Heritage’s Mandate for Leadership called for “An across-theboard reduction in marginal personal income tax rates in each bracket of about 10 percent in 1981, with similar rate reductions in 1982 and 1983.” The Reagan administration not only followed Mandate’s lead, but it appointed Heritage’s Norman Ture, the Mandate author who penned the chapter on tax policy, as treasury secretary for tax and economic affairs—a new position suggested by Mandate. The tax cut that eventually passed—a marginal rate reduction of 25 percent over three years—wiped out America’s economic “malaise,” producing the biggest economic boom in U.S. history.6
This conveniently ignores the fact that the tax cuts also resulted in the tripling of the federal deficit during the Reagan years, among other things. In January 2005, Heritage issued a much shorter, 156-page Mandate for Leadership and had this to say about it:7
The original version, published in 1980, was written for a new administration just gaining widespread support for its ideas. Dubbed the “bible” of the Reagan White House by the Washington Post, it provided a step-by-step guide to how to transform conservative principles into government policy.
“Today, those principles are well established in Washington, well accepted by American voters and well understood everywhere in terms of how they translate into policy,” [President Edwin] Feulner said.
Heritage is but one example of the ways that the rich succeed in influencing public policy, especially tax policy. One hears a constant drumbeat emanating from Heritage and other conservative think tanks to keep taxes low. And the conservative media that these same funders—billionaires like Scaife, Murdoch, Anschutz—own and finance are echoing those messages.
Even though William Kristol’s publication, the Weekly Standard, is a money-losing joke (with only 85,000 subscribers), his association with the publication is enough to get him on TV talk shows whenever he wants and even a column with the New York Times for a year. Similarly, the money-losing Washington Times catapulted Tony Blankley to TV stard ] —Thom Hartmann
[ One way in which the think tanks and the conservative media con the American public is to conflate income taxes for the rich with income taxes for everyone else. And this is the crux of the con job. When Bill Clinton proposed tax increases in 1993, think tanks like Heritage and Cato immediately opposed them with their myths about the negative consequences of tax increases. Here’s what a Heritage “analyst” wrote then:8
Proponents of raising taxes argue that the federal budget cannot be balanced without a tax hike. They argue, too, that tax increases will make the tax code fairer. Some even claim that tax increases will encourage economic growth by reducing the need for federal borrowing.
Raising taxes, however, would be a political and economic mistake, regardless of who pays and what taxes are increased. If history is any guide, higher taxes will fuel additional federal spending....
Higher taxes will shrink the tax base and reduce tax revenues.... In each case, proponents of the hike claimed that the deficit would decline. But in each case, the deficit rose the following year. ] —Thom Hartmann
I don't get it. Apple already pays the appropriate tax on domestic income. People should be up in arms that they are forced to pay any tax on income from foreign sources!
...The acting of the participants in the market are also a regulating force...
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
Why is slavery outlawed?
Because the government that endorsed, supported and protected this abhorrent practice finally came to it senses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
Why are their antidiscriminatory regulations?
Because we have people passing laws that don't respect the basic rights of individuals to discriminate however much we might dislike the act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
Why are their anti-monopoly laws?
Because some less successful competitors got mad and decided to bribe elected officials to use the power the of State instead of competing on their own.
...I'm sorry if you are unable to see the irony and flaw in your thinking here.
First, you're saying competitors will regulate each other's behaviors in a free market and to an extent that is true. That's how our current system works with some exceptions, good and bad. The flaw in that argument is quite apparent when looking at history. With a governing body in place like the real world has at present, corporations pay off said governing body to their advantage. Now let's remove that governing body. The same corporations will just pay off their competitors/partners in the market to take advantage of it. Look at what Intel did to AMD. Look at what Microsoft did to Netscape. Look what cheaper China products do to US products when the government doesn't step in to regulate rigged international trading. (Of course when the Intel incident was brought up before, you claimed ignorance and moved on, so I'll leave you to your one-sided viewpoint)
Honestly there has been government in every society on earth, from the largest empires to the lowliest tribes. You can't provide a single example of a truly free market because there never has been one, so therefore how do you know it will work?
I ask because even as you admit, when government allows corporations to choose to do something inherently wrong, like slavery, discrimination, or something as simple as legal tax evasion, corporations do it. You said government endorsed and protected slavery. That is basically saying the government allowed slavery, and what happened? Plantations and factories populated their workforce with slaves. If you took away the government that allowed slavery, what competitors would have enacted their own version of the Emancipation Proclamation?
Yes, competitors could advertise their goods as "slave-free" products but at a much higher cost. You know what consumers do. A huge percentage vote with their wallets for the lowest price and only a small minority vote for "morally upright" products. The competitors couldn't argue with the slave employers to stop because they have no power over what others do. The market would be flooded with cheap slave-labor goods and those corporations would have the money to buy out or force out all non-slave competition. Too bad those less successful competitors couldn't complain to some nonexistent government to prevent this.
I'm sorry you are unable to see the logical conclusion to your free market. Outside regulation is necessary. Representative government has created the most stable, safe, rich, and free nations the world has known. Nothing is perfect, but I prefer the path we're on to some system that has never wholy existed and through experience has ended up the dead wrong direction to go.
I'll never change your mind though, and historical evidence won't allow me to believe in your unrealistic system, so good day.
If Apple is so 'innovative' in managing income tax, I don't know why they are not doing something about sales tax. If I buy a Mac or any other stuff in the US from Amazon, I do not get charged for sales tax but on Apple online store, I do.
You must be in the same state the point of sale takes place thus Apple has to collect sales tax from you.
I see it very clearly. You seem to be the one pointing to examples of government-supported and protected crony capitalism and offering these as proof that the free market is bad and government is necessary. I find that odd.
Thank you for finally spelling out your ideology. I find parts of it very similar to my thinking, but my disagreement comes from the fact that I do not believe that if capitalism is left without any guards, it would definitely NOT self regulate and would create a slaving monopoly and/or cartel system. How for example you can see the mining societies, which exploited (and still do in Africa - blood diamonds for example) as government-supported and protected crony capitalism, when it occurs in environments where the governments have no power over these corporations is quite baffling. If government officials are bought by big money, it is the people, that should take a stand and correct these by electing other people into office and demanding for increased transparency.
I intentionally did not take AT&T et. al. as an example, because it is an example of a failed regulatory case (I guess they paid the right officials). I never said governments are perfect, just that I believe total unrestricted capitalism is far worse.
You statement: "Now, if we could find some way to limit the State to the role of protecting the basic rights of life, liberty and property (and the logical derivative rights from these) of every citizen (and the vanishingly small amount of taxes that would necessary to pay for that) then I wouldn't have a problem with it." is one I do agree with one exception. How can you protect rights of life, liberty and property is you have no way to enforce those protections? What's your option for a police/military enforcement entity if it is not government controlled? Hopefully not corporate controlled.
I do not believe that if capitalism is left without any guards, it would definitely NOT self regulate and would create a slaving monopoly and/or cartel system.
I understand you believe that. I do not and you, in my opinion, have failed to make a convincing case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
How for example you can see the mining societies, which exploited (and still do in Africa - blood diamonds for example) as government-supported and protected crony capitalism, when it occurs in environments where the governments have no power over these corporations is quite baffling.
It would be necessary to look at the details of each of those situations to do a proper analysis. Sadly government complicity is often difficult to see at first glance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
If government officials are bought by big money, it is the people, that should take a stand and correct these by electing other people into office and demanding for increased transparency.
That doesn't seem to be working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
I believe total unrestricted capitalism is far worse.
And I disagree. Governments are far worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
How can you protect rights of life, liberty and property is you have no way to enforce those protections? What's your option for a police/military enforcement entity if it is not government controlled?
I thought my explanation was clear. Sorry. What I suggested was a legitimate government/State. It would be a government police force. But the role and responsibilities of the State would be limited to those things. As it stands though, they never seems to be constrained to those responsibilities and quickly expand to become infringers, violators and restricting actor. Often at the request of their special interests (corporate and otherwise.) In other words, a small step back from anarcho-capitalism. Some might call it "minarchism" or the "night watchman state."
The problem is that most people look at the State like Santa Claus or as some benevolent benefactor or as some equalizer whose job is to right alleged "wrongs" and they start giving it lots of power that gets used to infringe on some people's lives, liberty and property for the benefit of others. It goes down hill from there. Slowly perhaps, but inevitably it appears.
Depends where you are I guess as well. I can understand your viewpoint living in the US, where the corruption index is 7.1/10. I live in the nordics, where it's in the 9.x/10 range and I don't have any problems with the police or military forces here. Can't remember seeing any news on opressing people with force in recent history.
So where's Amazon "taking place", states without sales tax at all?
Washington State. If you live in WA, you pay sales tax when ordering from Amazon. Amazon is not incorporated in other states, thus they don't have to collect sales tax in those states. Apple is (presumably) incorporated in all 50 states. Thus, you pay sales tax anytime you buy from Apple. And, by law you're supposed to pay sales tax on those untaxed Internet purchases from Amazon, etc. too. But I doubt many (any?) of us do!
Washington State. If you live in WA, you pay sales tax when ordering from Amazon. Amazon is not incorporated in other states, thus they don't have to collect sales tax in those states. Apple is (presumably) incorporated in all 50 states.
Actually it doesn't have to do with the state of incorporation. It is about whether or not the company has a presence (possibly only retail) and/or physically sells product in that state. So it's the fact that Apple has a store in a given state that requires them to collect sales tax.
I really don't know why so many people think China actually owns any meaningful portion of our debt.
They buy lots and lots of bonds you know. It would potentially collapse our economy if they cashed them in. That's one of the reasons why theddollar will remain the world's currency,
There is no bigger scam going in the United States than owning a corporation. You can write-off all sorts of stuff: cars, offices, computers, trips, clothing, tools, raw materials...assuming you have revenue, of course. NOBODY pays that corporate tax rate you reference. My company doesn't. We pay very little in taxes due to all these deductions.
The corporate share of all taxes paid in the U.S. is 20% of what it was 50 years ago. I think that's bad, because it means more money has to be shouldered by the middle-class, who can't afford it.
Apple is a U.S. corporation, and ALL of its profits (worldwide) should be taxed as income to that U.S. corporation, no matter how Apple has structured its phantom corporations in Ireland and The Netherlands to minimize its taxes. Of course, that will never happen, because Apple is lobbying to make sure its taxes go down, not up.
That makes them no different than any other company in the Fortune 500. That's how our laws and tax code allow them to act.
That said, have you seen what Apple's tax rate is in the U.S.? It's like 27%! Apple is paying a phenomenal amount of money in taxes because they're making an incredible amount of money in profits. That makes me happy to support them, but I still wish they wouldn't lobby to lower their taxes.
The defense that "all corporations do it" isn't good enough. Apple should be a cut above, not running with the crowd.
I am supposing that you pay more taxes than you have to every year as well because you want to be a cut above as well. Right? No, I didn't think so.
Comments
[ A tax cut revolution.
Heritage’s Mandate for Leadership called for “An across-theboard reduction in marginal personal income tax rates in each bracket of about 10 percent in 1981, with similar rate reductions in 1982 and 1983.” The Reagan administration not only followed Mandate’s lead, but it appointed Heritage’s Norman Ture, the Mandate author who penned the chapter on tax policy, as treasury secretary for tax and economic affairs—a new position suggested by Mandate. The tax cut that eventually passed—a marginal rate reduction of 25 percent over three years—wiped out America’s economic “malaise,” producing the biggest economic boom in U.S. history.6
This conveniently ignores the fact that the tax cuts also resulted in the tripling of the federal deficit during the Reagan years, among other things. In January 2005, Heritage issued a much shorter, 156-page Mandate for Leadership and had this to say about it:7
The original version, published in 1980, was written for a new administration just gaining widespread support for its ideas. Dubbed the “bible” of the Reagan White House by the Washington Post, it provided a step-by-step guide to how to transform conservative principles into government policy.
“Today, those principles are well established in Washington, well accepted by American voters and well understood everywhere in terms of how they translate into policy,” [President Edwin] Feulner said.
Heritage is but one example of the ways that the rich succeed in influencing public policy, especially tax policy. One hears a constant drumbeat emanating from Heritage and other conservative think tanks to keep taxes low. And the conservative media that these same funders—billionaires like Scaife, Murdoch, Anschutz—own and finance are echoing those messages.
Even though William Kristol’s publication, the Weekly Standard, is a money-losing joke (with only 85,000 subscribers), his association with the publication is enough to get him on TV talk shows whenever he wants and even a column with the New York Times for a year. Similarly, the money-losing Washington Times catapulted Tony Blankley to TV stard ] —Thom Hartmann
Here is the CRUX:
[ One way in which the think tanks and the conservative media con the American public is to conflate income taxes for the rich with income taxes for everyone else. And this is the crux of the con job. When Bill Clinton proposed tax increases in 1993, think tanks like Heritage and Cato immediately opposed them with their myths about the negative consequences of tax increases. Here’s what a Heritage “analyst” wrote then:8
Proponents of raising taxes argue that the federal budget cannot be balanced without a tax hike. They argue, too, that tax increases will make the tax code fairer. Some even claim that tax increases will encourage economic growth by reducing the need for federal borrowing.
Raising taxes, however, would be a political and economic mistake, regardless of who pays and what taxes are increased. If history is any guide, higher taxes will fuel additional federal spending....
Higher taxes will shrink the tax base and reduce tax revenues.... In each case, proponents of the hike claimed that the deficit would decline. But in each case, the deficit rose the following year. ] —Thom Hartmann
I don't get it. Apple already pays the appropriate tax on domestic income. People should be up in arms that they are forced to pay any tax on income from foreign sources!
Apple pays appropriate tax on US income? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
...The acting of the participants in the market are also a regulating force...
Quote:Originally Posted by silverpraxis
Why is slavery outlawed?
Because the government that endorsed, supported and protected this abhorrent practice finally came to it senses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
Why are their antidiscriminatory regulations?
Because we have people passing laws that don't respect the basic rights of individuals to discriminate however much we might dislike the act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis
Why are their anti-monopoly laws?
Because some less successful competitors got mad and decided to bribe elected officials to use the power the of State instead of competing on their own.
...I'm sorry if you are unable to see the irony and flaw in your thinking here.
First, you're saying competitors will regulate each other's behaviors in a free market and to an extent that is true. That's how our current system works with some exceptions, good and bad. The flaw in that argument is quite apparent when looking at history. With a governing body in place like the real world has at present, corporations pay off said governing body to their advantage. Now let's remove that governing body. The same corporations will just pay off their competitors/partners in the market to take advantage of it. Look at what Intel did to AMD. Look at what Microsoft did to Netscape. Look what cheaper China products do to US products when the government doesn't step in to regulate rigged international trading. (Of course when the Intel incident was brought up before, you claimed ignorance and moved on, so I'll leave you to your one-sided viewpoint)
Honestly there has been government in every society on earth, from the largest empires to the lowliest tribes. You can't provide a single example of a truly free market because there never has been one, so therefore how do you know it will work?
I ask because even as you admit, when government allows corporations to choose to do something inherently wrong, like slavery, discrimination, or something as simple as legal tax evasion, corporations do it. You said government endorsed and protected slavery. That is basically saying the government allowed slavery, and what happened? Plantations and factories populated their workforce with slaves. If you took away the government that allowed slavery, what competitors would have enacted their own version of the Emancipation Proclamation?
Yes, competitors could advertise their goods as "slave-free" products but at a much higher cost. You know what consumers do. A huge percentage vote with their wallets for the lowest price and only a small minority vote for "morally upright" products. The competitors couldn't argue with the slave employers to stop because they have no power over what others do. The market would be flooded with cheap slave-labor goods and those corporations would have the money to buy out or force out all non-slave competition. Too bad those less successful competitors couldn't complain to some nonexistent government to prevent this.
I'm sorry you are unable to see the logical conclusion to your free market. Outside regulation is necessary. Representative government has created the most stable, safe, rich, and free nations the world has known. Nothing is perfect, but I prefer the path we're on to some system that has never wholy existed and through experience has ended up the dead wrong direction to go.
I'll never change your mind though, and historical evidence won't allow me to believe in your unrealistic system, so good day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Or they could lower taxes.
What, so The US government would have to borrow even more money from China to pay for the society and standard of living Americans enjoy?
Originally Posted by cnocbui
What, so The US government would have to borrow even more money from China to pay for the society and standard of living Americans enjoy?
I really don't know why so many people think China actually owns any meaningful portion of our debt.
You must be in the same state the point of sale takes place thus Apple has to collect sales tax from you.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
You must be in the same state the point of sale takes place thus Apple has to collect sales tax from you.
So where's Amazon "taking place", states without sales tax at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
What, so The US government would have to borrow even more money from China to pay for the society and standard of living Americans enjoy?
No. They could cut spending (more) also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
And a government-protected one! That's my point.
I see it very clearly. You seem to be the one pointing to examples of government-supported and protected crony capitalism and offering these as proof that the free market is bad and government is necessary. I find that odd.
Thank you for finally spelling out your ideology. I find parts of it very similar to my thinking, but my disagreement comes from the fact that I do not believe that if capitalism is left without any guards, it would definitely NOT self regulate and would create a slaving monopoly and/or cartel system. How for example you can see the mining societies, which exploited (and still do in Africa - blood diamonds for example) as government-supported and protected crony capitalism, when it occurs in environments where the governments have no power over these corporations is quite baffling. If government officials are bought by big money, it is the people, that should take a stand and correct these by electing other people into office and demanding for increased transparency.
I intentionally did not take AT&T et. al. as an example, because it is an example of a failed regulatory case (I guess they paid the right officials). I never said governments are perfect, just that I believe total unrestricted capitalism is far worse.
You statement: "Now, if we could find some way to limit the State to the role of protecting the basic rights of life, liberty and property (and the logical derivative rights from these) of every citizen (and the vanishingly small amount of taxes that would necessary to pay for that) then I wouldn't have a problem with it." is one I do agree with one exception. How can you protect rights of life, liberty and property is you have no way to enforce those protections? What's your option for a police/military enforcement entity if it is not government controlled? Hopefully not corporate controlled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
I do not believe that if capitalism is left without any guards, it would definitely NOT self regulate and would create a slaving monopoly and/or cartel system.
I understand you believe that. I do not and you, in my opinion, have failed to make a convincing case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
How for example you can see the mining societies, which exploited (and still do in Africa - blood diamonds for example) as government-supported and protected crony capitalism, when it occurs in environments where the governments have no power over these corporations is quite baffling.
It would be necessary to look at the details of each of those situations to do a proper analysis. Sadly government complicity is often difficult to see at first glance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
If government officials are bought by big money, it is the people, that should take a stand and correct these by electing other people into office and demanding for increased transparency.
That doesn't seem to be working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
I believe total unrestricted capitalism is far worse.
And I disagree. Governments are far worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
How can you protect rights of life, liberty and property is you have no way to enforce those protections? What's your option for a police/military enforcement entity if it is not government controlled?
I thought my explanation was clear. Sorry. What I suggested was a legitimate government/State. It would be a government police force. But the role and responsibilities of the State would be limited to those things. As it stands though, they never seems to be constrained to those responsibilities and quickly expand to become infringers, violators and restricting actor. Often at the request of their special interests (corporate and otherwise.) In other words, a small step back from anarcho-capitalism. Some might call it "minarchism" or the "night watchman state."
The problem is that most people look at the State like Santa Claus or as some benevolent benefactor or as some equalizer whose job is to right alleged "wrongs" and they start giving it lots of power that gets used to infringe on some people's lives, liberty and property for the benefit of others. It goes down hill from there. Slowly perhaps, but inevitably it appears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
That doesn't seem to be working.
Depends where you are I guess as well. I can understand your viewpoint living in the US, where the corruption index is 7.1/10. I live in the nordics, where it's in the 9.x/10 range and I don't have any problems with the police or military forces here. Can't remember seeing any news on opressing people with force in recent history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Depends where you are I guess as well.
I suppose that's true. Yes, I am in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So where's Amazon "taking place", states without sales tax at all?
Washington State. If you live in WA, you pay sales tax when ordering from Amazon. Amazon is not incorporated in other states, thus they don't have to collect sales tax in those states. Apple is (presumably) incorporated in all 50 states. Thus, you pay sales tax anytime you buy from Apple. And, by law you're supposed to pay sales tax on those untaxed Internet purchases from Amazon, etc. too. But I doubt many (any?) of us do!
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbyx
Washington State. If you live in WA, you pay sales tax when ordering from Amazon. Amazon is not incorporated in other states, thus they don't have to collect sales tax in those states. Apple is (presumably) incorporated in all 50 states.
Actually it doesn't have to do with the state of incorporation. It is about whether or not the company has a presence (possibly only retail) and/or physically sells product in that state. So it's the fact that Apple has a store in a given state that requires them to collect sales tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I really don't know why so many people think China actually owns any meaningful portion of our debt.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/15/us-debt-how-big-who-owns
Originally Posted by gogo2000
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/15/us-debt-how-big-who-owns
And? Why do you think that this is the entirety of our debt?
They buy lots and lots of bonds you know. It would potentially collapse our economy if they cashed them in. That's one of the reasons why theddollar will remain the world's currency,
Quote:
Originally Posted by macsimcon
There is no bigger scam going in the United States than owning a corporation. You can write-off all sorts of stuff: cars, offices, computers, trips, clothing, tools, raw materials...assuming you have revenue, of course. NOBODY pays that corporate tax rate you reference. My company doesn't. We pay very little in taxes due to all these deductions.
The corporate share of all taxes paid in the U.S. is 20% of what it was 50 years ago. I think that's bad, because it means more money has to be shouldered by the middle-class, who can't afford it.
Apple is a U.S. corporation, and ALL of its profits (worldwide) should be taxed as income to that U.S. corporation, no matter how Apple has structured its phantom corporations in Ireland and The Netherlands to minimize its taxes. Of course, that will never happen, because Apple is lobbying to make sure its taxes go down, not up.
That makes them no different than any other company in the Fortune 500. That's how our laws and tax code allow them to act.
That said, have you seen what Apple's tax rate is in the U.S.? It's like 27%! Apple is paying a phenomenal amount of money in taxes because they're making an incredible amount of money in profits. That makes me happy to support them, but I still wish they wouldn't lobby to lower their taxes.
The defense that "all corporations do it" isn't good enough. Apple should be a cut above, not running with the crowd.
I am supposing that you pay more taxes than you have to every year as well because you want to be a cut above as well. Right? No, I didn't think so.