Market crash: are we there yet ?

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

What ever they pay in corporate taxes gets passed on to the consumer anyway.

To say nothing of the atrocities of double taxation. (Again, business owners, as free citizens, have the right to set any conditions they care to when trading their goods and services, including setting conditions of limited liability. They don't need government's permission to do this, or society's, they don't need to pay a corporate tax or live up to "good citizen" government regulations, etc. It's their right.)

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

Yeah, so does the wages of those that work for the company, the cost of making the goods and/or providing the services the company sells, and every other outlay the company makes. What's your point? Every cost of a company is sourced by money made from the consumer - it's how they work

You know the feeling you got when you decided to type this out? That's what it feels like when you decide to trim context in a desperate attempt to diminish a perfectly valid point you know you can't counter.

All the other expenditures you listed are required by the reality/physics of running a business in a free nation. The corporate tax isn't. It's a con, a fiction, to put in terms you might relate to, that's been "justified" by one of the cheapest arguments ever offered. (Imagine needing to pay a "special" tax to have every right you already have as a citizen of a free nation, recognized by government, an entity whose only legitimate function is to protect your rights.)

[PBzeer]

Of course their costs get passed on in the form of prices, (I wouldn't have thought that basic economics needed explained) to the point where they become non-competitive with their competition. The difference is, those other costs (non-government imposed excepted), are legitimate costs of doing business. Corporate taxes are merely a way to tax individuals, without overtly imposing a tax on them.

That the costs of social democracy are equated with a "social safety net" ignores the fact that social democracy isn't about providing for those in need, but for those in want. Because of this erroneous equation, any attempt to address the viability of social spending is portrayed as an assault on the safety net, rather than the social hammock. One can assign a certain sense of practicality to a social safety net. No such practicality exists for the social hammock.

The agenda of the nanny state rests neither on morality, nor practicality, but on the furtherance of a particular ideology for the benefit of those who espouse such ideology. Merely having the best of intentions is not license for the imposition of control over society to achieve an ideological "sense of fairness". People are not created with equal abilities, and even those that do have equal abilities do not necessarily make use of them in equal ways. Which leaves no way of achieving "equality" other than by the diminution of society to that of the least in society.

[w1651]

The agenda of the nanny state rests neither on morality, nor practicality, but on the furtherance of a particular ideology for the benefit of those who espouse such ideology. Merely having the best of intentions is not license for the imposition of control over society to achieve an ideological "sense of fairness". People are not created with equal abilities, and even those that do have equal abilities do not necessarily make use of them in equal ways. Which leaves no way of achieving "equality" other than by the diminution of society to that of the least in society.

All I am saying is if I have to pay taxes and you have to pay taxes then General electric, Exon Mobile, etc... Should have to pay them too. Not get out of it by way of a congressional loop hole. I don't get a loop hole you don't get a loop hole why should they?
I'm not saying I like the current tax code and/or system. But let's get back to a level playing field here for all businesses and start there. Being free from the current tax code is a great business advantage I wouldn't mind having myself.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Of course their costs get passed on in the form of prices, (I wouldn't have thought that basic economics needed explained) to the point where they become non-competitive with their competition.

I wouldn't have thought basic economics needed explaining either, but you acted as if passing on corporate tax to customers is somehow news and/or different to companies than any other cost that they make consumers pay. In fact, it is the point of most legitimate corporations to charge the consumer more than the sum total of all costs, including the tax. Just in case you think that's news too.

The difference is, those other costs (non-government imposed excepted), are legitimate costs of doing business. Corporate taxes are merely a way to tax individuals, without overtly imposing a tax on them.

See, there you inject opinion as if it is fact. For example, I find taxes on companies perfectly legitimate. After all, they are taking advantage of nationally enforced legislation to protect their investors & decision makers from the full legal & financial risks of their operation. Then there is the concept that employees that happen to travel to work by car can do so because of they are taking advantage of the public infrastructure, emergency services, policing activities, etc provided by the government. If their employees require the ability to add, subtract, read, & write - that education was also generally provided by the government. They can run their business in the safety provided by government-provided deterrence against theft, fraud, vandalism, etc. Hell, they're able to operate the business in a nation protected by military.

Ignoring such benefits, while convenient, is not realistic. Look at how business suffers in countries without said infrastructure.

That the costs of social democracy are equated with a "social safety net" ignores the fact that social democracy isn't about providing for those in need, but for those in want. Because of this erroneous equation, any attempt to address the viability of social spending is portrayed as an assault on the safety net, rather than the social hammock. One can assign a certain sense of practicality to a social safety net. No such practicality exists for the social hammock.

And again, equating your opinion with fact. Social democracy is about providing for those in need. The fact that it also provides for those that want is a feature of politician overreach, not social democracy itself. You know, like cutting taxes (on anyone) when the budget hasn't been balanced for decades, like making promises that can't be kept legally or financially, and all the other issues you seem to have with politicians.

You blame politicians for the failure of the market to balance itself due to their interference, dismissing the idea that capitalism itself is to blame; then you blame "social democracy" for the problems caused by politicians bribing the public which you claim happens to be gullible.

The agenda of the nanny state rests neither on morality, nor practicality, but on the furtherance of a particular ideology for the benefit of those who espouse such ideology. Merely having the best of intentions is not license for the imposition of control over society to achieve an ideological "sense of fairness". People are not created with equal abilities, and even those that do have equal abilities do not necessarily make use of them in equal ways. Which leaves no way of achieving "equality" other than by the diminution of society to that of the least in society.

Hands up anyone that is pushing for safety nets that believe it is so we can drag everybody down to the same level. Anyone? Yeah, thought not. That's pretty much because safety nets are exactly that, a net that prevents you falling not a ceiling that prevents you from rising.

Unemployment benefits are a safety-net and we can see how they've dragged CEO's down to the same income level. Government-funded healthcare (in countries that provide it) are a safety-net so people are not left crippled or ill with easily treated (if marginally expensive) problems. Hasn't stopped the private medical facilities providing more comfrotable health services with a wider range of medical procedures (cosmetic & elective) not provided by the government.

You might not like the safety-nets. You might not like being in a nation that provides them, but that doesn't mean that you can hand-wave the reasons for their existence away. Just as capitalism is not solely to benefit the super-rich because the communist likes to justify doing away with it.

[w1651]

You blame politicians for the failure of the market to balance itself due to their interference, dismissing the idea that capitalism itself is to blame; then you blame "social democracy" for the problems caused by politicians bribing the public which you claim happens to be gullible.

Yes I do.
I remember the bail outs. Did the politicians listen to the people that gave them their jobs? No they didn't. Health care was the same way, they just rammed it through even though no one wanted it.
Barney Frank was the head of the congressional Finance committee did he regulate the banks to where they were before this all happened back to 1995 regulations when he had a democratic house?
Off course not even though it was partly his fault for loosening the regulations on the banks in the first place.
BECAUSE POLITICIANS ARE ALL THE SAME!!!
I watched five or six bankers tell the House finance committee Lead by Barney Frank they didn't have to say what they did with tax payer money and everyone on the Finance Committee took it like the prissy little bitches they are.
Do I blame politicians for not letting the market(IE Capitalism) work? Your Fricken right I do. The banks should have been left to fail. Just like the airlines should have been let to fend for themselves after 9/11. Capitalism does work if you let it and give it time to work. The congress has lost faith in the same system that got them where they are today.
I hate to break it to you but America has lost faith in them.

Her's a couple for you
1. Tim Guietner, Ran the New York Fed during the melt down. Ya let's make him treasury secretary any republicans or dems disagree?
2. Paulson making basement deals with the major banks to shore up the system and protect his old freinds and company Goldman Sacks. instead of letting capitalism work he doing deals in the dark where no one sees.
3. Bernakie saying there would be no QE1 or 2 but doing it anyway to save the banking system. Doesn't matter the Fed is unconstitutional and he didn't let the system work. He just printed more money. Ya great idea. Ever heard of inflation?
4. TARP need I say more.
5. But Government healthcare is more important then good fiscal responsibility right now. The masses don't need a job anyway.
6. So let's pass a 800 Billion Stimulas package. We can buy old cars and crush them. Fricken Morons!
7. Let's cut Social security and Medicare because we are broke. Ya that 500 billion to the international monetary fund that goes to over seas interests is more important then my mothers social security that she busted her A$$ for anyway. But no one in Washington mentions that.And how much did the world bank get last year? Hmmmmmmm!
8. Did I mention Obama wants to raise it another 200 billion? Ya Good Times.
9. The best the American Press Core can do is cover how Mrs Bachman who thinks she speaks for me said John Wayne was born in the wrong Iowa Town. They have completely shirked their responsibilities to cover the news.
10. And America sits on their Fat A$$es and wonders what happened instead of trying to help themselves out of the situation. They'd rather sit and wait for the gov check to arrive. Because they are Socially conditioned to be that way.

Need I say more? Do I blame the politicians? How can you not when they run the system?
It's okay though the 2012 elections are coming and I'm firing every Politician that has a job I can.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by w1651

All I am saying is if I have to pay taxes and you have to pay taxes then General electric, Exon Mobile, etc... Should have to pay them too. Not get out of it by way of a congressional loop hole. I don't get a loop hole you don't get a loop hole why should they?
I'm not saying I like the current tax code and/or system. But let's get back to a level playing field here for all businesses and start there. Being free from the current tax code is a great business advantage I wouldn't mind having myself.

W, could you expand on what you mean by "loophole" in this context?

I have no issue with GE not paying US taxes on income earned abroad, for example, if they've met their tax obligations on that income abroad. That's been the tradition for a while now, one that encourages competition between governments and, more importantly, keeps cash out of bottomless pits.

You'd have the same option if you manufactured and/or sold abroad, so it's not like GE is getting favorable treatment -- not in the case, anyway.

[TropicCat]

Wow.... good post w1651.

I had to chuckle as I read John's post. If you look at FDR's new deal, you will see that John ticked off all boxes, he wants it gone. The typical Republican agenda ...."let them eat cake...." er...so you're an independent John? Why don't you just bring back slavery while you're at it, and be done with it?

When congress seriously believes in giving more tax cuts to millionaires and paying for it by cutting the safety net for the other 98% of America, we have a problem. A big problem.

Look how well that last round of millionaire tax cuts went..... a deeper recession and steeply reduced tax collections ..... sheesh...

If they keep this up all of congress will have to wear body armor in public.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

For example, I find taxes on companies perfectly legitimate.

Here we go again . . .

After all, they are taking advantage of nationally enforced legislation to protect their investors & decision makers from the full legal & financial risks of their operation

No free citizen needs legislation to grant his right of contract.

Then there is the concept that employees that happen to travel to work by car can do so because of they are taking advantage of the public infrastructure, emergency services, policing activities, etc provided by the government.

And the employees pay for that infrastructure through taxes. So do the corporation's owners through the taxes they pay as individuals.

That's separate from the fact that a legitimate government wouldn't engage in building and maintaining infrastructure, leaving it to private entities to do so profitably. (Of course things would look very different with that approach. So what?)

If their employees require the ability to add, subtract, read, & write - that education was also generally provided by the government.

Same as the above.

The employees pay for their education through their taxes. So do the corporation's owners through their taxes (The fat cats we're so obsessed with actually send their kids to privates, which is paying double tuition.)

That's separate from the fact that a legitimate government wouldn't engage in education, leaving it to private entities to do so.

They can run their business in the safety provided by government-provided deterrence against theft, fraud, vandalism, etc. Hell, they're able to operate the business in a nation protected by military.

All of which should be paid for through individual taxes . . .

Ignoring such benefits, while convenient, is not realistic.

Pretending that corporations are anything more than a collection of already taxed individuals is what's convenient but not realistic.

Look at how business suffers in countries without said infrastructure.

Look at how businesses thrive with no or lower corporate taxes.

Hands up anyone that is pushing for safety nets that believe it is so we can drag everybody down to the same level. Anyone? Yeah, thought not. That's pretty much because safety nets are exactly that, a net that prevents you falling not a ceiling that prevents you from rising.

Your posts make perfectly clear that your capable of far better reasoning than you've shown in this post and every time the topic of corporate taxation comes up. Yet, you keep making these errors. That's the psychological motive PB speaks of in action.

The motive that can be inferred from the structure of, and arguments for, these programs is nihilistic envy. To not see that is either willful blindness or ignorance. (Note that the it's far easier to ignore what we don't like given what passes for education theory nowadays. It's also easier to be both fundamentally ignorant, incapable of reasoning, and dismissive of reason as such. (No, the solution isn't more taxes for public education . . . ))

And how nice of you folks to "provide" for those in need - whatever "need" means - by taking the property of others, by force, in the name of an ethic whose sole source you mock endlessly (religion.)

[PBzeer]

Gone? I've never said, nor even intimated that position. What I have said, and do say, is that we need to get rid of the safety hammock, not the safety net.

If you contrast FDR's spending with the current administration, one can say at least we got something for our money. Whether it was the best use of that money is a debatable topic.

Government should not be in the social engineering business, period. Any spending of federal revenues should not benefit one group, class, or other distinction of citizens over another, nor at the expense of one over the other.

Equality of outcomes, be they financial or otherwise, is not possible without draconian control over the lives of the people to be made "equal". Beyond draconian, the control has to be total and unrelenting. There can be no individual achievement above what the least is able to achieve. To do any less, which is what "social democracy" attempts, can only end in failure.