Democratic Myth No. 2: Those who have done well should pay their fair share

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Corporations in America have the hightest taxation in the world. On top of that indviduals who work for the corporation pay income tax. The govt gets plenty of taxes from corporations. Do not confuse corporate taxes with the private taxation of individuals.


Yet if people dig enough I am sure they could find plenty of instances where loopholes were used to avoid taxation of money earned in america. This does not address income earned by american corporations overseas which theoretically should be taxed by those foreign governments, correct?

If you were to say small and medium business gets choked with over-taxation and generally speaking over-regulation, I would certainly agree. Most people have beef with big business and banks who are above the law because they have plenty of lobby money to spend to guarantee favorable results.




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

Dear Hefficide,

Thank you. Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with you, at least in part.

When I wrote those questions, I was preparing an assault on pirhanna's position:

By all means continue to believe that for no other reason than the grace of god, some men should own the labors of other men.
It seemed to me quite reasonable that one man should buy the labor of another for a freely negotiated price. It seems that at least there, we agree.

But you bring up two questions, both of which are very troublesome and significant. What does "freely" negotiated mean? This changes from time to time. For example, in our current situation people will do almost anything for a job, the need for survival brings them to the point of accepting anything with very little freedom to negotiate or find an alternative. Sometimes, it's the other way around. I understand the employers near the Dakota oil fields will do anything to get workers, there, the employers have little choice. And, of course there are those fortunate workers who have special skills that allow them to pick and choose their work.

I'm willing to accept a situation where one side has more negotiating power than the other, they're never exactly equal anyway. But I'm not clear about how large a disparity can be tolerated. (I really don't know.)

That leads to the second question, "What do we do about it?" Certainly the government can't get involved in every labor decision, there are just too many with nearly infinite variables. And if the government attempts to install national or industry-wide rules, there will be significant disruptions because the details are being ignored.

You remember, from your economics course, what happens if the government fixes prices for anything from milk to wages. If it's a ceiling, the rule either has no effect, or creates a shortage. In a halfway decent economy, this problem wouldn't be happening (so we have to get back to one as soon as possible), but in this economy it is happening and people are hurting. A solution that will both work quickly and not cause harm? I don't see one.

If we make it too tough for workers, they get discouraged, go on welfare and the economy stops. If we make it too tough on businesses, they shut down or move to somewhere they like better, and the economy stops. I just don't know.

With respect,
Charles1952
edit on 2-10-2012 by charles1952 because: Remove surplus quote



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





theoretically should be taxed by those foreign governments, correct?


Well, in your mind theoretically that "should" be the case but it is not and we do not control the tax rate of foreign countries(unless you know something I don't), and if it were the case our corporations wouldn't go overseas, or that is if our corporate tax rate were competitive with foreign countries it would no longer be necessary to go overseas, except that all the Union thing and other regulations such as EPA and OSHA still have to be taken into account.
Again, either borrow from China and buy their goods or give our corporations incentives to operate at home. That is pretty much the deal like it or not.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





if we make it too tough on businesses


Sorry I had to comment on this tiny bit of your post. I know that this is the logic of a good percentage of conservatives and I see why it seems logical, but I totally disagree that it is.

The only way left to make things easier on businesses (big business) is to outright say "do whatever you want, you're now officially beyond reproach".



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





It seemed to me quite reasonable that one man should buy the labor of another for a freely negotiated price. It seems that at least there, we agree.


That is absolutely the basis for the contractual agreement between buyer and seller, and what the market will bear. Socialists and communists do not want to go by that agreement and insist on bringing in the govt as a third party negotiator, and the unions as well, and force businesses to deal with these third party negotiators.

And by the way, thank you for a very eloquent statement on the balance between the parties of negotiation.
edit on 2-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





theoretically should be taxed by those foreign governments, correct?


Well, in your mind theoretically that "should" be the case but it is not and we do not control the tax rate of foreign countries(unless you know something I don't), and if it were the case our corporations wouldn't go overseas, or that is if our corporate tax rate were competitive with foreign countries it would no longer be necessary to go overseas, except that all the Union thing and other regulations such as EPA and OSHA still have to be taken into account.
Again, either borrow from China and buy their goods or give our corporations incentives to operate at home. That is pretty much the deal like it or not.


How can america compete, in terms of taxation rates and regulations, with china/india/bangladesh/vietnam, taiwan, etc?? They cannot! It is a given! These countries are hungry for capital investment and will do almost anything to lure money. The global capitalist do not care if they wreck the enviroment and pay slave wages for slave hours. THEY BUY THE GOVERNMENT just like they do in america. It is a given!

Next thing you will see is "we must keep wages down to allow american employers to compete with asian employers, and then african employers who pay $1 a day. Give me a break, don't you see how backass retarded this is??? ..


Unions play a role and are extremely important. Just because they become corrupt does not mean we do not need them to exist in some form. They need improvements. Dumb people voting for right wing governments are the reason we are in this fascist world takeover.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Well, how did we do it before? Do these countries have to be entrenched in the conditions of the Third World before the industrialization for us to compete?
You just are unwilling to admit that practices of the Unions is what is ultimately stopping US corporations from being competitive in the world market.

Must we get into the true definitions of fascism now?
edit on 2-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


See! Mr Charles, Sir. This I enjoy. No pejoratives, or labels. Just honest discussion and respectfully stated opinions and thoughts.

For that, I sincerely thank you.

Your post covers a lot of ground and, due to external factors in my real life, at the moment, I cannot do your whole post justice currently. But I was struck by one section of it and shall reply to that for now:



Originally posted by charles1952

That leads to the second question, "What do we do about it?" Certainly the government can't get involved in every labor decision, there are just too many with nearly infinite variables. And if the government attempts to install national or industry-wide rules, there will be significant disruptions because the details are being ignored.


I would propose the concept of a system that incentivizes, through the administration of a tax code, the notion of companies treating their workers "fairly" - IE paying them a living wage, and offering at least modest benefits. The more an employer shares in the success of his enterprise, with his workers, the lower his taxation level.

While no expert, I think this one concept ( an abstract, I agree - but a foundation for an idea at least ) could address literally a plethora of social and political issues all by itself. It would create a situation where worker prosperity was in the best interest of both the worker AND the employer.

Given that I have honestly just had this come to mind - I have not yet had any time to properly analyze the notion, so there may be flaws. "Spitballing" is the term I would choose to describe this post.

Whatever the case, the fact that we are having a discussion, from opposite sides of the court, and are able to engage in the exchange of ideas is very refreshing and redeeming to me. So, again, I thank you.

~Heff
edit on 10/2/12 by Hefficide because: clarity



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Dear Kali74,

Hello, again. Good to see you. And thanks for talking to me. Some member has become so mad at me that (he-she) doesn't want me to talk to (her-him), glad it's not you.


if we make it too tough on businesses
I was pretty vague there, wasn't I? Two ways of making it difficult for business come to mind. One is to have very high taxes and very strict and all-encompassing regulations. The other is to have taxes and regulations that are frequently changing, making planning difficult. I think businesses should have "reasonable" (whatever that means) and stable, rewards and regulations.

I certainly don't believe in "do whatever you want" in most areas of life. Humans are corrupt (or sinful, or fallen, you get the idea) and there is a need for some limits imposed from the outside because we have failed to impose them on ourselves.

But if you disagree with me, I take that seriously, and would like to find out where you see me going wrong.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Well, how did we do it before? Do these countries have to be entrenched in the conditions of the Third World before the industrialization for us to compete?
You just are unwilling to admit that practices of the Unions is what is ultimately stopping US corporations from being competitive in the world market.

Must we get into the true definitions of fascism now?
edit on 2-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


It is up to the people of each nation to vote left or at worst center. If they demand protectionism, good wages for reasonable hours. a healthy enviroment, etc........then they could very well get it. But then the cia gets involved and tries to overthrow those regimes; there are so many examples of this the last 60 years I cannot be bothered to cite examples. A classic one is chavez of venezuela who is being demonised as a communist when he actually is a centrist.

Allow people to vote properly and everything changes. You seem to ignore what is going on everywhere because it does not suit your right wing agenda of domination and control of the elite. It is not enough to be anti-federal reserve, one must support all social classes to an extent and allow foreigners the right of self-determination.

We are paying the price of our own stupidity, not to mention the thousands of american soldiers dying overseas to fight socialism/communism. Total waste! Now we must also fight islam to protect the zionist bankers because jews are soooooo special.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

So if you want them to pay 75% shouldn't they be entitled to better benifits than someone who pays 14%?


Nope. They can afford all the benefits they want.
They should pay more because they can afford it without affecting their standard of living.

I don't care if it's not fair. Taxes aren't fair to begin with.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide and ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Dear gentlemen (Dare I say "Dear Geniuses?")

I think you two have combined to find the way out of this mess. Now all we have to do is teach the world.

ThirdEyeofHorus, you stand firm on the principle:

That is absolutely the basis for the contractual agreement between buyer and seller, and what the market will bear. Socialists and communists do not want to go by that agreement and insist on bringing in the govt as a third party negotiator, and the unions as well, and force businesses to deal with these third party negotiators.
You're right of course, and that should not happen.

But then Hefficide adds the finishing touch:

I would propose the concept of a system that incentivizes, through the administration of a tax code, the notion of companies treating their workers "fairly" - IE paying them a living wage, and offering at least modest benefits.
Shall I break out the bubbly? Hefficide's suggestion may be benefitted by some ironing out, but he said he was just spitballing, so whaddya want?

Some areas that need to be (what's the word, "un-spit?") worked on, involve a couple of words that are hard to define. "Fair" is always tough, so is "living wage."

When we start raising the minimum wage, there is a tendency for two things to happen. As people get more income, they want to buy more "stuff." because more "stuff" is wanted, demand goes up and that pushes prices up. Further, if a company starts paying more to it's workers, it will tend to raise the cost of the product to cover the wages. Both of these things will tend to push the price of living up, and the "living wage" won't cut it anymore.

By paying for it by tax breaks, the taxpayer is then subsidizing every business in the country that is currently paying low wages. Now, I don't mind that, in limited amounts, but it's something to keep an eye on.

One other problem is to not make the "incentives" so large as to make them coercive. We've got the problem now of unequal bargaining power. As ThirdEyeofHorus said, bringing in third party negotiators (in this case, the government) isn't a solution at all. And do we trust the government to be even-handed in a situation like this?

I know what the Classical models call for, and I sure do love me them Classical models, but this is also a political situation which requires some shorter-term action, even if it's not the most efficient solution.

You know, I do tend to get wordy. Hefficide, could you get the staff to cut my post limit from 5,000 characters to 2,000? (Or come up with an incentive program?
)

I can't fully express my gratitude for your contributions. It proves that if you wade through enough slop, you'll eventually find a pearl. (The pearl, by the way came from a Christian who did throw his pearls before swine.
Apparently, it's time for more medications.)

With respect
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 


Top 10% earners payed 70% of all revenue in 2009. Top 1% paid 36.5% of all revenue while only filing 1.38 million returns. The average tax rate on bottom 50% was 1.85% Already looks fair to me but with the buffett rule now not even the obama phone recipiantes can cry wolf. source: taxfoundation.org...



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by newcovenant
 



Everyone's equal and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If Romney pays 11% we all should pay 11%.


Try to keep up!


Romney pays 14% and he pays that on capital gains….not payroll income. He’s paying taxes on investment gains made on money he invested after paying @ 50%.

Nobody should argue about things they know nothing about.
edit on 1-10-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)


Well that would include yourself because he never paid 50 percent in to anything.
Don't think I'm stupid or anyone else is.

Since when should "investment gains" - income where you do nothing be taxed different than WORK, income where your investment is WORK, sweat and hours and years off your life, in other words a paycheck?

So he should pay less because he didn't have to work for it?

Stop twisting it around so it looks like Romney pays as much percentage of taxes as a common working man. He doesn't. It's disgusting. Percentage of income. Not amount.

One party exists because it speaks for the working man and the working man outnumbers the non working man. Mitt Romney is a non working man. He buys companies where men work and lays them off. That is not work.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



That is absolutely the basis for the contractual agreement between buyer and seller, and what the market will bear. Socialists and communists do not want to go by that agreement and insist on bringing in the govt as a third party negotiator, and the unions as well, and force businesses to deal with these third party negotiators.


I have a friend who used to build elevators in NYC in prior to OSHA. He said they used to loose a few men a week and it was not uncommon for multiple lives to be lost in the construction business around the city. After OSHA came in a forced contractors and business to protect the workers - deaths virtually stopped.

There is one party whose every decision shows the lowly worker is expendable. Say a few businesses hired the entire country and SUDDENLY those business's decided to lay everyone off and computerize. Would that be just the way the market crumbles and tough tatas? Would the corporations then have simply won and the unemployed wander in the streets. The corporatist s would then have to protect themselves from those they left unemployed and wandering in the streets...laws would be changed...it could get ugly. That is where we are going.

Are you a COUNTRY?

Are you a vehicle for free enterprise to run until it grows into a monstrosity that takes you over?

DECIDE.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Most of the rich might pay there fair share. However, the super rich dont. You know the Rothschilds , Rockefellers, and stuff like that

If you can convince me that they need even 1% of the money they have, I'd listen. But i doubt that.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283
Most of the rich might pay there fair share. However, the super rich dont. You know the Rothschilds , Rockefellers, and stuff like that

If you can convince me that they need even 1% of the money they have, I'd listen. But i doubt that.


Yeah. It is a well known fact these two families have trillions of dollars hidden all over the place.

What the heck can someone do with that kind of money, unless they intend to use it FOR CONTROL OF PEOPLE?

If countries are not sovereign and looking into the central bank is prohibitied, then by gosh someone is doing something. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out either. As the saying goes "always follow the money".



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 

Dear newcovenant,

I think I'm in agreement with you. You may be ascribing to me a position which I don't really hold. Please note what I said earlier on this page:


I was pretty vague there, wasn't I? Two ways of making it difficult for business come to mind. One is to have very high taxes and very strict and all-encompassing regulations. The other is to have taxes and regulations that are frequently changing, making planning difficult. I think businesses should have "reasonable" (whatever that means) and stable, rewards and regulations.

I certainly don't believe in "do whatever you want" in most areas of life. Humans are corrupt (or sinful, or fallen, you get the idea) and there is a need for some limits imposed from the outside because we have failed to impose them on ourselves.
You see, I am not opposed to all regulations or limits on Capitalism, indeed, I think that some are absolutely necessary. Many believe that some of the OSHA regulations are unnecessary, but I have no problem with it, overall. Fine idea, and I'm happy when it prevents deaths or injuries.


There is one party whose every decision shows the lowly worker is expendable. Say a few businesses hired the entire country and SUDDENLY those business's decided to lay everyone off and computerize. Would that be just the way the market crumbles and tough tatas? Would the corporations then have simply won and the unemployed wander in the streets.
As you know, things are more complicated than that. Fire everybody in the country and who buys the products? Then those few companies go broke and the whole country is unemployed.

Now if there are no jobs to be had, that's where I'd like the government to be putting in it's efforts to solve. That way people laid off in one place go to another company that is prospering and growing. The companies that are failures die off, and the "good" companies grow.

But of course there has to be help for those who are unable to work. I'd prefer that it come first from private sources, but then the government if still necessary.

I really don't think we are far apart.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Oh sorry about how that came off there. I was responding to a part of a post by ThirdEyeofHorus as I recall that was embedded in your post. I apologize for barging into your discussion and the DECIDE part was kind of to say we need to remember we are a country that needs to do what's in the best interest of the most of us, not the fewest of us. It does seem a little rude of me to direct it at you, my reasonable friend!
There should be watchdogs but I'm not sure govt should be moving people from one job to the next. I also think people should start with what they want rather than let Capitalism decide what they get. This is a flaw in Capitalism that is not exactly worked out because people's wants are relative. Capitalism waves shiny objects. Who makes what we need, like the good roads and the bridges that don't fall down?
edit on 2-10-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Yeah your right it did even though in 1999 Clinton signed the commodity and exchange act (which unregulated the derivative market) and the Grammy-leach-bailey act(which allowed for the first time in 70 years that banks could merge and allowed them to become investment bank) and begged Fannie and Freddie to lower requirements for people to buy houses. As soon as 2000 economist were saying that there could be a bubble. Alan Greenspan said he knew in 05 that there was indeed a bubble. But thanks to new policies the banks were just to big to fail. So they wrote the bill to the taxpayer.





top topics
 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join