The question then becomes whether that can be said, doesn't it?
Well considering China owns the US's financial cojones, I would say that was a reasonable thing to say.
Corporate tax avoidance is a worldwide problem. Corporations everywhere are doing what Apple does and setting up their trading affairs in 'unnatural' configurations designed to minimise tax, and for no other reason. It's legal, but immoral.
Because companies create economy. You don't. They use money to do business. You use money to consume.
I thought the economy was driven by consuming.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
That isn't really true at all. They have a reasonably stable banking system and favorable infrastructure here. Some countries do operate the way I mentioned. I'd have to look up the list again, but you're simply fear mongering. I mean you might lose some that are already heavily weighted overseas, but there's nothing to support the idea that the only thing which keeps these companies in the US at all is the ability to hold profits overseas. Anyone is welcome to prove me wrong on this.
Yeah. We French have the same argument coming again and again: "if taxes on corporations are raised, they'll leave for the US". Not going to happen ever. CEO and board have family houses in France/Italy/wherever and aren't going to commute to San Francisco or anywhere else in the US... Corporations are "nameless" entities, but their boards are very standard issue humans.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
If you think that's a lot of money, you should check out how much Congress already spent.
Talk about congress spending -- the thing that bothers me the most is propping up other govts (let Iraq pay us back in petrol), cut the earmarks/porkbarrel spending now -- if it does not have something to do with legislation being voted/debated on then don't allow amendments. Cut the entitlements and the military spending to stop foreign civil wars and pot smuggling. There should be no black budget items -- period. Cut the size of government -- we have depts that are in place to watch depts that watch other depts… Make campaigns fair by not allowing any private funding for a single candidate (it all gets dumped into a pool and divided even handedly).
Limit politicians terms, salaries and retirement. Politicians should be the first ones one the ObamaCare health plan instead of the most expensive health care plan of any other fed worker.
Seriously look into a flat tax -- no deductions, no tax penalty for making more than someone else -- we can all pays the same rate. (Of course that would put so many lawyers out of business it might actually cause a depression instead of just a recession!)
In fact, statements like yours miss the point and defend the status quo. The point was and still is that the Reps and Dems both spend too much. That is a fact that cannot be denied. ...
You aren't going to solve our economic problems with austerity budgets, just make them worse. The problems of this country are directly traceable to the voodoo economics pursued by the right over the past 30 years. The only way out is to reverse those policies, reverse the current transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, and reverse the ridiculous policy of try to fix deficits by slashing revenue.
Those of you blaming everything on spending too much aren't offering a solution, just misdirected anger based on an incomplete understanding of the problems and their causes.
I thought the economy was driven by consuming.
Not really. That's what the press (and politicians) have told you. It's wrong. The economy is driven by production first. Yes for the purpose of consumption, but production must come first (actually saving...foregoing current consumption...comes even before that.)
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
... Limit politicians terms, salaries and retirement. Politicians should be the first ones one the ObamaCare health plan instead of the most expensive health care plan of any other fed worker.
Seriously look into a flat tax -- no deductions, no tax penalty for making more than someone else -- we can all pays the same rate. (Of course that would put so many lawyers out of business it might actually cause a depression instead of just a recession!)
Yeah, that's what we need to do, discourage or prohibit people from being engaged in governing, that way we can ensure that we have a government that has no idea what it's doing.
A flat tax ignores the fact that some people benefit disproportionately from the social contract, and, so, in fairness, ought to contribute disproportionately to its maintenance.
And it's crucial to note that true "cuts" are not defined as "reductions in proposed spending increases," but rather "spending XX% less than we did last year."
Good point. Corollary: True tax increases are not defined as elimination of tax cuts legislated to be temporary. Will you tell your tea party buddies to stop telling lies?
Yeah, that's what we need to do, discourage or prohibit people from being engaged in governing, that way we can ensure that we have a government that has no idea what it's doing.
A flat tax ignores the fact that some people benefit disproportionately from the social contract, and, so, in fairness, ought to contribute disproportionately to its maintenance.
Both very good points.
Not really. That's what the press (and politicians) have told you. It's wrong. The economy is driven by production first. Yes for the purpose of consumption, but production must come first (actually saving...foregoing current consumption...comes even before that.)
I believe the Economic theory most favoured is that successful economies tend to be demand driven. Production happens as a consequence of, and in response to, demand. The Soviet union was not terribly successful with the production driven model and it's 5 year plans etc.
I believe the Economic theory most favoured is that successful economies tend to be demand driven. Production happens as a consequence of, and in response to, demand. The Soviet union was not terribly successful with the production driven model and it's 5 year plans etc.
You're free to believe whatever you like of course. However, in this case, what you believe is simply wrong (on all three points.) I'm sorry.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Not really. That's what the press (and politicians) have told you. It's wrong. The economy is driven by production first. Yes for the purpose of consumption, but production must come first (actually saving...foregoing current consumption...comes even before that.)
Chicken
Quote:
I believe the Economic theory most favoured is that successful economies tend to be demand driven. Production happens as a consequence of, and in response to, demand. The Soviet union was not terribly successful with the production driven model and it's 5 year plans etc.
Egg
You're free to believe whatever you like of course. However, in this case, what you believe is simply wrong (on all three points.) I'm sorry.
Chicken poop
They don't, though. Not by a long shot. We owe far more to ourselves than we do to anyone externally.
Japan owns as much of our debt as China. You don't hear DIDDLY about them. They whine about China because it's all "big and terrifying", how they're the "next superpower". As if. They won't come a'callin' collect because we keep their currency cheap. They want their debt back, we'll give it to them in the form of hyperinflation of the Yuan.
And that still solves roughly 1/100th of the actual debt.
But personal tax avoidance; that's fine?
So accountants who help you pay the least amount of taxes: they're accessories to your crime? Come tax time, do you just pay the government every penny you have left over from the year, and then when you get your (massive) refund, you just give it right back?
They don't, though. Not by a long shot. We owe far more to ourselves than we do to anyone externally.
Exactly.
Japan owns as much of our debt as China. You don't hear DIDDLY about them. They whine about China because it's all "big and terrifying", how they're the "next superpower".
Well, Japan was the "frenemy" du jour not long ago.
They want their debt back, we'll give it to them in the form of hyperinflation of the Yuan.
"their" debt?
Chicken poop
How cute. Some study of economics in this area may help you see the error.
Production precedes consumption.
Yes production is done for demand. But I was being very precise (and correct) in what I said. The issue though is that demand is never really the problem. There is always demand. In fact, demand is, for all practical purposes, infinite. It is a given. Production, however, is not given. In fact this is the assumption that it is that is the Achilles heel of demand-side economic thinking. It assumes production. But this is a major error. A seriously erroneous assumption.
Production precedes consumption.
Furthermore, to be more precise about the other poster's comments, the Soviet economy was specifically a production for use model (as opposed to production for profit.) This is a critically important distinction. But it is also slightly different from the discussion of the relationship between production and consumption.
Actually if you think about this carefully and logically the conclusion should be plainly clear.
Here are a couple items that may help:
Consumption vs. Production, or...The Anatomy of a Stimulus
Production, Not Consumption, Drives the Economy
Or, more succinctly, read up on Say's Law.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Because companies create economy. You don't. They use money to do business. You use money to consume.
Nonesense!
Sure he creates economy. Even if he was only a child spending his pocket money he would create economy.
And consuming is creating economy.
Yes, the scale is much smaller than a big company but he's not alone. There are 314 million others.
Nonesense!
Sure he creates economy. Even if he was only a child spending his pocket money he would create economy.
And consuming is creating economy.
You're being a bit imprecise (and incorrect.) What is really meant it what creates wealth (not "the economy.") And it is production that does this and, more specifically, increasing labor productivity which, in turns, comes from applying capital to labor. This capital comes from savings and investment, which comes from foregoing current consumption.
It is the generally understood fact that people with higher incomes have a higher propensity to save (and invest) that the theory that taxing these people less (or more) results in greater (or less) investment in production which leads to greater overall wealth creation.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Well, that's a mouthful of BS. Firstly, Eisenhower was a fiscal conservative. After the WW2 (and the Korean war), while the highest tax bracket remained high, Eisenhower aggressively cut gov't spending against liberals', "the spenders", dire warning that the economy would relapse back into depression. As the gov't spending was cut, private demand / consumption grew. Throughout the 50's, the economy remained strong & inflation low, so much so that W. Martin created two artificial recessions to cool down the economy.
National debt steadily declined since Truman, despite his unnecessary, expensive, bungled war in Korea. LBJ's warfare / welfare programs instead gave us the the double digit inflation & the lost decade. Reagan was precisely elected to end the macroeconomic instability caused by 1+ decade of liberals' warfare/welfare programs.
Truman was president from 1945 - 1953. Yes, the Debt/GDP ratio dropped from 116% down to 70% during that time...BUT it continued dropping during the following Democratic administrations as well. It went all the way down to 32% by 1980, and that was with government spending increasing each year. By 1990, after a solid decade of GOP administrations, it was back up to 55%.
Can you objectively define "fair share" for us. ...
As pointed out previously, you can't "objectively define" a concept like fairness. What would it even mean to "objectively define" it? If you can't describe what that definition would be, you can't ask for it.
If we look at dictionary definitions of 'fair' the one that comes closest to the meaning in this context is, "just or appropriate in the circumstances." So, just what are the circumstances?
The circumstances include the things mentioned in the quote above, schools, police and fire protection, financial infrastructure, transportation infrastructure and much more that establishes the foundation of the society we live in. No one built these things on their own, yet many have built their fortunes by taking advantage of these and other benefits that our society, our social contract, provides. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, that's why we, as a society, acting together, create and build them.
The circumstances also include the fact that for anyone who manages to build a fortune, to create wealth for themselves, there is a certain element of chance involved. For every hard working millionaire -- and we'll ignore for now the issue of hereditary wealth, which is entirely based on luck -- there are a dozen, or a hundred, or maybe a thousand people who worked just as hard, who even had just as good an idea, who fail because of circumstances not entirely under their control. Are the ones who succeeded more deserving? Simply because they succeeded? Or are they simply, in most cases, simply more fortunate -- better connections because of birth or the school they got into, just happening to be there at the right time and place? Would they have had any chance to even be fortunate without the foundation our society provides them?
Anyone who honestly asks these questions can't honestly come up with any answer other than that, yes, fortune, while favoring the bold, is also fickle, and without the conditions our society creates to enable success, these people would never be able to amass fortunes, other than perhaps through force in the midst of anarchy.
So, if we ask what's fair in terms of taxes, given the circumstances under which people acquire wealth, I think the formula I expressed earlier is the most fair: that those who benefit disproportionately from the social contract, ought, in fairness, contribute disproportionately to its maintenance.
It is the generally understood fact that people with higher incomes have a higher propensity to save (and invest) that the theory that taxing these people less (or more) results in greater (or less) investment in production which leads to greater overall wealth creation.
That's very nearly a tautology, that you have to have money to save and invest money. Unfortunately, the specific conclusion you promote doesn't have any real basis. The greatest periods of economic growth in the last century have been not, like now, when the wealthy control more of the nations wealth, but when the middle class is strong and actually a middle class, not just not as poor as the poor. So, no, letting the rich keep as much of their money as possible does not provide the greatest economic benefit. It might possibly lead to "greater overall wealth creation" under certain specific circumstances, but if the rest of the society that makes that wealth possible isn't able to share in the "good times", it's of no real benefit to that society. So, even if it were shown to be true, it's an entirely academic point, not a recipe for what's best for our society, or our democracy.
Those arguing that we should make taxes on the rich as low as possible are trying to have their cake and eat it too, wanting to reap the benefits of the society they are fortunate enough to live in without helping it prosper in the future.
It is the generally understood fact that people with higher incomes have a higher propensity to save (and invest) that the theory that taxing these people less (or more) results in greater (or less) investment in production which leads to greater overall wealth creation.
Greater wealth production for whom? Certainly not for the general public, as wealth inequality has grown by leaps and bounds during the last 30 years. Wages and job growth have slowed significantly during the last 30 years vs. 1950 - 1980, and yet profit as a percentage of GDP is currently at an all-time high. The deficit has also exploded during the last 30 years, while it consistently dropped during 1950 - 1980. It should be obvious to anyone after three decades of supply side dominated policy that the big tax cuts to the wealthy and business/investors are of direct benefit to those who are receiving them, and not so much to anyone else.
Talk about congress spending -- the thing that bothers me the most is propping up other govts (let Iraq pay us back in petrol)
It's the "if you break it, you rebuild it" rule of regime change. Too bad the American taxpayer paid for both.
Greater wealth production for whom?
For everyone (or nearly so.)
Certainly not for the general public, as wealth inequality has grown by leaps and bounds during the last 30 years.
But that doesn't mean that wealth hasn't grown for almost everyone.
It should be obvious to anyone after three decades of supply side dominated policy that the big tax cuts to the wealthy and business/investors are of direct benefit to those who are receiving them, and not so much to anyone else.
It should be "obvious" to those making a fairly superficial analysis of the situation.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Since Congress controls the purse it would be more helpful for this analysis to examine who was in control of Congress during these times. Though even that analysis will have weaknesses not the least because the degree of control likely matters, deals that are made and later reneged (as the Democrats have frequently done with promised spending cuts in exchange for tax rate increases) as well as the changing nature of the people under the respective party labels. But it would at least be closer to the reality since Congress controls the budgets.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
That's very nearly a tautology, that you have to have money to save and invest money.
Not at all. Go back and try again.
The greatest periods of economic growth in the last century have been not, like now, when the wealthy control more of the nations wealth, but when the middle class is strong and actually a middle class, not just not as poor as the poor.
And that is very nearly a straw man.
So, no, letting the rich keep as much of their money as possible does not provide the greatest economic benefit. It might possibly lead to "greater overall wealth creation" under certain specific circumstances, but if the rest of the society that makes that wealth possible isn't able to share in the "good times", it's of no real benefit to that society. So, even if it were shown to be true, it's an entirely academic point, not a recipe for what's best for our society, or our democracy.
*sigh* I really wish I had the time to explain this to you. Sadly, I don't. Further, based on past experience, it would be a waste of my time. Suffice it to say you're quite wrong.
Those arguing that we should make taxes on the rich as low as possible are trying to have their cake and eat it too, wanting to reap the benefits of the society they are fortunate enough to live in without helping it prosper in the future.
This is utter nonsense.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Actually, yes, it does, and wealth has not, "grown for almost everyone."
Actually, no it doesn't. Go back an re-read more carefully.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Since Congress controls the purse it would be more helpful for this analysis to examine who was in control of Congress during these times. Though even that analysis will have weaknesses not the least because the degree of control likely matters, deals that are made and later reneged (as the Democrats have frequently done with promised spending cuts in exchange for tax rate increases) as well as the changing nature of the people under the respective party labels. But it would at least be closer to the reality since Congress controls the budgets.
Actually, what would be helpful, would be to examine under what economic theory these actions were taken. It turns out to be the economic theory pushed by the right, and the one you are pushing here now. It's been demonstrated by its results to be a catastrophic failure.
Actually, what would be helpful, would be to examine under what economic theory these actions were taken. It turns out to be the economic theory pushed by the right, and the one you are pushing here now. It's been demonstrated by its results to be a catastrophic failure.
More nonsense. Sadly, it appears I was right. Goodbye.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
*sigh* I really wish I had the time to explain this to you. Sadly, I don't. Further, based on past experience, it would be a waste of my time. Suffice it to say you're quite wrong.
Based on past experience, it would be a waste of time, since you've never, in any of your posts actually presented the slightest argument or the slimmest of facts to support any of your positions. You simply declare that things are as you want them to be. Sorry, they aren't, they are as they are.
More nonsense. Sadly, it appears I was right. Goodbye.
Right, because the point is not to get at the truth but to pin the blame? Well, the blame rests squarely on the economic policies followed in this country for the past 30 years. The results have been catastrophic as we unlearned every lesson learned from The Great Depression and put ourselves into The Great Recession. When George H. W. Bush labeled these economic policies "Voodoo Economics", he had it entirely correct. Unfortunately, not enough believed him at the time and the damage inflicted by these policies will take years, possibly decades, to recover from. But we won't recover at all if we don't acknowledge the truth that we created The Great Recession ourselves by following economic policies that have proven to be an abject failure.
Talk about congress spending -- the thing that bothers me the most is propping up other govts (let Iraq pay us back in petrol), cut the earmarks/porkbarrel spending now -- if it does not have something to do with legislation being voted/debated on then don't allow amendments. Cut the entitlements and the military spending to stop foreign civil wars and pot smuggling. There should be no black budget items -- period. Cut the size of government -- we have depts that are in place to watch depts that watch other depts… Make campaigns fair by not allowing any private funding for a single candidate (it all gets dumped into a pool and divided even handedly).
Limit politicians terms, salaries and retirement. Politicians should be the first ones one the ObamaCare health plan instead of the most expensive health care plan of any other fed worker.
Seriously look into a flat tax -- no deductions, no tax penalty for making more than someone else -- we can all pays the same rate. (Of course that would put so many lawyers out of business it might actually cause a depression instead of just a recession!)
Flat tax is not the solution. The Transaction Tax: 1% on every transaction has been mathematically shown to be the answer that NO CORPORATION, FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, etc., wants.
In 2011 nearly $900 Trillion in transactions happened in and within the US and all its business entities. 1% is $9 Trillion in tax revenues. It's been proposed as a replacement to Income Tax and Sales Tax by several Democrats in the US House of Representatives. The GOP has blocked it at after turn.
It's a purely progressive tax. You spend $6 Billion, take 1% of that off the transaction. You spend $20 million on a yacht, take 1% off that transaction. You fill your tank for fuel, take 1% of that transaction.
No loop holes, not special favors. Just straight up tax on every transaction.
They will never do it. It's the most balanced and fair tax possible. It cuts the Tax Code down to size [nothing]. It restructures Tax Revenue laws at the State and Federal Government down to a simple and concise standard, while covering more than the nation's necessary expenses.
Corporations have been burying the idea for decades, in lobbying. It targets actual transactions, not pre/post tax revenues and incomes.
Nonesense!
Sure he creates economy. Even if he was only a child spending his pocket money he would create economy.
And consuming is creating economy.
Yes, the scale is much smaller than a big company but he's not alone. There are 314 million others.
Well, if companies do not produce what consumers can buy? Further, if companies do not produce enough useful goods and you want use spending to "create" economy what do you get? Inflation!
