posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:33 PM
reply to post by Valhall
There has always been and there will always be, no matter what form of government you have, people who have more (money and/or power) and
people who have less. Even in a socialized government all you have done is made the populace below the bar of "have more" and those in power the
extremely limited group above that bar. And the major difference between the system you get with a socialized economy and that you naturally have with
a capitalistic economy is in the former there is little to no chance of making your own way up above that bar. The government legislates that forced
"caste" system on the society.
Talking about hyperbole. How did we get to this from talking about tax brackets?
Shades of socialism does not a fascist dictatorship make. Just the same as degrees of capitalism doesn't make a Republic (look at China). Perhaps you
need to re-read what I've wrote. Maybe then we can attempt to debate a single well-defined point, rather than generalizing that you're either for one
system or against it. Because I'm all for simplification of the tax code. However I'm against simplification to the point of having a single flat tax
bracket. It would probably work much better, as a three or four tier system with less ways for people to perform "questionable deductions." That's a
sane reform. Actually I think it would be kind of interesting to do a single trial run (just for a year) to see how something like this would work in
The government should not be trying to TAX companies back into America.
Just the same as we shouldn't provide subsidies to companies that want to leave the States. Cutting off the gravy train for people who want to have
their pie and eat it too should be a no brainer, especially for someone who cares about "America's Got Product." From what I've read in S.3364 the
whole point of the insourcing expense is to make it tax deductible.
‘SEC. 45S. CREDIT FOR INSOURCING EXPENSES.
‘(a) In General- For purposes of section 38, the insourcing expenses credit for any taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent of the
eligible insourcing expenses of the taxpayer which are taken into account in such taxable year under subsection (d).
The eligible insourcing expenses are sufficiently broad to cover all of Internal Revenue Code section 162, up to and including permits, license fees,
and other associated local governmental costs. That's pretty generous! And it comes at a cost to the American taxpayer. However I think if we want
more jobs locally, this is a great way to help bolster the US economy. Though I'm sure it would still require a slight increase in costs for the
average consumer due to competition with cheaper foreign exports.
If they want to legislatively force the situation, the penalizing movement should be toward imports.
I think this would provide more incentive. So I'm inclined to agree. Though this might be like using a jack hammer when only a hammer is necessary.
S.3364 seems like a possible middle ground. I'm not sure to be honest.
If people (ALL people) are not required to support the common services they are provided, to every single instance in history it devolves into
the Tragedy of the Commons. When people perceive a common benefit/service as "free" (even though it is not), that service falls into abuse by those
who can use but are not held accountable. That service falls into ruin due to lack of ownership and accountability. Over and over in history the
tragedy of the commons has been proven out and right now, right here, we're watching it occur again.
Absolutely no disagreement there.
You can hate on them all you want but guess what? They couldn't have done it without us, the consumer, flocking to their store, abandoning the
local stores to save a few bucks, and now we are complicit.
I don't shop at WalMart. Never have. Never will. So while this may be applicable for a large segment of the population. I'm in no way feeding the
beast. Most of my money already goes into the local economy. When I was in WA, working at Microsoft, funny as it may seem, the higher up the food
chain you went the more likely a person was to spend out of state. There were a couple of times I remember a manager talking about how he and the
family made a trip to Oregon to skip paying the state sales tax for a couple of big ticket items. I think to purchase a vehicle. I suppose, people
will be people. Everyone's going to look out for their own self interests. Which is why we can't always s### on the little guy who's helpless and at
the mercy of the system because those of us who can often do. And you know what this is called? It's called being a bully. A basic social net for
those who are the most vulnerable is "a good thing."(tm)
edit on 20-7-2012 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)