Multi-National Companies

[sailaway21]

There's a germ of wisdom here, not withstanding the palpitations of jackdale.

One can assume there is some type of problem when corporations find it more productive to lobby government than they do concentrating on their core business. Most corporations are rather stodgy firms with the goal only of preserving their position in the market at minimal cost. Getting the government to adopt policies that make that easier for them is often easier than actually improving their business itself. One does not have to look very far for examples, eh, Detroit?

Railing against multi-nationals is a favorite indoor sport of a certain segment of the left, which sees a conspiracy under every basket. Of course, they don't make this argument while filling up at the local Shell station. Or they do after the tank is full. Continue government tax policy to it's logical conclusion and you get individuals behaving similarly to international corporations. We used to call this phenomena, the 1970's.

Corporations are often largely bloated and formerly efficient companies looking to maximize return with a minimum of effort but that is not what Windy was addressing in his original proposition. The fact of the matter is that governments are in competition with one another regardless of how they view matters. And astute businessmen cannot be faulted for reacting to some of the more hare-brained ideas that governments adopt. A good portion of the anti-corporatists are really anti-free trade advocates. For some anti-historical reason they seem to think that the world is a much smaller place than what it really is and that all of our needs must and can be met within our own borders. We used to call them Luddites before government improved education between time-outs on tax policy discussions.

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by Selkirk

OK. I looked up the 16th, but I don't really understand it. Not really. I mean, I don't understand the problem that was solved by passing the 16th Amendment. And I have no idea what "Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality." could mean.

So, talk. What are you promoting?

Sorry for the delay in response Selkirk...

1. The constitution originally did not permit the personal income tax. Prior to that, direct taxes had to be apportioned to the states on the basis of their population thus, big earners could not be taxed as individuals, low earners could not be exempted etc.. The 16th amendment solved that. The reason the Fairtaxers will repeal the 16th is to insure that once the fair tax is initiated...there is no possibility of the feds ever re-instituting the income tax.

2. "Dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality."...simply means that the revenue generated by the "Fair Tax" will be equal to the current government revenue with the income tax. BUT the revenue will not have the expenses and paperwork associated with the current tax system...no Turbo Tax, or accountants needed....no IRS...no forms. AND...the REASON the revenue will remain the same is because of the greatly increased economic activity...not because any group will be paying more or less than now. Those who do NOT pay tax now...will still not pay tax.

The best place to learn about the Fair Tax is on this page at fairtax.org:
Americans For Fair Taxation:

I believe that this could be one of the rallying points for the Tea Party protests and one of the founding principles for a new 3rd party that would seek to draw support from people fed up with the size and scope of the federal government and all the deals and loopholes and curried favor that lobbyists and politicians conspire to burden us with.

[Selkirk]

Camaraderie, thanks for the link. It answered a LOT of questions that I have had about the fair tax movement.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by Selkirk

Camaraderie, thanks for the link. It answered a LOT of questions that I have had about the fair tax movement.

We had a fair tax thread on Sailnet in November of 2007, worth reading, Cam's thoughts were especially good on this thread.

Source: Fair Tax

[camaraderie]

Hah...thanks Windy...I had forgotten about that thread. Remembering that all that was before the collapse of the economy...some other peoples opinions on that thread were pretty perceptive!
At that time...I was pretty pessimistic about the opportunity to pass the Fair Tax...and my guess is that the public awareness of it is even less today. Nevertheless...the prospect of a real economic collapse looms now and I am guessing that if that happens, there will be lots of pressure for fundamental changes in our government. The tea-baggers are I think, symptomatic of the frustration, and desperation that will grow into a tsunami by 2012. A NON-PARTISAN majority that wants fundamental change. My personal prescription for such change would be:

1. Throw all incumbents out of office.
2. Enact the FairTax and end the Income tax.
3. Enable a new constitutional convention of the states and bring our most basic institutions into the 21st century. I suggest professor Larry Sabato's ,(fairly liberal law professor), book/website A More Perfect Constitution, by Larry J. Sabato
is a good place to begin to think about such an event and what might be done there...though he includes much for EVERYONE to disagree with! My point is...the 5th amendment regarding the states assembling a new constitutional convention has never been used...always too scary. But the founders put it there to guard against a time when the public was fed up with the government and had ceased to trust those institutions. Like by 2012.