World Politics

Page 298 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Cobblestones said:
This is probably the absolutely most ignorant post I have read in a long while (and I have read some tea party drivel in the past). It's actually scary, but also not really surprising that such a statement could be made by a conservative accountant.

Can you really not understand why corporations should pay taxes?

Do not corporations benefit from infrastructure, patent law, educated workforce, the legal system, military protections etc? Funny, because I have yet to see a single company headquarter being moved to Somalia.

Now you say that taxes will be pushed over to the consumer? Oh really? So you don't think it just eats into the profit? Funny because if you think your profit should be a guaranteed sum, and to achieve that, cost is simply shifted to the consumer, I really hope you're a monopolist. If not, competition will have sorted you out before you can say 'bailout'.
He must have gotten cold today..

""CEDAR RAPIDS- Tea Party supporters in Cedar Rapids gathered downtown again on Friday for an annual “Tax Day” rally. But organizers of the Iowa Taxed Enough Already (TEA) groups faced a pretty formidable foe in the weather.

In past years, such Tea Party events in Cedar Rapids drew upwards of a hundred participants to carry signs and listen to speeches. But barely two dozen soggy supporters braved the cold rain and strong winds to take their tax and spending message public along First Avenue N.E. near the Cedar River. A similar noon-hour Tea Party event in Davenport drew a reported seven participants. An event scheduled for the late afternoon in Dubuque got cancelled because of the weather.
""
 
Rocksteady said:
The one thing I don't understand is why people think Corporations of any kind pay taxes? All they do is shift the tax burden to the consumer. Higher taxes = Higher prices. I can explain in greater detail if you don't understand what I mean.
I'm all ears.

If you can supply some historical data on corporate tax rates showing what's pushed them to bank overseas, I'd love to see it.

Would also like to hear why you think that if forced to pay higher taxes corporations would be able to raise prices, and this has nothing to do with what the market may bear. Hence, if GE were forced to pay 25% taxes, instead of paying $0, plus getting $3b free money from other taxpayers through their friends at the government, would they really be able to charge $500 for a dishwasher instead of the current price of $300, and have the consumer deal with it?

Curious how you think the elderly and handicapped would get by with no Medicare or Medicaid.

Would love to hear your definition of "conservative" as well.
 
Meanwhile AP is reporting that the super rich had their taxes drop dramatically in the last couple of decades, to where they now pay 17%. Back in 1992 they were paying 26%. You go further back than that, and it's even higher. Back in 1976 the capital gains tax was 48%, now it's 15%.

So, where's the economic boom? If these people are the "job creators" as Bush called them, were are all the jobs?
 
The corporations go overseas because this is what the market logic demands.

As I've said before the world we live in today has become one colossal business enterprise, an unscrupulous commercial concern that operates according to the private interests of the plutocracy.

Conservatives either wish to join the elite club, or will spend their lives trying to defend it on "principle". They are convinced of this principle and can't be persuaded to think otherwise.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
""Soon, however, I began to question whether my father's philosophical beliefs were simply a justification of his own needs. As soon as the legal drama erupted, he refused to pay for even the smallest things, declaring, "Your mother is suing me," in defensive sound bites, as though it explained everything.

Can I buy new shoes? A couple bucks for the movies? Your mother is suing me.

Twenty dollars for a class field trip? Your mother is suing me.

From what I understood of his favorite capitalist champion, any form of altruism was evil. But how could that kind of blanket self-interest extend to his own children, the people he was legally and morally bound to take care of? What was I supposed to do, fend for myself?

The answer to my question came on an autumn weekend during my sophomore year in high school. I was hosting a Harry Potter-themed float party in our driveway, a normal ritual to prepare decorations for my high school quad the week of homecoming. As I was painting a cardboard owl, my father asked me to come inside the house. He and his new wife sat me down at the dinner table with grave faces.

"We were wondering if you would petition to be emancipated," he said in his lawyer voice.""

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/04/04/my_father_the_objectivist
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Meanwhile AP is reporting that the super rich had their taxes drop dramatically in the last couple of decades, to where they now pay 17%. Back in 1992 they were paying 26%. You go further back than that, and it's even higher. Back in 1976 the capital gains tax was 48%, now it's 15%.

So, where's the economic boom? If these people are the "job creators" as Bush called them, were are all the jobs?
India................
 
Taxing the corporations less is the same idea that was espoused by Reaganomics, which says that this will make the crumbs falling from the table of the rich more abundant for the middle and lower classes.

But we all know how that wound up. Not even the crumbs have been falling and, to keep pace with the consumer demands of a materialist society, buying on credit and hence private debt (which then goes on to increase profits through the interest on repayment of the financial banks), was foisted upon the worker by the capitalist regime.

The problem is thus that the relationship between work and wages is no longer an economic Truth, which is the failure of the left. Whereas the relationship between profit and merit has become a failure of capitalism, which is the crime against humanity the right has placed upon the backs of society.

The chaotic form of globalization has been forced upon the planet by the corporate and finance plutocracy, egged on an abetted by the corrupt politicians and the governements they represent. There should have been laws that said if you want to take your business off-shore, then you have to provide worker's salaries in the host (Third World) nation that match those of the homeland, and that there would even be forced off-shoring within the construct of this egalitarian and humanitarian model to prevent no businesses from displacement and, therefore, helping the impoverished and weak nations, based on quotas. This would also also keep enough industry home to not devastate the local workers and economy. It's also very democratic, speaking of spreading the principles of democracy around the globe as the ideological basis for US and Western imperialism so loved by the neocons in Washington.

After all, given the resource and labor exploitation the poor countries of the world have provided the rich nations, it's the least they can do to demonstrate a wanting sense of gratitude.

Of course, the rules of capitalism and the logic of the market (and the unscrupulous men and women in charge of everything, from the corporate and finance moguls to the corrupt politicians they have bought out), will never allow this to happen. All the current model has furthered is greed and a fanatical individualism, as well as growing disparity between the haves of this world and the have-nots. Whereas the very idea of "the crumbs falling from the table of the rich", is simply an appalling and reprehensible concept, which only demonstrates how in terms of ethics and in the realm of ideas that Western capitalism suffers form an acute, and potentially lethal, form of mental atrophy and has been morally bankrupt for several decades.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
Meanwhile AP is reporting that the super rich had their taxes drop dramatically in the last couple of decades, to where they now pay 17%. Back in 1992 they were paying 26%. You go further back than that, and it's even higher. Back in 1976 the capital gains tax was 48%, now it's 15%.

So, where's the economic boom? If these people are the "job creators" as Bush called them, were are all the jobs?
Yeah, let's tax capital gains at a real high rate so we can kill any ideas that investors have to take some risk. That should be real helpful.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Yeah, let's tax capital gains at a real high rate so we can kill any ideas that investors have to take some risk. That should be real helpful.
Where is the investment that is creating jobs? The problem to me is that there is no market to invest in right now, so the wealth is being put in investments that don't create any jobs for asset preservation. We have a situation where the wealthy are preserving their wealth (actually, they are increasing their share of wealth), while everyone else in the bottom 95% are losing wealth. And your solution is to continue to let that type of trickle up economics. I understand the principles behind what you say, I just don't believe those are the actual objectives of the wealthy. In fact, I am sure of it. The only way to reverse the flow of money up (and thus the diminishing percentage of wealth for the majority of the population) is to tax them.

I don't buy the "poor rich people" argument. It is a narrative created to hoodwink a large percentage of the population into enforcing policies that only benefit a fraction of the population.
 
Apr 1, 2010
459
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'm all ears.

If you can supply some historical data on corporate tax rates showing what's pushed them to bank overseas, I'd love to see it.

Would also like to hear why you think that if forced to pay higher taxes corporations would be able to raise prices, and this has nothing to do with what the market may bear. Hence, if GE were forced to pay 25% taxes, instead of paying $0, plus getting $3b free money from other taxpayers through their friends at the government, would they really be able to charge $500 for a dishwasher instead of the current price of $300, and have the consumer deal with it?

Curious how you think the elderly and handicapped would get by with no Medicare or Medicaid.

Would love to hear your definition of "conservative" as well.
Sorry, end of the quarter and work has gotten busy. I'll respond to the tax question when I have time, but I will comment on the Medicare/Medicaid thing. The first thing I would point out is that current elderly wouldn't be effected by any changes in the programs. In the republican budget submitted by Paul Ryan, it is explicitly stated that anyone over 55 would not be effected. Those under 55 would be effected, but in a declining way so that those 55 would get more benefit than those 45. This give people the time to make changes before they retire.

Nothing in Congress happens instantly. Every change that is being presented would be grandfathered in so that those in the programs stay in the programs and have the SAME program. All the changes would apply to future participants.
 
Rocksteady said:
...In the republican budget submitted by Paul Ryan, it is explicitly stated that anyone over 55 would not be effected. Those under 55 would be effected, but in a declining way so that those 55 would get more benefit than those 45. This give people the time to make changes before they retire.
Oh, I'm sure that will work out just fine. Those of us under 55 would get no Medicare, but a voucher to pay for our own health care. And if we need more than we can afford, or our private insurance cuts us off? Too bad I guess. We just have to suck it up and accept it. That's what we get for not trampling over everyone else in an effort to get rich when we were younger.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
Where is the investment that is creating jobs? The problem to me is that there is no market to invest in right now, so the wealth is being put in investments that don't create any jobs for asset preservation. We have a situation where the wealthy are preserving their wealth (actually, they are increasing their share of wealth), while everyone else in the bottom 95% are losing wealth. And your solution is to continue to let that type of trickle up economics. I understand the principles behind what you say, I just don't believe those are the actual objectives of the wealthy. In fact, I am sure of it. The only way to reverse the flow of money up (and thus the diminishing percentage of wealth for the majority of the population) is to tax them.

I don't buy the "poor rich people" argument. It is a narrative created to hoodwink a large percentage of the population into enforcing policies that only benefit a fraction of the population.
I think you are looking for social justice... and like world peace, it ain't gonna happen. There will always be people getting screwed and people doing the screwing.

If situations are created that make the movers and shakers uncomfortable then you will get what we have now. They have taken their ball and gone home. If the "wealthy" (or "investors") can take zero risk and receive a return above that of inflation (our current situation), or are presented with situations where they take great risk with very little upside, then take a guess at what they will do??

The very best we (not wealthy) can hope for are conditions where good ideas can flourish. That will not happen by taxing the shit out of the "wealthy." You want situations that you believe are fairer to workers? Great. Ram it all home. What you will find is the money will not flow to the treasury as you expect. The "wealthy" will (literally) sit on their money...(raise cap gains to stupid levels and the "rich" will simply hold, not sell, their investments thus creating less activity and less revenue) or find more favorable investment alternatives. Either way, this country loses. Like now.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
Oh, I'm sure that will work out just fine. Those of us under 55 would get no Medicare, but a voucher to pay for our own health care. And if we need more than we can afford, or our private insurance cuts us off? Too bad I guess. We just have to suck it up and accept it. That's what we get for not trampling over everyone else in an effort to get rich when we were younger.
No. This is what you get when the govt runs a poorly designed ponzi scheme.
 
Scott SoCal said:
I think you are looking for social justice... and like world peace, it ain't gonna happen. There will always be people getting screwed and people doing the screwing.

If situations are created that make the movers and shakers uncomfortable then you will get what we have now. They have taken their ball and gone home. If the "wealthy" (or "investors") can take zero risk and receive a return above that of inflation (our current situation), or are presented with situations where they take great risk with very little upside, then take a guess at what they will do??

The very best we (not wealthy) can hope for are conditions where good ideas can flourish. That will not happen by taxing the shit out of the "wealthy." You want situations that you believe are fairer to workers? Great. Ram it all home. What you will find is the money will not flow to the treasury as you expect. The "wealthy" will (literally) sit on their money...(raise cap gains to stupid levels and the "rich" will simply hold, not sell, their investments thus creating less activity and less revenue) or find more favorable investment alternatives. Either way, this country loses. Like now.
We always imagine, mistakenly, that others will have developed, in one direction or another, as we have. But we are wrong: most of them have stayed put and not developed in any direction, becoming neither better or worse, but merely old and totally uninteresting. We expect to be surprised to find how somebody we have not seen for ages has developed, but the real surprise is to discover that he has not developed at all, that he is simply twenty years older, that he is no longer slim but has a paunch, and that he wears big tasteless rings on fat fingers that were once attractive.

This is what I think everytime I read one of your posts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
We always imagine, mistakenly, that others will have developed, in one direction or another, as we have. But we are wrong: most of them have stayed put and not developed in any direction, becoming neither better or worse, but merely old and totally uninteresting. We expect to be surprised to find how somebody we have not seen for ages has developed, but the real surprise is to discover that he has not developed at all, that he is simply twenty years older, that he is no longer slim but has a paunch, and that he wears big tasteless rings on fat fingers that were once attractive.

This is what I think everytime I read one of your posts.
Well, Rhub, there is reality then there is the world you live in.

Your perception, your reality (facts notwithstanding).

The way the world is versus the way one would like it to be.

This is what I think everytime I read one of your posts. That and you love to read what you write.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Well, Rhub, there is reality then there is the world you live in.

Your perception, your reality (facts notwithstanding).

The way the world is versus the way one would like it to be.

This is what I think everytime I read one of your posts. That and you love to read what you write.
Almost as much as I get exited by reading your responses to them.

Such cynicism, Scott SoCal, without even a basis of idealism, makes me lugubrious over what promise you might have shown had you had different teachers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
Almost as much as I get exited by reading your responses to them.

Such cynicism, Scott SoCal, without even a basis of idealism, makes me lugubrious over what promise you might have shown had you had different teachers.
Yes, of course. Sucks for me I had teachers that taught instead of indoctrinate.
 
Scott SoCal said:
The very best we (not wealthy) can hope for are conditions where good ideas can flourish. That will not happen by taxing the shit out of the "wealthy."
No one is suggesting "taxing the **** out of the wealthy". What you're doing is a typical "conservative" spin game.

I always find it amusing when people like Obama suggest the wealthiest pay taxes at 39.5% instead of 35%, and all this Tea Party conservatives scream socialism. Yet they conveniently ignore just how much higher taxes they paid years previous to this, or when their tax rates were upwards of 70-80% in the forties, fifties and sixties. I guess we were REALLY socialist back then.

I said nothing about raising capital gains. But I'm also amused that with the tax at 15% (just 5% for long term), compared to 48%, with all the money supposedly being invested and moving from this favorable tax, the economy still tanked.

You left out the corporate tax. Explaining why companies like GE should be able to make $14b profit and pay zero taxes, plus get a free $3b from the government. I'm sure you have some conservative rationale for that one as well. After all, asking them to pay a single penny would set most Tea Party members (who rule the GOP these days) set their socialist rhetoric on fire.

Do you honestly believe if there were no Medicare, and instead people got a voucher, they could pay for their own care? And do you honestly believe that private insurers would not cut them off as soon as they needed expensive care, in order to make more money?
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Meanwhile AP is reporting that the super rich had their taxes drop dramatically in the last couple of decades, to where they now pay 17%. Back in 1992 they were paying 26%. You go further back than that, and it's even higher. Back in 1976 the capital gains tax was 48%, now it's 15%.

So, where's the economic boom? If these people are the "job creators" as Bush called them, were are all the jobs?
Scott SoCal said:
If situations are created that make the movers and shakers uncomfortable then you will get what we have now. They have taken their ball and gone home. If the "wealthy" (or "investors") can take zero risk and receive a return above that of inflation (our current situation), or are presented with situations where they take great risk with very little upside, then take a guess at what they will do??

The very best we (not wealthy) can hope for are conditions where good ideas can flourish. That will not happen by taxing the shit out of the "wealthy." You want situations that you believe are fairer to workers? Great. Ram it all home. What you will find is the money will not flow to the treasury as you expect. The "wealthy" will (literally) sit on their money...(raise cap gains to stupid levels and the "rich" will simply hold, not sell, their investments thus creating less activity and less revenue) or find more favorable investment alternatives. Either way, this country loses. Like now.
So somehow you take the fact that the ultra rich have probably never had it as good as they do now and twist it around to say that if we make them "uncomfortable" they will take their ball (all the balls) and go home. Well that train has already left the station. They don't need to create jobs (that is so messy, and always a risk) to make money with their money they can just dole it out in very small amounts and at high interest rates to the cream of the great unwashed masses (the ones who will pay it back).
The only other people making money are pro athletes and entertainers some of whom are doing quite well keeping us focused on nonsense so we don't notice how we've been sold out.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
No one is suggesting "taxing the **** out of the wealthy". What you're doing is a typical "conservative" spin game.

I always find it amusing when people like Obama suggest the wealthiest pay taxes at 39.5% instead of 35%, and all this Tea Party conservatives scream socialism. Yet they conveniently ignore just how much higher taxes they paid years previous to this, or when their tax rates were upwards of 70-80% in the forties, fifties and sixties. I guess we were REALLY socialist back then.

I said nothing about raising capital gains. But I'm also amused that with the tax at 15% (just 5% for long term), compared to 48%, with all the money supposedly being invested and moving from this favorable tax, the economy still tanked.

You left out the corporate tax. Explaining why companies like GE should be able to make $14b profit and pay zero taxes, plus get a free $3b from the government. I'm sure you have some conservative rationale for that one as well. After all, asking them to pay a single penny would set most Tea Party members (who rule the GOP these days) set their socialist rhetoric on fire.

Do you honestly believe if there were no Medicare, and instead people got a voucher, they could pay for their own care? And do you honestly believe that private insurers would not cut them off as soon as they needed expensive care, in order to make more money?
You don't consider 48% Cap gains tax excessive? I do.

Yet they conveniently ignore just how much higher taxes they paid years previous to this, or when their tax rates were upwards of 70-80% in the forties, fifties and sixties. I guess we were REALLY socialist back then.
When top marginal tax rates were 78% the income tax structure was entirely different. One example is interest paid. ALL interest paid on loans (credit cards too) was deductible from your income tax. There were dozens of eliminated tax deductions. Reagan closed many tax "loop-holes" when the TM tax rate was taken down to 28% (or whatever it was reduced to). The opposite question is; do you really think the wealthy were paying 70-80% of their total income? Of course not.

I'm curious, what should the top marginal rate be in your opinion?

I don't really care about GE and what they pay in taxes. They should pay taxes on earnings... how much? Whatever keeps them competitive globally, I suppose. I don't know why GE's tax rate is where it's at. GM probably didn't pay taxes either. I'm betting it will be years before Ford pays taxes due to loss carry-forwards. Fair?? I don't know, but I didn't write the effing tax code.

Do you honestly believe if there were no Medicare
I honestly believe we as a nation are in real danger of not having Medicare for future generations. The generations that are now paying for those getting benefits will not (probably) benefit the same way. It's just basic math.

By the time you access whatever is left of Medicare there will not be such a thing as private insurance to worry about. And, yes, the govt will manage care for the elderly just like they do where socialized medicine is in use. But I guess it is different if the govt (instead of private insurance) tells you they won't pay?

in order to make more money
Oh yes, the profit motive rears it's ugly head once again. What you describe is a regulated and prohibited practice. But let me ask you, once the Feds are in control of your healthcare, who shall regulate their actions? Do you think they will sit back and pay whatever the costs may be for the elderly? Did you happen to notice the cuts in Medicare with Obamacare?

Altogether, ObamaCare cuts $818 billion from Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) from 2014-2023, the first 10 years of its full implementation, and $3.2 trillion over the first 20 years, 2014-2033. Adding in ObamaCare cuts for Medicare Part B (physicians fees and other services) brings the total cut to $1.05 trillion over the first 10 years and $4.95 trillion over the first 20 years.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437311393854940.html

I realize you will dispute these numbers and I honestly don't know what the end result of Obamacare will be be regarding the effects to Medicare. But you are worried about a comment made about something that has not happened... yet what has happened to Medicare should concern you greatly, imo.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
So somehow you take the fact that the ultra rich have probably never had it as good as they do now and twist it around to say that if we make them "uncomfortable" they will take their ball (all the balls) and go home. Well that train has already left the station. They don't need to create jobs (that is so messy, and always a risk) to make money with their money they can just dole it out in very small amounts and at high interest rates to the cream of the great unwashed masses (the ones who will pay it back).
The only other people making money are pro athletes and entertainers some of whom are doing quite well keeping us focused on nonsense so we don't notice how we've been sold out.
I dare say you must not know any "ultra-rich" then (whatever ulra-rich means). There is almost universally one common thread. Very few of them ever think they have enough money. They will nearly always put money at risk if there is a good chance at a return. It is simple human nature.

All I'm saying is what really happens with the "wealthy." If they think they can make money they will take a chance. If they don't they won't.

Now, you choose to vilify them for that. I don't (assuming they obtained their wealth through legal means). Their perogative.

I have never once had a "wealthy" person demand I spend my money in a way they saw fit (only the govt does that). Since you and others seem to be ok with demanding a "free" person behave in a way you approve of then I will ask you to simply define, in a range of either income or net worth, where the "working-class", "Rich", "Wealthy" and "Ultra-Wealthy" classes lie?

In other words, when you speak of "the wealthy", who are you referring to?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
I think you are looking for social justice... and like world peace, it ain't gonna happen. There will always be people getting screwed and people doing the screwing.

If situations are created that make the movers and shakers uncomfortable then you will get what we have now. They have taken their ball and gone home. If the "wealthy" (or "investors") can take zero risk and receive a return above that of inflation (our current situation), or are presented with situations where they take great risk with very little upside, then take a guess at what they will do??

The very best we (not wealthy) can hope for are conditions where good ideas can flourish. That will not happen by taxing the shit out of the "wealthy." You want situations that you believe are fairer to workers? Great. Ram it all home. What you will find is the money will not flow to the treasury as you expect. The "wealthy" will (literally) sit on their money...(raise cap gains to stupid levels and the "rich" will simply hold, not sell, their investments thus creating less activity and less revenue) or find more favorable investment alternatives. Either way, this country loses. Like now.
They are not having the "sh!t" taxed out of them. Not even CLOSE based on historical data. They have it better now than ever. What they are doing is concentrating the wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and you want to kiss their a$$ and beg them for scraps. Fine, you have that option.

The wealthy are responsible for out current lot. No question about it. They are also responsible for shifting policy so in their favor that they are the only ones not suffering the consequences. And you want to continue to hand them everything they ask. Again, you have that option.

But you are right, social justice will never happen so long as there are people willing to bend over and ask to be violated. For sure, you're right about that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
They are not having the "sh!t" taxed out of them. Not even CLOSE based on historical data. They have it better now than ever. What they are doing is concentrating the wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and you want to kiss their a$$ and beg them for scraps. Fine, you have that option.

The wealthy are responsible for out current lot. No question about it. They are also responsible for shifting policy so in their favor that they are the only ones not suffering the consequences. And you want to continue to hand them everything they ask. Again, you have that option.

But you are right, social justice will never happen so long as there are people willing to bend over and ask to be violated. For sure, you're right about that.

The wealthy are responsible for out current lot. No question about it. They are also responsible for shifting policy so in their favor that they are the only ones not suffering the consequences.
When, in human history, has this not been true?

The real difference is, in former times, people like you and me had exactly zero chance of obtaining anything like prosperity. So while you lump producers in very un-flattering light, I don't. Are there bad rich people? Of course, but when has this not been the case?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S General 11
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY