons:

1) You are punishing people for being successful. The majority of the wealthy in this nation did not inherit their wealth, they earned it. You don't take their money to redistribute it to less successful people to be more "fair." Taking from such successful people is what is truly unfair.

2) Private investment into the economy is what drives growth. Companies need investors so they can raise funds to do projects leading to more and better research and products. If you tax your wealthy too much, the wealthy pick up and leave the country, and they take their wealth with them. This kills invesment in the economy, which in effect, sends the economy to crap.

And when the economy goes down, regular working-class people lose their jobs, product innovation slows, innovation as a whole slows, etc...

So technically, even if you are not in the upper-income bracket, you still should not be for taxing it heavily, as it will adversely affect everyone else in the long run.

Again, I have to remind you here, there are alot of people who are incapable of managing themselves. There are alot of people out there with alot of complex problems that a checkwriting-managing course won't get near fixing.

I think more than you realize.

The only people that stupid are ones who need to be in mental institutions. Otherwise, anyone of at least average intelligence are capable of managing themselves.

You got proof to back that statement up?

On paper, no, however, considering how poor my family was and how we never qualified for welfare, or my sister who works hard and doesn't qualify (yet she doesn't make much $$$ at all), or myself, I can pretty say that is the case, yes.

That is absolute crap. Im not saying girls don't do that sometimes, cos I know they do (to get out of war for example - like during the Gulf War which I was in). But those girls are a shred or a hair thin fragment of our society. By and large people want to earn their own way.

Sorry if people you know or are related to are scamming on the system. It hurts people who really need the help.

Maybe, but there are still plenty who do it. IMO though, by and large, most people don't want to earn their own way. Most people just want things given to them, they have an entitlement-mindset these days.

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
I think you mis-understand a couple things though. For one, this is the United States of America. It is very possible to get into that income bracket, you just have to be willing to work hard. Nothing magical to it.

Um, yah.

You don't have to work hard, you just have to be the golden child. Most people arent. That's the problem.

Secondly, that income bracket is not the area solely of the super-rich; it generally starts at someone making an income of $300,000 a year. $300,000 a year is what many doctors, lawyers, etc...make, which is far from impossible, and then there's the much higher incomes.

The problem here is you're lecturing someone who may just be better off than you. So, HELLO. I understand all that. What I understand also that you are trying not to is the sheer number of poor uneducated people out there all around us.

And regardless, even if you are not a member of that income bracket, you should still be against taxing it highly for the following reasons:

Against taxing? Yah, I'm against crazy taxing, too; but the fact is, that our taxes go to pave roads that we all drive on, subsidize student lunches, etc and so forth. Who is against the common good? Only a lunatic or a greedy person.


Its truly amazing how the Republicans have brainwashed people.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Didn't we leave Europe and other places because we didn't want the "government" controlling us? Then why so many cool-aid drinkers?

Capitalism is not perfect, it needs some tweaking. People should not go hungry, people should have medical treatment when they need it. And those that can should have to work for it, . The elderly should not have to pay income tax on their Social Security income. They should not have to pay for public transportation. Unless they can more than afford it.

I feel that families that receive social welfare should be limited in the amount of time they are receive benefits. I am referring to families that have been the recipients for years upon years. Shouldn't these people give back to the society that is supporting them? Isn't there some work that they can do. Could that work not help build self respect?