All you have to do is search the Internet and there are loads of examples. Understand I am not a liberal, I'm a moderate. I'm a fiscal conservative but liberal in respect to the environment for example, I piss off both parties fairly equally. I have no issue with Fox and their conservative agenda, if that's what they want to do fine. I have issues with the outright lies, more so Rupert Murdoch is the evil behind it all.
Be careful what you say. I am a hard left social liberal, but fiscally I am more center-right leaning. The "fiscal conservatives" of america are just as spend happy as the "fiscal liberals" in america. (Yes, you have to spend some money, but there is a such thing as too much.)
When you say you are a fiscal conservative, people may get images in their head of sarah palin or dick chaney, wanting to conserve money by cutting things like social services and spend it on war.
that could of easily been edited like that, really? they cut to the president for 3 seconds to hear "raise taxes bla bla"? ya OK. i watch the news and ive NEVER seen them cut to anyone talking for 2 seconds lol. i want a bonified legit non-edited news clip from fox. then the same clip from another news channel showing it so different. some edited together youtube video hardly proves anything at all.
For some reason I have this gut feeling that you will continue to defend them even as the evidence against them is presented.
Anyway, as to the clip. if you watch the bottom, there is little red text, almost looks like a red line. Watch it, if it's cut up by the Youtube guy or whatever, it's edited. It doesn't move or cut or anything. It's literally what was aired on Fox News.
We really need to stop calling them Fox news. Every time I write that, I feel like vomiting. Lol.
As far as I've noticed I've yet to see any conservatives who normally have the same viewpoints as those on Fox News, calling them a bunch of liars etc etc. It's only liberals or, in general, non-conservatives that seem to attack them. Almost like it's warfare based on political opinion.
Sarah Palin and Machelle Bachman come to my mind right off the bat.
I saw this before going to bed and figured I'd share it with you all. This is what it sounds like to get dominated to your face by a CEO. At least the crowd wasn't chanting idiotic phrases I guess, nice to at least see a fairly civil discussion.
I read that Yahoo thing on my lunch break today. Hilarious how they are defending the obscenely rich.
Stick it to the dirty, filthy, worthless poor people! (Disclaimer: I am not implying that you are calling anybody a dirty, filthy, worthless poor person, just making a joke, probably in poor taste, about the general opinion of the right.
Sorry, when did Sarah Palin attack Fox News and call them liars? She's kinda a Fox News contributor after all, so it would make her look bad to talk shit about them. As far as the Yahoo! article goes, I had a good feeling you'd think just like you said you did. If you have no debt and $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans collectively. If you and 5 siblings own one of the largest companies in the world you have more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans collectively. The author of that article is trying to make it as obvious as possible that anti-rich are just slinging these numbers around without facts explaining just how LITTLE wealth there is at the bottom 25%. Am I a rich asshole for having more $ than a quarter of Americans collectively? No.
When you get the chance you should watch the youtube video as well, it was fantastic!
Here's part 2 of the video, woo hoo more domination at the hands of a CEO. Learn what you're supposedly angry about before camping in public and bitching.
Sorry, when did Sarah Palin attack Fox News and call them liars? She's kinda a Fox News contributor after all, so it would make her look bad to talk shit about them.
I must have misunderstood you. I thought you meant what conservatives agree with Fox. My bad.
As far as the Yahoo! article goes, I had a good feeling you'd think just like you said you did. If you have no debt and $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans collectively. If you and 5 siblings own one of the largest companies in the world you have more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans collectively. The author of that article is trying to make it as obvious as possible that anti-rich are just slinging these numbers around without facts explaining just how LITTLE wealth there is at the bottom 25%. Am I a rich asshole for having more $ than a quarter of Americans collectively? No.
The way the author is writing it, he's trying to make it seem like it's normal to be rich and even poor people are rich and yada yada yada.
There's a difference between having ten dollars in your pocket and being a multi-billionaire. I'm not saying it's wrong to be rich, of course it's not. But the rich do have a responsibility to the nation that gave them the chance to get rich.
Sorry, when did Sarah Palin attack Fox News and call them liars? She's kinda a Fox News contributor after all, so it would make her look bad to talk shit about them.
I must have misunderstood you. I thought you meant what conservatives agree with Fox. My bad.
As far as the Yahoo! article goes, I had a good feeling you'd think just like you said you did. If you have no debt and $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans collectively. If you and 5 siblings own one of the largest companies in the world you have more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans collectively. The author of that article is trying to make it as obvious as possible that anti-rich are just slinging these numbers around without facts explaining just how LITTLE wealth there is at the bottom 25%. Am I a rich asshole for having more $ than a quarter of Americans collectively? No.
The way the author is writing it, he's trying to make it seem like it's normal to be rich and even poor people are rich and yada yada yada.
There's a difference between having ten dollars in your pocket and being a multi-billionaire. I'm not saying it's wrong to be rich, of course it's not. But the rich do have a responsibility to the nation that gave them the chance to get rich.
When you get the chance you should watch the youtube video as well, it was fantastic!
I laughed my ass off.
"He caused the Great Depression" Lolwut? 1939?
This guy is trying to portray himself as a hero.
He also tries to make regulations and taxes look bad and evil.
Wish I could reach through the screen and punch his smug little face. Bastard.
Well, as far as the Yahoo! article goes, it shows that these huge numbers being thrown around all willy-nilly are kind of confusing. Normal people are massively above the bottom 25% of Americans when it comes to collective wealth. And besides, the only real purpose of saying these few people have more money than these 1000's of people (for example) is to simply demonize the handful who have all that cash.
In regards to the video, I liked a lot of it but didn't really get what he meant when he said FDR caused it. Wish he would've explained why he thinks that, but oh well. My favorite part is when some guy in the protester crowd suggested something along the lines of the average tax rate, I think he said like 17%. Someone else said 35%, and the guy laughed. That'd be a massive tax cut for him & he'd love to pay those lower rates lol. I guess people don't understand just how much money the top % pay in taxes.
I'm glad you agree that the FDR comment made no sense. Something we can agree on. Yay!
Now, back to stuff we don't agree on!
Saying things like if you have no debt and ten bucks in your pocket you got more money then a quarter of America makes it sound as though the obscenely rich are not obscenely rich. It brings them back down to earth, where they do not live.
As for what the tax rates should be, I'd personally like to take them back to pre-Reagan years, with pre-Reagan Regulations and pre-Reagan taxes.
Additionally, there should be a steep tax to take a business out of the states, and a tax on businesses that have factories and call centers and whatnot overseas. Why? Because then the corporations (Which are not people, and the SCOTUS can lick my nuts) can stop threatening to take their companies overseas unless they want massive taxes levied on them.
Could this be considered harsh? Hell yes. Could it save America from going even further under? Hell yes.
Saying things like if you have no debt and ten bucks in your pocket you got more money then a quarter of America makes it sound as though the obscenely rich are not obscenely rich. It brings them back down to earth, where they do not live.
Each point in and of itself tries to do the same thing on the opposite end of a spectrum. One tries to make the rich seem like otherworldly evil creatures while the other makes billionaires look like Tom, Dick, and Harry. Isn't there some logical middle-ground? Rich people are still people after all.
As for what the tax rates should be, I'd personally like to take them back to pre-Reagan years, with pre-Reagan Regulations and pre-Reagan taxes.
Pre-Reagan taxes & regulations, hmm I don't know off the top of my head what those exact numbers or regulations were but I think I can confidently say regulations then and regulations now might not completely line up. What he was saying about how companies end up passing off their taxes onto shareholders and consumers makes a lot of sense though. They'll pay them but then they'll charge everyone around them more so they end up spending $0. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but maybe if those taxes weren't there in the first place there would be less of an increase in costs in that sense?
Additionally, there should be a steep tax to take a business out of the states, and a tax on businesses that have factories and call centers and whatnot overseas. Why? Because then the corporations (Which are not people, and the SCOTUS can lick my nuts) can stop threatening to take their companies overseas unless they want massive taxes levied on them.
Could this be considered harsh? Hell yes. Could it save America from going even further under? Hell yes.
I'm curious how you could tax a business for leaving the U.S. though. That seems pretty nonsensical, not to mention it sounds like you're trying to fix companies threatening to leave by instead having the government threaten companies to stay or else.
Couldn't these company CEO's make a new company overseas and transfer the assets of company A to the newly created company B as a way around the silly tax? I dunno if that's an EXACT way to do it but I'm pretty sure there's at least one loophole or work-around to avoid being taxed. Besides, what other taxes are implemented when you choose you no longer want to do something? IIRC most (if not all) taxes hit you when you decide to do something, as opposed to no longer doing something.
Don't forget that this would be a MASSIVE deterrent to even make a company in the U.S. in the first place. If you intended on creating a new company and this was in place, it'd be a smart move to leave the country with restrictive taxes before building your business.
Edit: Finally decided it was time to give myself an Avatar photo.
Each point in and of itself tries to do the same thing on the opposite end of a spectrum. One tries to make the rich seem like otherworldly evil creatures while the other makes billionaires look like Tom, Dick, and Harry. Isn't there some logical middle-ground? Rich people are still people after all.
I am not saying they are otherworldly evil creatures, but a good many of them are not good people. Yes, there are good people, Bill Gates comes to mind, but people like him are exception, not the norm.
Yes, they are still people. The person that just mugged you is also still just a person, right?
Pre-Reagan taxes & regulations, hmm I don't know off the top of my head what those exact numbers or regulations were but I think I can confidently say regulations then and regulations now might not completely line up. What he was saying about how companies end up passing off their taxes onto shareholders and consumers makes a lot of sense though. They'll pay them but then they'll charge everyone around them more so they end up spending $0. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but maybe if those taxes weren't there in the first place there would be less of an increase in costs in that sense?
I don't remember off the top of my head the taxes and regulations over the last couple decades like I used to, but I distinctly remember prior to the Reagan years, and even in the Reagan years, taxes were up and regulations were up.
I'm curious how you could tax a business for leaving the U.S. though. That seems pretty nonsensical, not to mention it sounds like you're trying to fix companies threatening to leave by instead having the government threaten companies to stay or else.
Basically, yea. The government needs to step in and protect the people. Otherwise the companies are going to do whatever they want. If the government isn't protecting the people, what use are they?
Couldn't these company CEO's make a new company overseas and transfer the assets of company A to the newly created company B as a way around the silly tax?
The assets would still be taxed, regardless of how he moved it. (Technically, you cannot tax a company for leaving, but you can tax the movement of everything, if that makes sense?)
I dunno if that's an EXACT way to do it but I'm pretty sure there's at least one loophole or work-around to avoid being taxed. Besides, what other taxes are implemented when you choose you no longer want to do something? IIRC most (if not all) taxes hit you when you decide to do something, as opposed to no longer doing something.
Leaving the states would be considered doing something. Moving assets would be considered doing something. Threatening the government and the American people would be considered doing something.
Don't forget that this would be a MASSIVE deterrent to even make a company in the U.S. in the first place. If you intended on creating a new company and this was in place, it'd be a smart move to leave the country with restrictive taxes before building your business.
Obviously this wouldn't be in place for smaller companies and ma & pa shops. But for companies like Mopar, GE, BP, or anything else, this would hit them hard and where it counts - their money.
Each point in and of itself tries to do the same thing on the opposite end of a spectrum. One tries to make the rich seem like otherworldly evil creatures while the other makes billionaires look like Tom, Dick, and Harry. Isn't there some logical middle-ground? Rich people are still people after all.
I am not saying they are otherworldly evil creatures, but a good many of them are not good people. Yes, there are good people, Bill Gates comes to mind, but people like him are exception, not the norm.
Yes, they are still people. The person that just mugged you is also still just a person, right?
Well, unlike a thief or mugger, rich people aren't criminals. That's not to say some people on Wall Street didn't break the law though, and those people should be investigated and punished if guilty of course.
Pre-Reagan taxes & regulations, hmm I don't know off the top of my head what those exact numbers or regulations were but I think I can confidently say regulations then and regulations now might not completely line up. What he was saying about how companies end up passing off their taxes onto shareholders and consumers makes a lot of sense though. They'll pay them but then they'll charge everyone around them more so they end up spending $0. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but maybe if those taxes weren't there in the first place there would be less of an increase in costs in that sense?
I don't remember off the top of my head the taxes and regulations over the last couple decades like I used to, but I distinctly remember prior to the Reagan years, and even in the Reagan years, taxes were up and regulations were up.
I know it's more complicated than this, but isn't the most fair system of taxation a set percentage that everyone pays? Then remove the loopholes allowing people to skip out of paying of their taxes, and put in some breaks for the very poor & low income so they can retain a bit more of their annual earnings.
I'm curious how you could tax a business for leaving the U.S. though. That seems pretty nonsensical, not to mention it sounds like you're trying to fix companies threatening to leave by instead having the government threaten companies to stay or else.
Basically, yea. The government needs to step in and protect the people. Otherwise the companies are going to do whatever they want. If the government isn't protecting the people, what use are they?
I don't see the equivalency between the national government threatening companies who wish to take their manufacturing outside of the US, with protecting the American people. Also, who's going to protect the companies & those who manage them (who are possibly Americans as well, and deserve the same protection).
Couldn't these company CEO's make a new company overseas and transfer the assets of company A to the newly created company B as a way around the silly tax?
The assets would still be taxed, regardless of how he moved it. (Technically, you cannot tax a company for leaving, but you can tax the movement of everything, if that makes sense?)
That makes technical sense, though it doesn't make sense as far as what is & isn't fair. If I don't want to manufacture something here (in the U.S.) because taxes and regulations make it more profitable to make it somewhere in eastern Asia, what's wrong with that? I want consumers to have to pay low prices instead of hiking up consumer costs to make up the profit margin from higher tax rates and regulation. Either reduce taxes and regulation so I decide to keep my business here, or I'll go elsewhere where I can make the product for less money and thus charge consumers less for my final product.
I dunno if that's an EXACT way to do it but I'm pretty sure there's at least one loophole or work-around to avoid being taxed. Besides, what other taxes are implemented when you choose you no longer want to do something? IIRC most (if not all) taxes hit you when you decide to do something, as opposed to no longer doing something.
Leaving the states would be considered doing something. Moving assets would be considered doing something. Threatening the government and the American people would be considered doing something.
Hypothetical - I don't want to stay here because it's too expensive to make my product. I'm going to move somewhere where it's cheaper to produce, unless of course things changed here prior to me making the final decision to leave.
That's not threatening the American people. That's just how it is. Why stay somewhere, when you can move and make more money? These are businesses after all, their job is to produce a product and make money.
Don't forget that this would be a MASSIVE deterrent to even make a company in the U.S. in the first place. If you intended on creating a new company and this was in place, it'd be a smart move to leave the country with restrictive taxes before building your business.
Obviously this wouldn't be in place for smaller companies and ma & pa shops. But for companies like Mopar, GE, BP, or anything else, this would hit them hard and where it counts - their money.
You do know that at one point MOPAR, GE, BP, etc were Mom & Pop businesses right? If there was a certain cap at which these "pull-out taxes" were implemented, then growing companies would monitor their growth and leave just prior to getting to the point at which they'd be considered for the taxes. Every company starts out tiny, and shouldn't be punished for wanting to get bigger and more profitable.
All you have to do is search the Internet and there are loads of examples. Understand I am not a liberal, I'm a moderate. I'm a fiscal conservative but liberal in respect to the environment for example, I piss off both parties fairly equally. I have no issue with Fox and their conservative agenda, if that's what they want to do fine. I have issues with the outright lies, more so Rupert Murdoch is the evil behind it all.
Be careful what you say. I am a hard left social liberal, but fiscally I am more center-right leaning. The "fiscal conservatives" of america are just as spend happy as the "fiscal liberals" in america. (Yes, you have to spend some money, but there is a such thing as too much.)
When you say you are a fiscal conservative, people may get images in their head of sarah palin or dick chaney, wanting to conserve money by cutting things like social services and spend it on war.
I know, I'm more a Ron Paul fiscal conservative than what the Republican's are, the GOP morphed into largely lip service fiscal conservatives over the last 30 years. Also despite liking Ron Paul's economic views I'm not a libertarian either because I do realize their is a need for basic services and somethings are better served being public rather than private. I do see taxes as the cost of living in a civilized society. That said I think Keynesian economics is severely flawed and believe Hayek (Austrian economics) is going to be vindicated big time inside this decade. In fact it already has been several times over, they saw this crisis coming years before it hit, and accurately detailed what problems it would cause and more importantly why.
To me it's insane to think we can print our way out of this mess, run up debt to GDP ratios that we have, and run on a credit dependent world. I won't go into all the details, but mark my words We're going to pay for this big time within this decade, the economic crisis is no where near over and the worst has yet to come. When you look at how the world has handled the situation (and I've researched it pretty intensively) all they did was climb to a higher cliff from which to jump.
Well, unlike a thief or mugger, rich people aren't criminals. That's not to say some people on Wall Street didn't break the law though, and those people should be investigated and punished if guilty of course.
Not all rich people are thieves or muggers, just like not all poor people are thieves and muggers. That's exactly my point. (Except, rich people can usually buy themselves out of jail time.)
I know it's more complicated than this, but isn't the most fair system of taxation a set percentage that everyone pays? Then remove the loopholes allowing people to skip out of paying of their taxes, and put in some breaks for the very poor & low income so they can retain a bit more of their annual earnings.
One would think, yes. But you have to remember that rich people make money differently then poor people. We (You and I) work at a job and earn income via pay checks, whereas a rich person invests money and makes money that way.
Additionally, even if they did make their income like we did, think about this for a moment. Lets say person A makes 20k a year. Person B makes 200k a year. Taxes are 10%. Person A just lost 2k, and person B just lost 20k. This looks like a lot until you remember that person B still has 180k, whereas person A only has 18k. This is why a progressive tax system makes the most sense.
I hope I explained that well enough to be understood.
I don't see the equivalency between the national government threatening companies who wish to take their manufacturing outside of the US, with protecting the American people. Also, who's going to protect the companies & those who manage them (who are possibly Americans as well, and deserve the same protection).
Americans loose jobs, tax revenues from the companies are lost, taxes on the American people go up to make up for the lost taxes, etc, etc.
That makes technical sense, though it doesn't make sense as far as what is & isn't fair. If I don't want to manufacture something here (in the U.S.) because taxes and regulations make it more profitable to make it somewhere in eastern Asia, what's wrong with that? I want consumers to have to pay low prices instead of hiking up consumer costs to make up the profit margin from higher tax rates and regulation. Either reduce taxes and regulation so I decide to keep my business here, or I'll go elsewhere where I can make the product for less money and thus charge consumers less for my final product.
You are still legally permitted. You just have to pay taxes to take your assets out, and if you still want to sell your products in America, the products are taxed when they enter America. Additionally, fees are placed on the products to make sure they meet American regulatory standards which would not of been levied on said products if they were in America.
I don't want consumers to have to pay more, and if the competition in America can sell it for less, then why would the consumer pay more for the company that left America?
As for reducing regulation, that makes zero sense. That is akin to allowing BP to cause even more oil spills.
That's not threatening the American people. That's just how it is. Why stay somewhere, when you can move and make more money? These are businesses after all, their job is to produce a product and make money.
Of course, why stay in the country that helped to nurture your company into what it is?
You do know that at one point MOPAR, GE, BP, etc were Mom & Pop businesses right? If there was a certain cap at which these "pull-out taxes" were implemented, then growing companies would monitor their growth and leave just prior to getting to the point at which they'd be considered for the taxes. Every company starts out tiny, and shouldn't be punished for wanting to get bigger and more profitable.
You are right, they shouldn't be punished for wanting to grow.
They should, however, be punished for taking advantage of the American capitalistic system. The American capitalist system is designed to help companies grow, not to grow companies then send said companies off to other nations to reap the rewards of America but not pay the costs of America.
Well, unlike a thief or mugger, rich people aren't criminals. That's not to say some people on Wall Street didn't break the law though, and those people should be investigated and punished if guilty of course.
Not all rich people are thieves or muggers, just like not all poor people are thieves and muggers. That's exactly my point. (Except, rich people can usually buy themselves out of jail time.)
See, the main difference here is you were comparing them to criminals and I wasn't comparing the poor to criminals. Also, you said "a good many are not good people" which isn't the case, most rich people haven't done anything wrong. Let's not forget the difference between moral wrongs and legal wrongs. Morals are based on opinion (what you or I consider to be "wrong") as opposed to breaking the law which is directly a crime.
I know it's more complicated than this, but isn't the most fair system of taxation a set percentage that everyone pays? Then remove the loopholes allowing people to skip out of paying of their taxes, and put in some breaks for the very poor & low income so they can retain a bit more of their annual earnings.
One would think, yes. But you have to remember that rich people make money differently then poor people. We (You and I) work at a job and earn income via pay checks, whereas a rich person invests money and makes money that way.
Additionally, even if they did make their income like we did, think about this for a moment. Lets say person A makes 20k a year. Person B makes 200k a year. Taxes are 10%. Person A just lost 2k, and person B just lost 20k. This looks like a lot until you remember that person B still has 180k, whereas person A only has 18k. This is why a progressive tax system makes the most sense.
I hope I explained that well enough to be understood.
I understood what you meant & how you said it, but I completely don't agree with the point you're trying to get across here. Both people in your example made their income the same way and paid the same % on their taxes, so what's wrong? The way to fix the whole "rich pay less taxes on most of the money they get because it's invested" is to lower their income tax rates and adjust their capital gains taxes to that of their new income tax rates (which will be equal to the income tax rate that everyone else pays, in the interest of fairness).
I don't see the equivalency between the national government threatening companies who wish to take their manufacturing outside of the US, with protecting the American people. Also, who's going to protect the companies & those who manage them (who are possibly Americans as well, and deserve the same protection).
Americans loose jobs, tax revenues from the companies are lost, taxes on the American people go up to make up for the lost taxes, etc, etc.
So if you lessened regulations and lowered the taxes on the companies who would like to stay here but cannot afford to do so, how does that negatively affect Americans? Also, if you have these pull-out taxes it's going to cost a company a good deal of money, possibly forcing them to lay off some employees (i.e. Americans losing jobs because of these taxes).
That makes technical sense, though it doesn't make sense as far as what is & isn't fair. If I don't want to manufacture something here (in the U.S.) because taxes and regulations make it more profitable to make it somewhere in eastern Asia, what's wrong with that? I want consumers to have to pay low prices instead of hiking up consumer costs to make up the profit margin from higher tax rates and regulation. Either reduce taxes and regulation so I decide to keep my business here, or I'll go elsewhere where I can make the product for less money and thus charge consumers less for my final product.
You are still legally permitted. You just have to pay taxes to take your assets out, and if you still want to sell your products in America, the products are taxed when they enter America. Additionally, fees are placed on the products to make sure they meet American regulatory standards which would not of been levied on said products if they were in America.
I don't want consumers to have to pay more, and if the competition in America can sell it for less, then why would the consumer pay more for the company that left America?
As for reducing regulation, that makes zero sense. That is akin to allowing BP to cause even more oil spills.
The problem arises when the company is getting taxes significantly more in the U.S. than it would abroad, thus increasing their production costs. In order to maintain profit with the higher production costs they have to increase the price on the consumer. If taxes were lowered they would produce a product for less money and charge the consumer less, giving them more business and letting more people who need/want the product to be able to buy it. Win-win.
Also, there's tons of regulation already in the oil industry and accidents still happen. Accidents happen, that's a fact of life, you'll never stop every accident from happening. Since it's purely a hypothetical situation no one can really say what less regulation will have. Maybe having to cut corners in other places (because they're having to keep profits up for investors while meeting regulations) will overall lead to an increase in safety? Maybe not? We can't really know.
That's not threatening the American people. That's just how it is. Why stay somewhere, when you can move and make more money? These are businesses after all, their job is to produce a product and make money.
Of course, why stay in the country that helped to nurture your company into what it is?
Because who spent years employing people in that country and not that country has double-crossed you. It's either time to leave or time to sit down with the country and fix things before your "break up".
You do know that at one point MOPAR, GE, BP, etc were Mom & Pop businesses right? If there was a certain cap at which these "pull-out taxes" were implemented, then growing companies would monitor their growth and leave just prior to getting to the point at which they'd be considered for the taxes. Every company starts out tiny, and shouldn't be punished for wanting to get bigger and more profitable.
You are right, they shouldn't be punished for wanting to grow.
They should, however, be punished for taking advantage of the American capitalistic system. The American capitalist system is designed to help companies grow, not to grow companies then send said companies off to other nations to reap the rewards of America but not pay the costs of America.
But how are they supposed to continue to grow if taxes & regulations hold them back? Isn't the system supposed to help them grow? Or is it supposed to help them grow until they hit a certain size, and then at that point it's supposed to hold them back?
See, the main difference here is you were comparing them to criminals and I wasn't comparing the poor to criminals. Also, you said "a good many are not good people" which isn't the case, most rich people haven't done anything wrong. Let's not forget the difference between moral wrongs and legal wrongs. Morals are based on opinion (what you or I consider to be "wrong") as opposed to breaking the law which is directly a crime.
I'm not talking about moral wrong, but rather legal wrong. And I don't have the data on hand to show that a good large chunk of rich people are not good people, so I'll retract that statement for now.
I understood what you meant & how you said it, but I completely don't agree with the point you're trying to get across here. Both people in your example made their income the same way and paid the same % on their taxes, so what's wrong? The way to fix the whole "rich pay less taxes on most of the money they get because it's invested" is to lower their income tax rates and adjust their capital gains taxes to that of their new income tax rates (which will be equal to the income tax rate that everyone else pays, in the interest of fairness).
And with your system, the rich get even richer and the poor get even poorer.
So if you lessened regulations and lowered the taxes on the companies who would like to stay here but cannot afford to do so, how does that negatively affect Americans? Also, if you have these pull-out taxes it's going to cost a company a good deal of money, possibly forcing them to lay off some employees (i.e. Americans losing jobs because of these taxes).
You lessen regulations and quality goes down, raising recalls, lowering quality, and raising taxes on the consumers themselves to pay publicly funded medical and fire departments, along with paying to force companies to perform recalls, which would of never been needed if regulations had been in place.
Additionally, if they are pulling out, they are not going to be taking their American work force to China to pay said Americans 30 cents an hour to get by with lower taxes, almost no laws and regulations on the quality of products that are being produced, and no annoying labor unions demanding fair working conditions.
The problem arises when the company is getting taxes significantly more in the U.S. than it would abroad, thus increasing their production costs. In order to maintain profit with the higher production costs they have to increase the price on the consumer. If taxes were lowered they would produce a product for less money and charge the consumer less, giving them more business and letting more people who need/want the product to be able to buy it. Win-win.
Not quote a win-win, more like win-draw-loose.
When you lower taxes on the companies, the consumers still have to pay the taxes, because uncle sam still needs those taxes to be able to function. The taxes just come out somewhere else. And if you can force the companies to bite the bullet and pay even partially some of those taxes that helps the consumers be able to buy more.
Additionally, why should the company not pay taxes to be in America? One, the company is a "citizen" as per the scotus, no? And two, why would they not want to give back to the country that helped make them what they are today?
Also, there's tons of regulation already in the oil industry and accidents still happen. Accidents happen, that's a fact of life, you'll never stop every accident from happening. Since it's purely a hypothetical situation no one can really say what less regulation will have. Maybe having to cut corners in other places (because they're having to keep profits up for investors while meeting regulations) will overall lead to an increase in safety? Maybe not? We can't really know.
There are very, very little regulations in the oil industry, and those regulations that are currently on the books have so many loopholes that the oil industry laughs at them.
As for accidents, if BP, for example, had followed the regulations of just some odd years ago, they would not have had the oil spill. And if regulations were stronger, many other spills, along with recalls (Remember, for a child's toy to be recalled, five children must die) and other such things, would be reduced to such a lower rate, akin to the rate that they were at before this anti-regulatory rhetoric became so popular in politics.
Because who spent years employing people in that country and not that country has double-crossed you. It's either time to leave or time to sit down with the country and fix things before your "break up".
And how did that country double cross you? For asking that you give back to the system that made you what you are today?
That's like belonging to a club, and that club making you famous, then when that club asks for some aid, you tell the club to go fuck itself because it double crossed you for asking for some aid. (Not a perfect comparison, but pretty close.)
But how are they supposed to continue to grow if taxes & regulations hold them back? Isn't the system supposed to help them grow? Or is it supposed to help them grow until they hit a certain size, and then at that point it's supposed to hold them back?
How did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs grow with these supposedly evil taxes and regulations on his back? They didn't exactly "hold him back". Claiming they hold these companies back is completely false.
As for the taxes and fees to attempt to keep American companies in America, that is designed to keep American companies in America because it makes no sense to grow a company just to ship it off to another country because they save a few pennies per person.
I understood what you meant & how you said it, but I completely don't agree with the point you're trying to get across here. Both people in your example made their income the same way and paid the same % on their taxes, so what's wrong? The way to fix the whole "rich pay less taxes on most of the money they get because it's invested" is to lower their income tax rates and adjust their capital gains taxes to that of their new income tax rates (which will be equal to the income tax rate that everyone else pays, in the interest of fairness).
And with your system, the rich get even richer and the poor get even poorer.
Nothing is changing for the poor, so how are they getting poorer? They'd be paying the same tax rate they are now...
So if you lessened regulations and lowered the taxes on the companies who would like to stay here but cannot afford to do so, how does that negatively affect Americans? Also, if you have these pull-out taxes it's going to cost a company a good deal of money, possibly forcing them to lay off some employees (i.e. Americans losing jobs because of these taxes).
You lessen regulations and quality goes down, raising recalls, lowering quality, and raising taxes on the consumers themselves to pay publicly funded medical and fire departments, along with paying to force companies to perform recalls, which would of never been needed if regulations had been in place.
Additionally, if they are pulling out, they are not going to be taking their American work force to China to pay said Americans 30 cents an hour to get by with lower taxes, almost no laws and regulations on the quality of products that are being produced, and no annoying labor unions demanding fair working conditions.
Two things to keep in mind here, the only types of regulations I was referring to were ones that have nothing to do with safety or quality of the product. Secondly, if a company wants to pull all their workforce out of the U.S. and fire those hundreds of people, let them. If people are upset about it, the free market will speak for itself. That company will be boycotted and take massive losses, and in the end might move back. THAT would be their punishment for pulling out. If they move all their operations and nothing changes, then obviously people don't really give a shit, and good on them (the company) for figuring out a way to increase profits.
The problem arises when the company is getting taxes significantly more in the U.S. than it would abroad, thus increasing their production costs. In order to maintain profit with the higher production costs they have to increase the price on the consumer. If taxes were lowered they would produce a product for less money and charge the consumer less, giving them more business and letting more people who need/want the product to be able to buy it. Win-win.
Not quote a win-win, more like win-draw-loose.
When you lower taxes on the companies, the consumers still have to pay the taxes, because uncle sam still needs those taxes to be able to function. The taxes just come out somewhere else. And if you can force the companies to bite the bullet and pay even partially some of those taxes that helps the consumers be able to buy more.
Additionally, why should the company not pay taxes to be in America? One, the company is a "citizen" as per the scotus, no? And two, why would they not want to give back to the country that helped make them what they are today?
If Uncle Sam trimmed the fat on their annual budget they wouldn't need to charge these high rates on companies in the first place. Federal spending is wildly out of control as is. There are tons of places to cut spending, one of which (I think) being DoD spending SPECIFICALLY in the area of weapons and technology development. Don't touch the budgets for our troops pay & benefits or else I'll have to go out and protest my damn self.
Point is, there's lots of places to cut costs, and lots of money being overspent.
Additionally (and let's be realistic) who the fuck WANTS to give back to anyone if they don't have to? Few people, very very few people. The people who normally DO want to give back have so much money that they could give back for the rest of their lives and never notice it in their bank accounts. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Also, there's tons of regulation already in the oil industry and accidents still happen. Accidents happen, that's a fact of life, you'll never stop every accident from happening. Since it's purely a hypothetical situation no one can really say what less regulation will have. Maybe having to cut corners in other places (because they're having to keep profits up for investors while meeting regulations) will overall lead to an increase in safety? Maybe not? We can't really know.
There are very, very little regulations in the oil industry, and those regulations that are currently on the books have so many loopholes that the oil industry laughs at them.
As for accidents, if BP, for example, had followed the regulations of just some odd years ago, they would not have had the oil spill. And if regulations were stronger, many other spills, along with recalls (Remember, for a child's toy to be recalled, five children must die) and other such things, would be reduced to such a lower rate, akin to the rate that they were at before this anti-regulatory rhetoric became so popular in politics.
In either direction (more or less regulation being better/worse) it's all hypothetical. If BP was already loop-holing the regulations in place, who's to say MORE regulation wouldn't get loop-holed by them? It could end up being a BIGGER pain in the ass with NO benefit.
Because who spent years employing people in that country and not that country has double-crossed you. It's either time to leave or time to sit down with the country and fix things before your "break up".
And how did that country double cross you? For asking that you give back to the system that made you what you are today?
That's like belonging to a club, and that club making you famous, then when that club asks for some aid, you tell the club to go fuck itself because it double crossed you for asking for some aid. (Not a perfect comparison, but pretty close.)
There is a massivemassivemassive difference between asking and demandingunder federal law, with huge negative consequences if you don't decide to cooperate.
But how are they supposed to continue to grow if taxes & regulations hold them back? Isn't the system supposed to help them grow? Or is it supposed to help them grow until they hit a certain size, and then at that point it's supposed to hold them back?
How did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs grow with these supposedly evil taxes and regulations on his back? They didn't exactly "hold him back". Claiming they hold these companies back is completely false.
As for the taxes and fees to attempt to keep American companies in America, that is designed to keep American companies in America because it makes no sense to grow a company just to ship it off to another country because they save a few pennies per person.
You do know most (correct me if I'm wrong) of Apple's product manufacturing is overseas, right? It's too expensive to make iPods, iPads, etc here in the U.S. because of taxes & regulations. It's ridiculous to say you want to grow a company until it hits a certain size but then stifle it's continued growth by penalizing them. I wouldn't want to start a business here if it means I can't move it where I want to increase profits, that's just ridiculous IMO.
This is an awesome video, Kyle Bass is a true gun, his insight is remarkable.
For any who wonder about all this economic doom and gloom talk. Understand that our it's very, very, easy to see what is happening with sovereign debt of nations because it's all out there for everyone to see. It's not doom and gloom, it just numbers. Like a marathon dance contest all the nations have been on their feet for about 20 hours, you know hey are going to fall out, the only question who's going 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Why do I hammer about people taking their money out of the market or banks? Kyle Bass explains this beautifully in this video, I only wish they let him finish about the US at the end.
This is an awesome video, Kyle Bass is a true gun, his insight is remarkable.
For any who wonder about all this economic doom and gloom talk. Understand that our it's very, very, easy to see what is happening with sovereign debt of nations because it's all out there for everyone to see. It's not doom and gloom, it just numbers. Like a marathon dance contest all the nations have been on their feet for about 20 hours, you know hey are going to fall out, the only question who's going 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Why do I hammer about people taking their money out of the market or banks? Kyle Bass explains this beautifully in this video, I only wish they let him finish about the US at the end.
Moving right along however, all of that kind of confused me. I'm not really a broker or anything (and I'm kinda sleepy at this hour) but what he said seemed to make sense (relatively). That being said, I'm glad people can make a fortune betting against or in favor of, a country's economy. I'm not being sarcastic there, I like the concept of a speculation market, it's a pretty neat concept in general.
Nothing is changing for the poor, so how are they getting poorer? They'd be paying the same tax rate they are now...
When you lower the taxes for the rich and raise taxes for the poor, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, which is what happens with a flat tax system, which is exactly why the rich want a flat tax system.
Two things to keep in mind here, the only types of regulations I was referring to were ones that have nothing to do with safety or quality of the product. Secondly, if a company wants to pull all their workforce out of the U.S. and fire those hundreds of people, let them. If people are upset about it, the free market will speak for itself. That company will be boycotted and take massive losses, and in the end might move back. THAT would be their punishment for pulling out. If they move all their operations and nothing changes, then obviously people don't really give a shit, and good on them (the company) for figuring out a way to increase profits.
The Laissez-faire style of governing has shown time and time again that it simply does not work. History speaks for itself.
As for the people, the people are generally lazy and only care about getting another big mac or Whooper. Additionally, the people are generally stupid, especially when you compare the number of scientists to the number of priests in America.
However, the American populace being lazy should not be what allows individual corporations and companies to ass rape the American government and American populace. There needs to be deterrents to protect the people.
If Uncle Sam trimmed the fat on their annual budget they wouldn't need to charge these high rates on companies in the first place.
I just wanna say, I completely agree! For example, the defense budget (Or, as I call it, the Offense budget) is so bloated that it engulfs the economies of many other entire nations. If we could trim that, a great deal of good could come from that. (For example, money towards EDUCATION)
Federal spending is wildly out of control as is. There are tons of places to cut spending, one of which (I think) being DoD spending SPECIFICALLY in the area of weapons and technology development. Don't touch the budgets for our troops pay & benefits or else I'll have to go out and protest my damn self.
Yea... Cut the DoD in half and you would still have the most powerful military in the world.
Additionally (and let's be realistic) who the fuck WANTS to give back to anyone if they don't have to? Few people, very very few people. The people who normally DO want to give back have so much money that they could give back for the rest of their lives and never notice it in their bank accounts. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
If they don't want to give back, then why the fuck should the American government care about what their feelings are anyway? They are cold hearted bastards so why should anybody care about them? (Honestly, why should anybody care about them if they are so cold.)
In either direction (more or less regulation being better/worse) it's all hypothetical. If BP was already loop-holing the regulations in place, who's to say MORE regulation wouldn't get loop-holed by them? It could end up being a BIGGER pain in the ass with NO benefit.
More strict regulations, better paid regulators, and more regulators, and the oil spill wouldn't of happened. More strict regulations to give the regulators more power, higher pay to keep them from double dipping, and more regulators to help watch the companies.
Also, strict penalties for regulators found not doing their jobs.
Cut the DoD in half, and use 5% of the money gained to do this. Guaranteed never to have a BP spill like the Gulf spill again.
There is a massivemassivemassive difference between asking and demandingunder federal law, with huge negative consequences if you don't decide to cooperate.
Alright, if you donate a small portion of your profits, you get a tax cut. If you employee more Americans, you get a tax cut. If you do this, or do that, you get a tax cut. If you don't your taxes are higher.
And, again, the federal government is here to protect the people, not to protect the corporations. "We the people" and all that jazz.
You do know most (correct me if I'm wrong) of Apple's product manufacturing is overseas, right? It's too expensive to make iPods, iPads, etc here in the U.S. because of taxes & regulations. It's ridiculous to say you want to grow a company until it hits a certain size but then stifle it's continued growth by penalizing them. I wouldn't want to start a business here if it means I can't move it where I want to increase profits, that's just ridiculous IMO.
I don't want to stifle any corporation. I simply want corporations to not put the consumer and the employees in a position where, essentially, they are taking it up the bum.
Nothing is changing for the poor, so how are they getting poorer? They'd be paying the same tax rate they are now...
When you lower the taxes for the rich and raise taxes for the poor, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, which is what happens with a flat tax system, which is exactly why the rich want a flat tax system.
But that's not what either of us said, or anything I've heard for that matter. A flat tax system would keep in place the current tax rates for the lower-end of the spectrum, and lower the tax rates for the higher end to that of everyone else. Pretty much lower everyone's taxes down to that of the poor's tax rates. Then, make sure there are tax breaks and cuts in place for the especially poor, to help them keep a higher portion of their already-low income.
How do you make up for the loss of "income" from the rich being more heavily taxed? Cut federal spending budgets.
Two things to keep in mind here, the only types of regulations I was referring to were ones that have nothing to do with safety or quality of the product. Secondly, if a company wants to pull all their workforce out of the U.S. and fire those hundreds of people, let them. If people are upset about it, the free market will speak for itself. That company will be boycotted and take massive losses, and in the end might move back. THAT would be their punishment for pulling out. If they move all their operations and nothing changes, then obviously people don't really give a shit, and good on them (the company) for figuring out a way to increase profits.
The Laissez-faire style of governing has shown time and time again that it simply does not work. History speaks for itself.
As for the people, the people are generally lazy and only care about getting another big mac or Whooper. Additionally, the people are generally stupid, especially when you compare the number of scientists to the number of priests in America.
However, the American populace being lazy should not be what allows individual corporations and companies to ass rape the American government and American populace. There needs to be deterrents to protect the people.
Eh I don't know if I completely agree with the last part of what you said. I guess I'm more libertarian-leaning when it comes to this viewpoint but, let stupid people be stupid and let them suffer. It's the Darwinian way. If we coddle morons into being safe morons, then what is there in place to make people become less moronic? Over time society will become more & more ignorant (almost like Idiocracy) and we'll just have to keep implementing more protection for the dumb citizens. I don't want to live in a world full of idiots... sorry.
If Uncle Sam trimmed the fat on their annual budget they wouldn't need to charge these high rates on companies in the first place.
I just wanna say, I completely agree! For example, the defense budget (Or, as I call it, the Offense budget) is so bloated that it engulfs the economies of many other entire nations. If we could trim that, a great deal of good could come from that. (For example, money towards EDUCATION)
Let's just make it crystal clear, cut some defense budget spending when it comes to development of weapons and equipment. Not all of it, we need to stay much more ahead of our counterparts & enemies, but we can tone down the budget and save a LOT of money.
Federal spending is wildly out of control as is. There are tons of places to cut spending, one of which (I think) being DoD spending SPECIFICALLY in the area of weapons and technology development. Don't touch the budgets for our troops pay & benefits or else I'll have to go out and protest my damn self.
Yea... Cut the DoD in half and you would still have the most powerful military in the world.
Half is probably way too much, we have to make sure we continue advancement in technology, without spending so much doing it. The point is to stay about a decade ahead of everyone, at all times. You don't want a fair fight on the battlefield, you want a swift & efficient one (i.e. us having much much better technology than anyone we might come up against).
Additionally (and let's be realistic) who the fuck WANTS to give back to anyone if they don't have to? Few people, very very few people. The people who normally DO want to give back have so much money that they could give back for the rest of their lives and never notice it in their bank accounts. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
If they don't want to give back, then why the fuck should the American government care about what their feelings are anyway? They are cold hearted bastards so why should anybody care about them? (Honestly, why should anybody care about them if they are so cold.)
Because the government isn't supposed to only help people who want to give back, it's supposed to equally help everyone who is applicable. Do we want to run a nation based on morals or do we want to run a nation based on fairness? That's not so much a rhetorical question as much as it is an actual one to ask yourself. I, for one, would rather see logic and fairness prevail.
In either direction (more or less regulation being better/worse) it's all hypothetical. If BP was already loop-holing the regulations in place, who's to say MORE regulation wouldn't get loop-holed by them? It could end up being a BIGGER pain in the ass with NO benefit.
More strict regulations, better paid regulators, and more regulators, and the oil spill wouldn't of happened. More strict regulations to give the regulators more power, higher pay to keep them from double dipping, and more regulators to help watch the companies.
Also, strict penalties for regulators found not doing their jobs.
Cut the DoD in half, and use 5% of the money gained to do this. Guaranteed never to have a BP spill like the Gulf spill again.
Couple of things here. 1) The cause of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was an explosion from pockets of natural gas in the ocean. More regulation wouldn't have stopped the explosion from happening. 2) There's no amount of "higher pay" that could ever keep everyone from double dipping, unless you don't know the definition of the word greed. 3) Why should we (the U.S.) have to pay for all these regulations when we're not the only ones using the oil being drilled? Absolutely no reason we should cover all the costs, period.
There is a massivemassivemassive difference between asking and demandingunder federal law, with huge negative consequences if you don't decide to cooperate.
Alright, if you donate a small portion of your profits, you get a tax cut. If you employee more Americans, you get a tax cut. If you do this, or do that, you get a tax cut. If you don't your taxes are higher.
And, again, the federal government is here to protect the people, not to protect the corporations. "We the people" and all that jazz.
Still sounds like threatening "do this or else we will make you pay, literally". Part of your idea, I do like though. Employ X amount of Americans = tax cut. Build X factories here of Y size = tax cut. Donate profits giving a tax cut sounds like a waste of time on legislation unless the amount saved from the tax cut is sizable amount larger than the amount you'd have to donate. Also, whether you like it or not, corporations are people (Dartmouth College v. Woodward & Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad).
You do know most (correct me if I'm wrong) of Apple's product manufacturing is overseas, right? It's too expensive to make iPods, iPads, etc here in the U.S. because of taxes & regulations. It's ridiculous to say you want to grow a company until it hits a certain size but then stifle it's continued growth by penalizing them. I wouldn't want to start a business here if it means I can't move it where I want to increase profits, that's just ridiculous IMO.
I don't want to stifle any corporation. I simply want corporations to not put the consumer and the employees in a position where, essentially, they are taking it up the bum.
Hypothetical scenario; I want an iPod, I'd like for it to be as inexpensive as it can be (realistically). Please tell me how I'm taking it up the bum.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Be careful what you say. I am a hard left social liberal, but fiscally I am more center-right leaning. The "fiscal conservatives" of america are just as spend happy as the "fiscal liberals" in america. (Yes, you have to spend some money, but there is a such thing as too much.)
When you say you are a fiscal conservative, people may get images in their head of sarah palin or dick chaney, wanting to conserve money by cutting things like social services and spend it on war.
Sorry, when did Sarah Palin attack Fox News and call them liars? She's kinda a Fox News contributor after all, so it would make her look bad to talk shit about them. As far as the Yahoo! article goes, I had a good feeling you'd think just like you said you did. If you have no debt and $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than the bottom 25% of Americans collectively. If you and 5 siblings own one of the largest companies in the world you have more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans collectively. The author of that article is trying to make it as obvious as possible that anti-rich are just slinging these numbers around without facts explaining just how LITTLE wealth there is at the bottom 25%. Am I a rich asshole for having more $ than a quarter of Americans collectively? No.
When you get the chance you should watch the youtube video as well, it was fantastic!
Edit: Forgot to post the link lol. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEDWs-KNf-0&feature=watch_response
I must have misunderstood you. I thought you meant what conservatives agree with Fox. My bad.
The way the author is writing it, he's trying to make it seem like it's normal to be rich and even poor people are rich and yada yada yada.
There's a difference between having ten dollars in your pocket and being a multi-billionaire. I'm not saying it's wrong to be rich, of course it's not. But the rich do have a responsibility to the nation that gave them the chance to get rich.
I laughed my ass off.
"He caused the Great Depression" Lolwut? 1939?
This guy is trying to portray himself as a hero.
He also tries to make regulations and taxes look bad and evil.
Wish I could reach through the screen and punch his smug little face. Bastard.
Well, as far as the Yahoo! article goes, it shows that these huge numbers being thrown around all willy-nilly are kind of confusing. Normal people are massively above the bottom 25% of Americans when it comes to collective wealth. And besides, the only real purpose of saying these few people have more money than these 1000's of people (for example) is to simply demonize the handful who have all that cash.
In regards to the video, I liked a lot of it but didn't really get what he meant when he said FDR caused it. Wish he would've explained why he thinks that, but oh well. My favorite part is when some guy in the protester crowd suggested something along the lines of the average tax rate, I think he said like 17%. Someone else said 35%, and the guy laughed. That'd be a massive tax cut for him & he'd love to pay those lower rates lol. I guess people don't understand just how much money the top % pay in taxes.
Now, back to stuff we don't agree on!
Saying things like if you have no debt and ten bucks in your pocket you got more money then a quarter of America makes it sound as though the obscenely rich are not obscenely rich. It brings them back down to earth, where they do not live.
As for what the tax rates should be, I'd personally like to take them back to pre-Reagan years, with pre-Reagan Regulations and pre-Reagan taxes.
Additionally, there should be a steep tax to take a business out of the states, and a tax on businesses that have factories and call centers and whatnot overseas. Why? Because then the corporations (Which are not people, and the SCOTUS can lick my nuts) can stop threatening to take their companies overseas unless they want massive taxes levied on them.
Could this be considered harsh? Hell yes. Could it save America from going even further under? Hell yes.
Haha I'm sure we agree on plenty! I just dunno what he meant by that comment, so I didn't pay it much mind.
Each point in and of itself tries to do the same thing on the opposite end of a spectrum. One tries to make the rich seem like otherworldly evil creatures while the other makes billionaires look like Tom, Dick, and Harry. Isn't there some logical middle-ground? Rich people are still people after all.
Pre-Reagan taxes & regulations, hmm I don't know off the top of my head what those exact numbers or regulations were but I think I can confidently say regulations then and regulations now might not completely line up. What he was saying about how companies end up passing off their taxes onto shareholders and consumers makes a lot of sense though. They'll pay them but then they'll charge everyone around them more so they end up spending $0. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but maybe if those taxes weren't there in the first place there would be less of an increase in costs in that sense?
I'm curious how you could tax a business for leaving the U.S. though. That seems pretty nonsensical, not to mention it sounds like you're trying to fix companies threatening to leave by instead having the government threaten companies to stay or else.
Couldn't these company CEO's make a new company overseas and transfer the assets of company A to the newly created company B as a way around the silly tax? I dunno if that's an EXACT way to do it but I'm pretty sure there's at least one loophole or work-around to avoid being taxed. Besides, what other taxes are implemented when you choose you no longer want to do something? IIRC most (if not all) taxes hit you when you decide to do something, as opposed to no longer doing something.
Don't forget that this would be a MASSIVE deterrent to even make a company in the U.S. in the first place. If you intended on creating a new company and this was in place, it'd be a smart move to leave the country with restrictive taxes before building your business.
Edit: Finally decided it was time to give myself an Avatar photo.
I am not saying they are otherworldly evil creatures, but a good many of them are not good people. Yes, there are good people, Bill Gates comes to mind, but people like him are exception, not the norm.
Yes, they are still people. The person that just mugged you is also still just a person, right?
I don't remember off the top of my head the taxes and regulations over the last couple decades like I used to, but I distinctly remember prior to the Reagan years, and even in the Reagan years, taxes were up and regulations were up.
Basically, yea. The government needs to step in and protect the people. Otherwise the companies are going to do whatever they want. If the government isn't protecting the people, what use are they?
The assets would still be taxed, regardless of how he moved it. (Technically, you cannot tax a company for leaving, but you can tax the movement of everything, if that makes sense?)
Leaving the states would be considered doing something. Moving assets would be considered doing something. Threatening the government and the American people would be considered doing something.
Obviously this wouldn't be in place for smaller companies and ma & pa shops. But for companies like Mopar, GE, BP, or anything else, this would hit them hard and where it counts - their money.
Well, unlike a thief or mugger, rich people aren't criminals. That's not to say some people on Wall Street didn't break the law though, and those people should be investigated and punished if guilty of course.
I know it's more complicated than this, but isn't the most fair system of taxation a set percentage that everyone pays? Then remove the loopholes allowing people to skip out of paying of their taxes, and put in some breaks for the very poor & low income so they can retain a bit more of their annual earnings.
I don't see the equivalency between the national government threatening companies who wish to take their manufacturing outside of the US, with protecting the American people. Also, who's going to protect the companies & those who manage them (who are possibly Americans as well, and deserve the same protection).
That makes technical sense, though it doesn't make sense as far as what is & isn't fair. If I don't want to manufacture something here (in the U.S.) because taxes and regulations make it more profitable to make it somewhere in eastern Asia, what's wrong with that? I want consumers to have to pay low prices instead of hiking up consumer costs to make up the profit margin from higher tax rates and regulation. Either reduce taxes and regulation so I decide to keep my business here, or I'll go elsewhere where I can make the product for less money and thus charge consumers less for my final product.
Hypothetical - I don't want to stay here because it's too expensive to make my product. I'm going to move somewhere where it's cheaper to produce, unless of course things changed here prior to me making the final decision to leave.
That's not threatening the American people. That's just how it is. Why stay somewhere, when you can move and make more money? These are businesses after all, their job is to produce a product and make money.
You do know that at one point MOPAR, GE, BP, etc were Mom & Pop businesses right? If there was a certain cap at which these "pull-out taxes" were implemented, then growing companies would monitor their growth and leave just prior to getting to the point at which they'd be considered for the taxes. Every company starts out tiny, and shouldn't be punished for wanting to get bigger and more profitable.
I know, I'm more a Ron Paul fiscal conservative than what the Republican's are, the GOP morphed into largely lip service fiscal conservatives over the last 30 years. Also despite liking Ron Paul's economic views I'm not a libertarian either because I do realize their is a need for basic services and somethings are better served being public rather than private. I do see taxes as the cost of living in a civilized society. That said I think Keynesian economics is severely flawed and believe Hayek (Austrian economics) is going to be vindicated big time inside this decade. In fact it already has been several times over, they saw this crisis coming years before it hit, and accurately detailed what problems it would cause and more importantly why.
To me it's insane to think we can print our way out of this mess, run up debt to GDP ratios that we have, and run on a credit dependent world. I won't go into all the details, but mark my words We're going to pay for this big time within this decade, the economic crisis is no where near over and the worst has yet to come. When you look at how the world has handled the situation (and I've researched it pretty intensively) all they did was climb to a higher cliff from which to jump.
Not all rich people are thieves or muggers, just like not all poor people are thieves and muggers. That's exactly my point. (Except, rich people can usually buy themselves out of jail time.)
One would think, yes. But you have to remember that rich people make money differently then poor people. We (You and I) work at a job and earn income via pay checks, whereas a rich person invests money and makes money that way.
Additionally, even if they did make their income like we did, think about this for a moment. Lets say person A makes 20k a year. Person B makes 200k a year. Taxes are 10%. Person A just lost 2k, and person B just lost 20k. This looks like a lot until you remember that person B still has 180k, whereas person A only has 18k. This is why a progressive tax system makes the most sense.
I hope I explained that well enough to be understood.
Americans loose jobs, tax revenues from the companies are lost, taxes on the American people go up to make up for the lost taxes, etc, etc.
You are still legally permitted. You just have to pay taxes to take your assets out, and if you still want to sell your products in America, the products are taxed when they enter America. Additionally, fees are placed on the products to make sure they meet American regulatory standards which would not of been levied on said products if they were in America.
I don't want consumers to have to pay more, and if the competition in America can sell it for less, then why would the consumer pay more for the company that left America?
As for reducing regulation, that makes zero sense. That is akin to allowing BP to cause even more oil spills.
Of course, why stay in the country that helped to nurture your company into what it is?
You are right, they shouldn't be punished for wanting to grow.
They should, however, be punished for taking advantage of the American capitalistic system. The American capitalist system is designed to help companies grow, not to grow companies then send said companies off to other nations to reap the rewards of America but not pay the costs of America.
See, the main difference here is you were comparing them to criminals and I wasn't comparing the poor to criminals. Also, you said "a good many are not good people" which isn't the case, most rich people haven't done anything wrong. Let's not forget the difference between moral wrongs and legal wrongs. Morals are based on opinion (what you or I consider to be "wrong") as opposed to breaking the law which is directly a crime.
I understood what you meant & how you said it, but I completely don't agree with the point you're trying to get across here. Both people in your example made their income the same way and paid the same % on their taxes, so what's wrong? The way to fix the whole "rich pay less taxes on most of the money they get because it's invested" is to lower their income tax rates and adjust their capital gains taxes to that of their new income tax rates (which will be equal to the income tax rate that everyone else pays, in the interest of fairness).
So if you lessened regulations and lowered the taxes on the companies who would like to stay here but cannot afford to do so, how does that negatively affect Americans? Also, if you have these pull-out taxes it's going to cost a company a good deal of money, possibly forcing them to lay off some employees (i.e. Americans losing jobs because of these taxes).
The problem arises when the company is getting taxes significantly more in the U.S. than it would abroad, thus increasing their production costs. In order to maintain profit with the higher production costs they have to increase the price on the consumer. If taxes were lowered they would produce a product for less money and charge the consumer less, giving them more business and letting more people who need/want the product to be able to buy it. Win-win.
Also, there's tons of regulation already in the oil industry and accidents still happen. Accidents happen, that's a fact of life, you'll never stop every accident from happening. Since it's purely a hypothetical situation no one can really say what less regulation will have. Maybe having to cut corners in other places (because they're having to keep profits up for investors while meeting regulations) will overall lead to an increase in safety? Maybe not? We can't really know.
Because who spent years employing people in that country and not that country has double-crossed you. It's either time to leave or time to sit down with the country and fix things before your "break up".
But how are they supposed to continue to grow if taxes & regulations hold them back? Isn't the system supposed to help them grow? Or is it supposed to help them grow until they hit a certain size, and then at that point it's supposed to hold them back?
I'm not talking about moral wrong, but rather legal wrong. And I don't have the data on hand to show that a good large chunk of rich people are not good people, so I'll retract that statement for now.
And with your system, the rich get even richer and the poor get even poorer.
You lessen regulations and quality goes down, raising recalls, lowering quality, and raising taxes on the consumers themselves to pay publicly funded medical and fire departments, along with paying to force companies to perform recalls, which would of never been needed if regulations had been in place.
Additionally, if they are pulling out, they are not going to be taking their American work force to China to pay said Americans 30 cents an hour to get by with lower taxes, almost no laws and regulations on the quality of products that are being produced, and no annoying labor unions demanding fair working conditions.
Not quote a win-win, more like win-draw-loose.
When you lower taxes on the companies, the consumers still have to pay the taxes, because uncle sam still needs those taxes to be able to function. The taxes just come out somewhere else. And if you can force the companies to bite the bullet and pay even partially some of those taxes that helps the consumers be able to buy more.
Additionally, why should the company not pay taxes to be in America? One, the company is a "citizen" as per the scotus, no? And two, why would they not want to give back to the country that helped make them what they are today?
There are very, very little regulations in the oil industry, and those regulations that are currently on the books have so many loopholes that the oil industry laughs at them.
As for accidents, if BP, for example, had followed the regulations of just some odd years ago, they would not have had the oil spill. And if regulations were stronger, many other spills, along with recalls (Remember, for a child's toy to be recalled, five children must die) and other such things, would be reduced to such a lower rate, akin to the rate that they were at before this anti-regulatory rhetoric became so popular in politics.
And how did that country double cross you? For asking that you give back to the system that made you what you are today?
That's like belonging to a club, and that club making you famous, then when that club asks for some aid, you tell the club to go fuck itself because it double crossed you for asking for some aid. (Not a perfect comparison, but pretty close.)
How did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs grow with these supposedly evil taxes and regulations on his back? They didn't exactly "hold him back". Claiming they hold these companies back is completely false.
As for the taxes and fees to attempt to keep American companies in America, that is designed to keep American companies in America because it makes no sense to grow a company just to ship it off to another country because they save a few pennies per person.
Nothing is changing for the poor, so how are they getting poorer? They'd be paying the same tax rate they are now...
Two things to keep in mind here, the only types of regulations I was referring to were ones that have nothing to do with safety or quality of the product. Secondly, if a company wants to pull all their workforce out of the U.S. and fire those hundreds of people, let them. If people are upset about it, the free market will speak for itself. That company will be boycotted and take massive losses, and in the end might move back. THAT would be their punishment for pulling out. If they move all their operations and nothing changes, then obviously people don't really give a shit, and good on them (the company) for figuring out a way to increase profits.
If Uncle Sam trimmed the fat on their annual budget they wouldn't need to charge these high rates on companies in the first place. Federal spending is wildly out of control as is. There are tons of places to cut spending, one of which (I think) being DoD spending SPECIFICALLY in the area of weapons and technology development. Don't touch the budgets for our troops pay & benefits or else I'll have to go out and protest my damn self.
Point is, there's lots of places to cut costs, and lots of money being overspent.
Additionally (and let's be realistic) who the fuck WANTS to give back to anyone if they don't have to? Few people, very very few people. The people who normally DO want to give back have so much money that they could give back for the rest of their lives and never notice it in their bank accounts. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
In either direction (more or less regulation being better/worse) it's all hypothetical. If BP was already loop-holing the regulations in place, who's to say MORE regulation wouldn't get loop-holed by them? It could end up being a BIGGER pain in the ass with NO benefit.
There is a massive massive massive difference between asking and demanding under federal law, with huge negative consequences if you don't decide to cooperate.
You do know most (correct me if I'm wrong) of Apple's product manufacturing is overseas, right? It's too expensive to make iPods, iPads, etc here in the U.S. because of taxes & regulations. It's ridiculous to say you want to grow a company until it hits a certain size but then stifle it's continued growth by penalizing them. I wouldn't want to start a business here if it means I can't move it where I want to increase profits, that's just ridiculous IMO.
For any who wonder about all this economic doom and gloom talk. Understand that our it's very, very, easy to see what is happening with sovereign debt of nations because it's all out there for everyone to see. It's not doom and gloom, it just numbers. Like a marathon dance contest all the nations have been on their feet for about 20 hours, you know hey are going to fall out, the only question who's going 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Why do I hammer about people taking their money out of the market or banks? Kyle Bass explains this beautifully in this video, I only wish they let him finish about the US at the end.
BNN - Kyle Bass on the Fate of the World
http://watch.bnn.ca/the-street/december-2011/the-street-december-13-2011/#clip584881
I challenge anyone to counter his points.
Haha just want to say first and foremost, the whole time I read your post I saw "Kyle Bass" as "Kyle Gass" and kept playing this song in my head...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UECltzOaGf4
Moving right along however, all of that kind of confused me. I'm not really a broker or anything (and I'm kinda sleepy at this hour) but what he said seemed to make sense (relatively). That being said, I'm glad people can make a fortune betting against or in favor of, a country's economy. I'm not being sarcastic there, I like the concept of a speculation market, it's a pretty neat concept in general.
Right you are, seems like we're dancing with a gorilla though, we're not done, until it's done.
When you lower the taxes for the rich and raise taxes for the poor, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, which is what happens with a flat tax system, which is exactly why the rich want a flat tax system.
The Laissez-faire style of governing has shown time and time again that it simply does not work. History speaks for itself.
As for the people, the people are generally lazy and only care about getting another big mac or Whooper. Additionally, the people are generally stupid, especially when you compare the number of scientists to the number of priests in America.
However, the American populace being lazy should not be what allows individual corporations and companies to ass rape the American government and American populace. There needs to be deterrents to protect the people.
I just wanna say, I completely agree! For example, the defense budget (Or, as I call it, the Offense budget) is so bloated that it engulfs the economies of many other entire nations. If we could trim that, a great deal of good could come from that. (For example, money towards EDUCATION)
Yea... Cut the DoD in half and you would still have the most powerful military in the world.
If they don't want to give back, then why the fuck should the American government care about what their feelings are anyway? They are cold hearted bastards so why should anybody care about them? (Honestly, why should anybody care about them if they are so cold.)
More strict regulations, better paid regulators, and more regulators, and the oil spill wouldn't of happened. More strict regulations to give the regulators more power, higher pay to keep them from double dipping, and more regulators to help watch the companies.
Also, strict penalties for regulators found not doing their jobs.
Cut the DoD in half, and use 5% of the money gained to do this. Guaranteed never to have a BP spill like the Gulf spill again.
Alright, if you donate a small portion of your profits, you get a tax cut. If you employee more Americans, you get a tax cut. If you do this, or do that, you get a tax cut. If you don't your taxes are higher.
And, again, the federal government is here to protect the people, not to protect the corporations. "We the people" and all that jazz.
I don't want to stifle any corporation. I simply want corporations to not put the consumer and the employees in a position where, essentially, they are taking it up the bum.
Hope ya feel better
But that's not what either of us said, or anything I've heard for that matter. A flat tax system would keep in place the current tax rates for the lower-end of the spectrum, and lower the tax rates for the higher end to that of everyone else. Pretty much lower everyone's taxes down to that of the poor's tax rates. Then, make sure there are tax breaks and cuts in place for the especially poor, to help them keep a higher portion of their already-low income.
How do you make up for the loss of "income" from the rich being more heavily taxed? Cut federal spending budgets.
Eh I don't know if I completely agree with the last part of what you said. I guess I'm more libertarian-leaning when it comes to this viewpoint but, let stupid people be stupid and let them suffer. It's the Darwinian way. If we coddle morons into being safe morons, then what is there in place to make people become less moronic? Over time society will become more & more ignorant (almost like Idiocracy) and we'll just have to keep implementing more protection for the dumb citizens. I don't want to live in a world full of idiots... sorry.
Let's just make it crystal clear, cut some defense budget spending when it comes to development of weapons and equipment. Not all of it, we need to stay much more ahead of our counterparts & enemies, but we can tone down the budget and save a LOT of money.
Half is probably way too much, we have to make sure we continue advancement in technology, without spending so much doing it. The point is to stay about a decade ahead of everyone, at all times. You don't want a fair fight on the battlefield, you want a swift & efficient one (i.e. us having much much better technology than anyone we might come up against).
Because the government isn't supposed to only help people who want to give back, it's supposed to equally help everyone who is applicable. Do we want to run a nation based on morals or do we want to run a nation based on fairness? That's not so much a rhetorical question as much as it is an actual one to ask yourself. I, for one, would rather see logic and fairness prevail.
Couple of things here. 1) The cause of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was an explosion from pockets of natural gas in the ocean. More regulation wouldn't have stopped the explosion from happening. 2) There's no amount of "higher pay" that could ever keep everyone from double dipping, unless you don't know the definition of the word greed. 3) Why should we (the U.S.) have to pay for all these regulations when we're not the only ones using the oil being drilled? Absolutely no reason we should cover all the costs, period.
Still sounds like threatening "do this or else we will make you pay, literally". Part of your idea, I do like though. Employ X amount of Americans = tax cut. Build X factories here of Y size = tax cut. Donate profits giving a tax cut sounds like a waste of time on legislation unless the amount saved from the tax cut is sizable amount larger than the amount you'd have to donate. Also, whether you like it or not, corporations are people (Dartmouth College v. Woodward & Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad).
Hypothetical scenario; I want an iPod, I'd like for it to be as inexpensive as it can be (realistically). Please tell me how I'm taking it up the bum.