It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I can agree with you about the CIA and the war machine. So, states should still be taxing income but not the federal. I think if the federal income tax was eliminated you would see state taxes rise significantly. And again, states SHOULD balance budgets and be responsible but some will not.
So what is the solution when a state runs a deficit so long that they cannot pay for police, fire, roads, corrections officers, etc. What do you do when a state fails? You would see states without sufficient police force, or fire, I'm sure you can see the problems with these kinds of short falls.
Well technically monopolies are usually granted by the state. In a free-market or a real Capitalist society where not copyright laws existed or any of these other prohibitive measures existed it would be almost impossible for monopolies to exist. Why? Well, take the argument of just what a monopoly does... People say that a monopoly out competes its competitor then it raises the price and makes an exorbitant profit? But wouldn't making this exorbitant profit that I mention, be incentive enough for other competitor to come in and try to take a peace of the market share? If there were no barriers to entry and huge profits were at stake would eliminate the possibility of monopolies. The existence of monopolies will only occur when these large corporation make the argument or the case of "a public" good for restrictions or legislation.
I'm not talking about entry regulation, what about regulating monopolies?
Insider trading?(SEC), I guess I'm refering to regulation that pervents abuse of either the environment and/or the citizens.
They are part of the same process since labor cannot occur in a vacuum. It takes Capital for investment to make labor have any meaning. For a company to have any gains as far as profits it needs to constantly invest so as to keep consumers happy and maintain its profit share or increase it. Thus when you TAX capital you're digging into future investment that may have increased labor.
Originally posted by skyshow
I view fruit of labor and gains from capital two different things. The latter couldn't happen without first the labor having been done.
I agree, that's why I think all forms of taxes are bad. That money doesn't fall from the sky. When you take it; be it from either the rich or the poor, it's certainly not being used in the best way the for the market to dictate. Instead this money is taken to D.C. where the politicians get to spend it on what they want, and by proxy on what a few have lobbied for.
Taxing huge incomes that people make off of money made by others is different than taxing a dump truck driver or a trash collector who trades their hard physical labor directly for their pay, and a pay that barely supports themselves and family.
Yes, in a free market property rights would still exist. If you held-up a truck and confiscated its contents you would be liable to compensate the owner, since you are infringing on his/her property. You could either argue this through privates courts, or as in our REAL WORLD case have the local police enforce or judicial system. The military should not be used to enforce property right, as it is currently being used. The military was and should be used to defend us from a foreign enemy. US being 300 million people.
In a truly "free market" capitalist system, you wouldn't have a govn't. military to defend the golden goose...it would be up to the companies to pay for that directly where they saw fit.
Either way they would "pay" to protect their assets right? When they transport goods from production facility to market the trucks drive on roads right?
Well, it maybe provided by the government but it doesn't mean that they are the only ones most efficient at providing this good.
The water that flushes the toilets at the can on the second floor of regional headquarters comes from a municipal sewage and water treatment plant right? My point is these things are all needed and provided by the govn't in exchange for tax revenue.
This is a misnomer, corporations pay higher utility rates than individuals. Water, Electricity, Waste disposals rates are not the same across the board. In most instances except the case of the Agricultural Industry these rates are higher for businesses than individuals. Just ask any business owner.
The rich benefit obviously the most, and have a lot more to contribute. Now if the working class were paid a hell of a lot more they too could afford to contribute more, and would also be benefiting more.
Are you making the argument that without government we would all still be eating rotten meat? Industries make these corrections on their own, since they are in business to make money. If meat is rotten or bad, people will stop eating it and turn towards other substitutes or other producers of meat. Thus hurting the bottom line and losing profits. So it is in the interest of food manufacturers to produce the best product they can.
Finally, in another post it was brought up that regulation limits consumer choice. Um, before regulation of food such as meat packing, consumers were getting sick and dieing due to contamination etc...
So you are making the case that Regulation increases choice?
it took govn't regulation so that consumers could even exist to make a choice.
So without the FAA the airlines would have no necessary reason to keep jets running and safe? They would I suppose fly all the jets they had until they fell from the sky...
Regulation keeps things like airline jets safe by forcing companies to pay for expensive preventative maintenance on aircraft that otherwise if left up to the "free market" (a myth anyway) wouldn't happen.
Regulations have been created to protect industry and their interests. Just look at who is the first to applaud the banking industry regulation; Bankers, or Airline Regulation; Airlines, Energy regulation; Energy Industry. You think the public is savvy enough to organize themselves and write up these regulations? You've got to be kidding!! Regulation legislation is primarily written by those that know their own industry and primarily to benefit themselves and limit their competitors.
Regulations have come about because it was necessary and needed in and by society.
Why turn back the clock and repeat the madness we had in history? Take Iraq for instance, the neo-cons planned it to be a free for all and tried to install open and free markets whereby everyone was on their own...it resulted in unemployment figures that shot through the roof, civil unrest, and the free market capitalist haven that was supposed to trickle down and help everybody only ended up helping, as usual, the wealthy few.
Also just because Paris Hilton flushes her toilet, the same as I does not mean that we should advocate making her pay more because her bank account is bigger than ours. That is a morally reprehensible argument. Sure, she can flush it ten times more per day as an individual because she can afford it if she wishes so, and therefore her utility bill will be 10 times higher than mine. But that is okay, because she is obviously still paying into the system.
Originally posted by bknapple32
Originally posted by Krieger
This is the plan. Obama will cut it for the bottom 90%. He will cut it more then McCain will. But that's apparently a bad thing. The Bottom 90% need to be taxed so the top 10% can get more tax money. After all they get more tax money through corporate welfare from the government then every little person on welfare has in the entire history of welfare. But that poor black man getting 300dollars a month is the problem not the old white billionaire getting 20billion dollars.
With your permission kreiger, Im posting that tax comparison everywhere I post when this debate comes up. OBAMA ACTUALLY HELPS OUT THE MIDDLE CLASS and takes care of spending by raising it on the upper 10%. I highly doubt most Mccain supporters are in the upper 10% bracket. Why would the yvote against themselves?
Measured against current law and against the promises of his fellow Democrats, Obama would rack up huge deficits. According to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama's tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018.
Originally posted by Twilly
Originally posted by bknapple32
Originally posted by Krieger
This is the plan. Obama will cut it for the bottom 90%. He will cut it more then McCain will. But that's apparently a bad thing. The Bottom 90% need to be taxed so the top 10% can get more tax money. After all they get more tax money through corporate welfare from the government then every little person on welfare has in the entire history of welfare. But that poor black man getting 300dollars a month is the problem not the old white billionaire getting 20billion dollars.
With your permission kreiger, Im posting that tax comparison everywhere I post when this debate comes up. OBAMA ACTUALLY HELPS OUT THE MIDDLE CLASS and takes care of spending by raising it on the upper 10%. I highly doubt most Mccain supporters are in the upper 10% bracket. Why would the yvote against themselves?
What you guys are forgetting is...
That we are employed by the upper class... Who here works for someone that makes less than them??? The Gvmt raises taxes, you get fired...
and Corperations PAY NO TAXES!!! the taxes they pay trickles down to you thru higher costs of goods and services...
How again does raising taxes on the upper class help the lower and middle class??? Not to mention that the chart above does not take into account that the guy getting a 19 dollar decrease didnt pay a dime INTO the tax system, and that the guy at the top of the chart is already paying HALF his salary to the goverment...
OBAMA supports SOCIALISM... Welcome to the USSR
Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
Drug companies and other multinational companies based in the U.S. systematically avoid paying tax in the U.S. on their profits.
The Redmond company makes products here but records software sales to PC makers and high-volume customers through an operation in Nevada, where there is no corporate tax. So Washington is missing out on revenue it could use for badly needed infrastructure needs — like replacement of the 520 bridge.
He and other tax specialists said they were unsure whether the no-taxes-paid trend is likely to accelerate. But they offered greater assurance that federal officials anticipated the likely outcome of the tax law changes.
"My sense of it is that the people who introduce these provisions know exactly who is going to benefit," Gleckman said.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more...
The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income.
Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000
The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year...
At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000...
The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line.
From there it keeps going up...it goes up 50 km (~30 miles) on this scale!