|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 21 2014 23:21 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2014 23:05 IgnE wrote: No it's not related. If Bill Gates had a wealth tax levied against him he wouldn't have the money lying around to fund the common core. The federal government, whom you presumably want in this situation to do the deciding, contrary to most of your other positions, would have more money and more influence. This is a completely bunk causal theory here. Bill Gates is not a vassal risking life and ruin to come to his liege lord's rescue in 1300. Nor is American democracy set up like a feudal parliament. But he'd have the leverage to leave and take his tax revenue to a government willing to give him a break, which is precisely the argument people use now to lobby against higher taxes, regulations, or more importantly, enforcement of tax or regulatory requirements, to a disagreeable degree of success, which is why we are having this discussion in the first place. See how that all works together? I suppose I could just conclude by wishing you good luck in getting a 90% tax on the wealthy because it will never happen outside of a war scenario and one in which the choice is victory or total annihilation, which is what they used to say in the 50s and 60s. Realistically, people aren't going to leave in any meaningful amount unless the taxes become really onerous or it is a combination of factors.
On September 22 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2014 02:46 Wolfstan wrote: The ownership structure and equity after liabilities are what you people seem to hate. Why are you not railing against the small business owners who kept 51% of the business when cash was asked to be invested from the capital class. Many are offered choice of being bought out completely for control and the potential for growth in equity. You only want the equity when it grows "too big" not when its started at negative equity and bleeding cash before acheiving profitability. The populist masses only want to confiscate success bevause of some bizarre sense of entitlement.
@GH it's not that people leave when taxes go up, its that they go to a better place when the situation becomes unpalatable. Its no different than the conversation acouple pages ago where you have the choice to leave because of education budget cuts. Yeah....No, leaving an entire country (particularly when you are a resident and the company was founded in that country) because it is 'unpalatable' to pay more of your profits back to the people of that community, is a world away from leaving a municipality because you don't favor their approach on education. I know there is a lot of talk about the burden of taxes, but has any business ever went out of business and attributed it to their tax burden? Or companies that suggest that they went belly up because of regulations? I doubt there are a meaningful number of businesses closing due to taxes or regulations alone. Like taxes and regulations, full stop, they need to shutdown.
The issue is that it's an added cost of business. Like any cost, it means you have less room in your budget for anything else. So it certainly can be a burden that can contribute to a business closing, and, depending on the situation, that burden can accumulate over time. For example, if a business scrimps on R&D or new equipment investment to make room for taxes, a few years down the road they could find themselves at a disadvantage to competitors in a lower tax jurisdiction. Separating the various blame factors there would be messy, but it's fair to say that the higher taxes didn't help the situation.
|
On September 22 2014 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: For example, if a business scrimps on R&D or new equipment investment to make room for taxes, a few years down the road they could find themselves at a disadvantage to competitors in a lower tax jurisdiction. Separating the various blame factors there would be messy, but it's fair to say that the higher taxes didn't help the situation. Why would you scrimp investment 'to make room for taxes?'. Investments are tax deductible anyway and reduce your profit, so higher taxes would probably lead to increased investment because it makes less sense to take money out of the company which would then be needed to be taxed.
|
On September 22 2014 03:35 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2014 02:46 Wolfstan wrote: The ownership structure and equity after liabilities are what you people seem to hate. Why are you not railing against the small business owners who kept 51% of the business when cash was asked to be invested from the capital class. Many are offered choice of being bought out completely for control and the potential for growth in equity. You only want the equity when it grows "too big" not when its started at negative equity and bleeding cash before acheiving profitability. The populist masses only want to confiscate success bevause of some bizarre sense of entitlement.
@GH it's not that people leave when taxes go up, its that they go to a better place when the situation becomes unpalatable. Its no different than the conversation acouple pages ago where you have the choice to leave because of education budget cuts. Yeah....No, leaving an entire country (particularly when you are a resident and the company was founded in that country) because it is 'unpalatable' to pay more of your profits back to the people of that community, is a world away from leaving a municipality because you don't favor their approach on education. I know there is a lot of talk about the burden of taxes, but has any business ever went out of business and attributed it to their tax burden? Or companies that suggest that they went belly up because of regulations? Its simple math. Any business that has failed due to losses lower than their taxes would have not failed had their taxes been lower. Lets say I own a business. I'm losing a net $1000 a month. Taxes cost me $1500 a month. If my taxes were under $500 a month, I would be breaking even. It's never JUST taxes that drive a business to failure, but to suggest that businesses are somehow immune to the burden of taxes is just silly.
I wasn't suggesting they are immune just that for all the bluster, taxes and regulations don't actually seem to end any businesses. Nor do they seem to even be mentioned when companies do go under.
|
On September 22 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2014 02:46 Wolfstan wrote: The ownership structure and equity after liabilities are what you people seem to hate. Why are you not railing against the small business owners who kept 51% of the business when cash was asked to be invested from the capital class. Many are offered choice of being bought out completely for control and the potential for growth in equity. You only want the equity when it grows "too big" not when its started at negative equity and bleeding cash before acheiving profitability. The populist masses only want to confiscate success bevause of some bizarre sense of entitlement.
@GH it's not that people leave when taxes go up, its that they go to a better place when the situation becomes unpalatable. Its no different than the conversation acouple pages ago where you have the choice to leave because of education budget cuts. Yeah....No, leaving an entire country (particularly when you are a resident and the company was founded in that country) because it is 'unpalatable' to pay more of your profits back to the people of that community, is a world away from leaving a municipality because you don't favor their approach on education. I know there is a lot of talk about the burden of taxes, but has any business ever went out of business and attributed it to their tax burden? Or companies that suggest that they went belly up because of regulations?
Oh right, sorry I forgot, the difference is a rich person leaving with what the lazy feel entitled to and the other is a lazy person leaving becaise socialist policies aren't giving him enough. The optics and inconsistent stances are why many people are losing the game. Wonder what would happen if a capitalist jurisdiction was right beside a socialist paradise with freedom of mobility between them?
|
On September 22 2014 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2014 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: For example, if a business scrimps on R&D or new equipment investment to make room for taxes, a few years down the road they could find themselves at a disadvantage to competitors in a lower tax jurisdiction. Separating the various blame factors there would be messy, but it's fair to say that the higher taxes didn't help the situation. Why would you scrimp investment 'to make room for taxes?'. Investments are tax deductible anyway and reduce your profit, so higher taxes would probably lead to increased investment because it makes less sense to take money out of the company which would then be needed to be taxed. That's not how the maths work. Higher taxes make investments less profitable, which makes them less likely to happen.
|
On September 22 2014 04:40 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 22 2014 02:46 Wolfstan wrote: The ownership structure and equity after liabilities are what you people seem to hate. Why are you not railing against the small business owners who kept 51% of the business when cash was asked to be invested from the capital class. Many are offered choice of being bought out completely for control and the potential for growth in equity. You only want the equity when it grows "too big" not when its started at negative equity and bleeding cash before acheiving profitability. The populist masses only want to confiscate success bevause of some bizarre sense of entitlement.
@GH it's not that people leave when taxes go up, its that they go to a better place when the situation becomes unpalatable. Its no different than the conversation acouple pages ago where you have the choice to leave because of education budget cuts. Yeah....No, leaving an entire country (particularly when you are a resident and the company was founded in that country) because it is 'unpalatable' to pay more of your profits back to the people of that community, is a world away from leaving a municipality because you don't favor their approach on education. I know there is a lot of talk about the burden of taxes, but has any business ever went out of business and attributed it to their tax burden? Or companies that suggest that they went belly up because of regulations? Oh right, sorry I forgot, the difference is a rich person leaving with what the lazy feel entitled to and the other is a lazy person leaving becaise socialist policies aren't giving him enough. The optics and inconsistent stances are why many people are losing the game. Wonder what would happen if a capitalist jurisdiction was right beside a socialist paradise with freedom of mobility between them?
Careful man, the person in your example is a real person. Just coming out and claiming he is lazy is rude and pretty much bullshit. I suppose if you were talking about a generic person leaving, you are just making impressively ignorant presumptions about someone who could be the hardest working person in town.
Seems like you took your friend experience a little too harshly. Take a chill pill and stop assuming everyone who isn't rich is 'lazy' or that anyone who expects more from public schooling is a 'lazy socialist'.
|
Apologies I haven't addressed his case specifically. He is perfectly happy and content to reside in the bottom 20% as long as the social net is strong enough that his children are fed and educated enough that they have the opportunity to participate at a higher spot in adulthood. It sounds like the education needs are inadequate but otherwise the social programs are workng as intended. He seems to realize social programs arent there to provide what some company's marketing team tells him he needs. The onus is on him now to raise them to value education, hard work and financial literacy.
I feel the economy should have enough opportunities to climb out of the bottom 20% even for those who have a sleep condition preventing them from waking up at an employer mandated time. I'd be willing to discuss ways to allow more opportunities to those with conditions. However, the wealth Bill Gates was able to accumulate by siezing opportunities is doing nothing to keep him in the bottom 20.
|
NEW YORK -- More than 300,000 people turned out for the People's Climate March in New York City on Sunday, just days before many of the world's leaders are expected to debate environmental action at the United Nations climate summit.
Early reports from event organizers are hailing the turnout as the largest climate march in history, far bigger than the Forward on Climate rally held in Washington, D.C., last year. High-profile environmentalists including Bill McKibben, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jane Goodall and Vandana Shiva marched alongside policymakers such as Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former Vice President Al Gore were also there, and more than 550 buses carried in people from around the country.
The rally comes at an opportune time as 120 world leaders, including President Barack Obama, are expected to convene Tuesday at the United Nations in New York to discuss ways to tackle the growing threat of carbon pollution.
The White House has pledged to "show the world that the U.S. is leading on climate change, and to call on other leaders to step up to the plate," John Podesta, who serves as a counselor to the president, told reporters on Thursday. However, a recent study found that the world spewed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere last year than ever before, primarily driven by China, India and the United States. And the top leaders of China and India announced earlier this month that they won't be attending Tuesday's summit.
The march began around 11:30 a.m., at New York City's Columbus Circle just off Central Park. At times, it stretched more than 4 miles as marchers carried banners, signs and entire contraptions depicting everything from Mother Earth herself to the dinosaurs that now make up fossil fuels.
Source
|
On September 22 2014 04:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2014 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:On September 22 2014 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: For example, if a business scrimps on R&D or new equipment investment to make room for taxes, a few years down the road they could find themselves at a disadvantage to competitors in a lower tax jurisdiction. Separating the various blame factors there would be messy, but it's fair to say that the higher taxes didn't help the situation. Why would you scrimp investment 'to make room for taxes?'. Investments are tax deductible anyway and reduce your profit, so higher taxes would probably lead to increased investment because it makes less sense to take money out of the company which would then be needed to be taxed. That's not how the maths work. Higher taxes make investments less profitable, which makes them less likely to happen. When I was researching this topic five years ago, it seemed like there was an abundance of evidence supporting this conclusion. Investment is affected by what risks you must take on and what gains you might see realized. Taxes, in their multitude of forms (and including double taxation), eat away at the second side of that equation. As much as the leftists want to engineer society through tax policy, profit beats out little tax-deductible gimmicks. In true hypocritical fashion, they also criticize the same companies for using depreciation and other common-sense tax policies that reduce their net tax burden, and will go so far as to call them subsidies.
|
Tens-of-thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of New York City Sunday to demand political leaders take action on climate change.
While the protest remained peaceful, much of the “People’s Climate March” appeared to be made up of fringe elements of the political left.
Dozens of signs denouncing capitalism were spotted at the demonstration, often held by self-proclaimed socialists. “Capitalism is destroying the planet,” a sticker on one woman’s shirt read, “We need revolution, nothing less.”
In one instance, activists shouted “f**k the police,” demanding justice for the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The Blaze
I'm sad I missed it.
|
The secretary of Florida's prison system has fired nearly three dozen guards in the wake of the recent scrutiny given to inmate deaths across the state over the past few years, the Miami Herald newspaper reported.
Florida Department of Corrections Secretary Michael Crews dismissed 32 guards on Friday, according to the newspaper. All of them had been accused of criminal misconduct or wrongdoing stemming from inmate deaths at four different prisons, the report said.
Florida's prison system has drawn increasing attention after the circumstances of the 2012 death of mentally ill prisoner Darren Rainey came to light.
In June, the American Civil Liberties Union penned a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calling for a federal investigation into Rainey's death, alleging that the state had attempted to "cover it up."
The letter said Rainey was blasted with scalding hot water in a locked closet-sized shower as a punishment at the state's Dade Correctional Institution in Miami.
After two hours, Rainey was found dead with his skin separated from his body, the letter said. The water temperature was later measured at 180 degrees, according to court records.
The Florida Department of Corrections was not immediately available for comment.
Source
|
What the fuck. That is utterly disgusting.
The more one knows about american prisons the less one wants to know. Torture and rape should have no place in a civilised society. Even criminals are still humans and should be treated with decency, not as an object that guards can do whatever they please with, while some sort of law of the jungle rules between prisoners themselves where the strong take whatever they want from the weak while the guards don't care because they are all criminals anyways.
|
On September 22 2014 09:44 Simberto wrote: What the fuck. That is utterly disgusting.
The more one knows about american prisons the less one wants to know. Torture and rape should have no place in a civilised society. Even criminals are still humans and should be treated with decency, not as an object that guards can do whatever they please with, while some sort of law of the jungle rules between prisoners themselves where the strong take whatever they want from the weak while the guards don't care because they are all criminals anyways.
This is just what happens when a prison system gets as large as ours. We imprison a larger percentage of our population than China did under communism or Russia did during the cold war. Literally millions of Americans are incarcerated and managing them is not a desirable job so once we exhaust the small number of passionate professionals we are forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
No politician has ever lost an election for being too hard on crime but until we change how we handle non-violent criminals and shrink the prison system these problems will just get worse.
|
On September 22 2014 09:44 Simberto wrote: What the fuck. That is utterly disgusting.
The more one knows about american prisons the less one wants to know. Torture and rape should have no place in a civilised society. Even criminals are still humans and should be treated with decency, not as an object that guards can do whatever they please with, while some sort of law of the jungle rules between prisoners themselves where the strong take whatever they want from the weak while the guards don't care because they are all criminals anyways. Disgrace is the word that comes to my mind.
|
In 1862 , in the midst of the Civil War, Republican Justin Smith Morrill stood in Congress to defend his party’s invention: an income tax . The government had the right to demand 99 percent of a man’s property, the Vermont representative thundered. If the nation needs it, “the property of the people . . . belongs to the government .” The Republican Congress passed the income tax — as well as a spate of other taxes — and went on to create a strong national government. By the time the war ended, the GOP had invented national banking , currency and taxation ; had provided schools and homes for poor Americans; and had freed the country’s 4 million slaves.
A half-century later, when corporations dominated the economy and their owners threw their weight into political contests, Theodore Roosevelt fulminated against that “small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power.” Insisting that America must return to “an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him,” the Republican president called for government to regulate business, prohibit corporate funding of political campaigns, and impose income and inheritance taxes.
In the mid-20th century, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower recoiled from using American resources to build weapons alone, warning, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” He called for government funding for schools, power plants, roads and hospitals.
At these crucial moments, Republican leaders argued that economic opportunity is central to the American ideal and that government must enable all to rise. But each time the party has taken this stand, it has sparked a backlash from within, prompting the GOP to throw its support behind America’s wealthiest people and to blame those who fall behind for their own poverty.
How did the progressive Republican Party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower become the reactionary party of Ronald Reagan, the tea party and Paul Ryan?
There is nothing random about these ideological shifts. They reflect the party’s — and the nation’s — central unresolved problem: the tension between equality of opportunity and protection of private property.
This tension has driven American politics since the nation’s earliest days. The Declaration of Independence promised citizens equal access to economic opportunity. This was the powerful principle for which men were willing to fight the American Revolution, but it was never codified in law. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they assumed that the country’s vast resources would ensure equality of opportunity. Worried instead about stability, they enshrined in the Constitution another principle: that property rights must be protected.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
on tax and investment, high corporate tax does discourage economic activity. but high personal income tax, properly cordoned off from the corporate side, is fine. it amounts to a progressly sloped consumption tax if properly implemented.
btw for high tax europe some countries like france do suffer from lack of competition and the creative destruction that coems with it. it's not that clear cut of an issue, but american conservatives are basically methodologically impaired when it comes to this issue and just herp about taxes from some first principle grounds.
|
On September 22 2014 11:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +In 1862 , in the midst of the Civil War, Republican Justin Smith Morrill stood in Congress to defend his party’s invention: an income tax . The government had the right to demand 99 percent of a man’s property, the Vermont representative thundered. If the nation needs it, “the property of the people . . . belongs to the government .” The Republican Congress passed the income tax — as well as a spate of other taxes — and went on to create a strong national government. By the time the war ended, the GOP had invented national banking , currency and taxation ; had provided schools and homes for poor Americans; and had freed the country’s 4 million slaves.
A half-century later, when corporations dominated the economy and their owners threw their weight into political contests, Theodore Roosevelt fulminated against that “small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power.” Insisting that America must return to “an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him,” the Republican president called for government to regulate business, prohibit corporate funding of political campaigns, and impose income and inheritance taxes.
In the mid-20th century, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower recoiled from using American resources to build weapons alone, warning, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” He called for government funding for schools, power plants, roads and hospitals.
At these crucial moments, Republican leaders argued that economic opportunity is central to the American ideal and that government must enable all to rise. But each time the party has taken this stand, it has sparked a backlash from within, prompting the GOP to throw its support behind America’s wealthiest people and to blame those who fall behind for their own poverty.
How did the progressive Republican Party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower become the reactionary party of Ronald Reagan, the tea party and Paul Ryan?
There is nothing random about these ideological shifts. They reflect the party’s — and the nation’s — central unresolved problem: the tension between equality of opportunity and protection of private property.
This tension has driven American politics since the nation’s earliest days. The Declaration of Independence promised citizens equal access to economic opportunity. This was the powerful principle for which men were willing to fight the American Revolution, but it was never codified in law. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they assumed that the country’s vast resources would ensure equality of opportunity. Worried instead about stability, they enshrined in the Constitution another principle: that property rights must be protected. Source Gosh, you'd think from this article that the Republican Party is the only party that matters in the United States.
Also, any history that doesn't talk about the way LBJ flipped the conversation and resurrected Southern politics from post-Civil War obscurity and the subsequent problems in the 1970s is nonsense. LBJ is much more important to the formation of the modern Democratic Party than Reagan is to the Republicans.
|
As a business owner from other country I can say without doubt taxes have screwed me up bigtime.
Some people seem to miss how taxing all the legal burden is on small business owners, prolly more so than the tax itself. Not to mention how the slightless error implies fines that would make the bank industry flush in shame.
Also, it fucks up big time on our margins (we do mainly import and sell) because we can't fill the containers with goods (better scales economy) due to lack of financial resources, you have to pay 19% upfront of the import and later deduct it on sales. The time gap between investing and selling is huge and fucks up the cash flows.
Motivation is algo a huge factor, seeing your work taken away feels like being robbed without the chance to defend yourself; doing the actual work of filling documents and online forms where you are giving away your money feels even worse.
Edit: My business is not bankrupt but I think it would be a lot bigger and providing a steady income already if it wasn't for taxes and the brutal paper work load.
|
The Guardian asks: Why is Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century a best seller? They go on to get takes from economists active in blogging and social media.
I'm curious how many people here have read it. I have finished it. At 1200+ pages, I won't hold it against you if you haven't as there isn't much payoff - it does nothing to sway you if you've already made up your mind.
Somehow, Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty has become a conversation piece among well-read people. Its graphic red-and-ivory cover is inescapable. Early in its launch, it hit No 1 on Amazon’s bestseller list and the paper version – a doorstop in punishing, heavy hardcover – sold out in major bookstores.
Piketty’s main argument is this: that invested capital – in the stock market, in real estate – will grow faster than income.
The implications of that are deep: to have invested capital, you must have money already. If you rely on income, as most people do, you will likely never catch up to the wealth of people who are already rich. The 1% and the 99% enshrined by Occupy are not an anomaly of our time, Piketty’s research suggests. It’s a structural feature of capitalism. Piketty’s work – which has been in progress for over a decade – is a natural pairing with the Occupy movement, which also questions the premises of capitalism. I'd restate this summary. Piketty's main argument is that the rich are too rich as a natural consequence of capitalism and their wealth needs to be redistributed to the poor. His r > g is his support argument proving the current system is unsustainable as a result of entrenched inequality.
|
On September 22 2014 20:51 coverpunch wrote:The Guardian asks: Why is Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century a best seller? They go on to get takes from economists active in blogging and social media. I'm curious how many people here have read it. I have finished it. At 1200+ pages, I won't hold it against you if you haven't as there isn't much payoff - it does nothing to sway you if you've already made up your mind. Show nested quote +Somehow, Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty has become a conversation piece among well-read people. Its graphic red-and-ivory cover is inescapable. Early in its launch, it hit No 1 on Amazon’s bestseller list and the paper version – a doorstop in punishing, heavy hardcover – sold out in major bookstores.
Piketty’s main argument is this: that invested capital – in the stock market, in real estate – will grow faster than income.
The implications of that are deep: to have invested capital, you must have money already. If you rely on income, as most people do, you will likely never catch up to the wealth of people who are already rich. The 1% and the 99% enshrined by Occupy are not an anomaly of our time, Piketty’s research suggests. It’s a structural feature of capitalism. Piketty’s work – which has been in progress for over a decade – is a natural pairing with the Occupy movement, which also questions the premises of capitalism. I'd restate this summary. Piketty's main argument is that the rich are too rich as a natural consequence of capitalism and their wealth needs to be redistributed to the poor. His r > g is his support argument proving the current system is unsustainable as a result of entrenched inequality. There's a better summary of Piketty's book : Marx "intuitions" were right, and brilliant, but he didn't have any statistics (even if he tried to make some).
|
|
|
|