Support NeoGAF

[ToxicAdam]

I didn't see the part in teh_pwn's post where he mentions that the money the rich invested was already taxed 34-40 percent. So, he wants to slap another equivalent tax upon that money while it is being put "out there" to be lost?

Nor did I see the part where we have had an incredible explosion of millionaires in the past decade and that can be largely traced back to the decrease in the capital gains tax in 1997. These weren't people that were born rich, these were people that were in middle-upper middle class at the turn of the century.

So, I don't understand the need to punish people worth over 100 million (which is what, maybe 40,000 people?) at the expense of the millions of other Americans that are making over 100k a year.

 

[Timedog]

I didn't see the part in teh_pwn's post where he mentions that the money the rich invested was already taxed 34-40 percent. So, he wants to slap another equivalent tax upon that money while it is being put "out there" to be lost?

Nor did I see the part where we have had an incredible explosion of millionaires in the past decade and that can be largely traced back to the decrease in the capital gains tax in 1997. These weren't people that were born rich, these were people that were in middle-upper middle class at the turn of the century.

So, I don't understand the need to punish people worth over 100 million (which is what, maybe 40,000 people?) at the expense of the millions of other Americans that are making over 100k a year.

The tax is on the profit, not the money that's already been taxed. I consider this income. If money is lost obviously they don't have to pay tax! A progessive cgt could help in not affecting the upper middle.

 

[Asmodai]

I'm starting to believe that capitalism just grants us an illusion of freedom such that we'll never get angry enough to revolt. It's like rich people fashioned our modern economy in direct reaction to Marx.

The modern economy was what pissed off Marx in the first place. Sure, it's changed, but the basic elements remain the same, which is why a few posters in this thread can regurgitate what Marx said basically word for word and still have it be somewhat relevant today. Pretty impressive really.

Either way, as long as enough people are wealthy (and therefore happy), the Glorious Revolution isn't going to happen.

 

[fortified_concept]

I'm starting to believe that capitalism just grants us an illusion of freedom such that we'll never get angry enough to revolt. It's like rich people fashioned our modern economy in direct reaction to Marx.

I've realized that a long time ago when I saw a documentary about the end of Apartheid and how the white elite kept the blacks oppressed by replacing social Apartheid with an economic one. You couldn't be closer to the truth.

 

[fortified_concept]

The modern economy was what pissed off Marx in the first place. Sure, it's changed, but the basic elements remain the same, which is why a few posters in this thread can regurgitate what Marx said basically word for word and still have it be somewhat relevant today. Pretty impressive really.

Either way, as long as enough people are wealthy (and therefore happy), the Glorious Revolution isn't going to happen.

Most people aren't wealthy. They're being blackmailed every day with debt and the sum of their decisions is usually calculated with that debt in mind and the repercussions it would have any disobedience to the corporate system while being bombarded every day with bullshit and propaganda from the corporate media. That's what keeps them quiet, not their "wealth".

 

[JayDubya]

libertarians are like a capitalists wet dream.

Didn't I see you complain about a politician that wanted to ensure people on the dole in Britain actually looked for work?

Corporate profits should be re-patriated to the country in which they are generated so they pay the correct tax in their respective jurisdiction.

Uhhh?

Those shitty little tax havens should be given the Fallujah treatment or better still become new nuclear testing grounds. There should be international co-operation on this issue so no one can evade.

Better ways of doing this; change the methodology of taxation.

Lower income households should pay a lower rate of income tax because they subsidise the rich.

So instead, the rich should subsidize the lower income households?

There should be a target income divide that a government should aim to maintain.

Why? It's none of a government's business.

All government subsidies to coporations or industrial sectors should be rescinded unless they are critical to function. Agriculture does not fill that criteria.

Agreed, all subsidies should be rescinded, especially agricultural subsidies.

All export/import duty should be abolished.

Agreed, fuck tariffs.

Supernormal profits generated by oligopolists/monopolists should be taxed when the government sees fit to do so. There should be international co-operation to enable this so no one can evade.

Okay, no. You're insane and / or evil.


Essentially, your guiding paradigm here seems to be that by virtue of nothing, all nations on earth should collude to target any business or individual that does well for themselves. I think you've grasped the problem of monopoly pretty well, but it's ironic to see you condemn them in the same sentence.

These recent EU cases that you no doubt praise are absurd - baseless, naked money grabs.

 

[fortified_concept]

libertarians are like a capitalists wet dream.

Pretty much. Let's study a libertarian's post for example:

Uhhh?

So people should have obligations to the country they live in but not corporations? Spoken like a true libertarian.

Better ways of doing this; change the methodology of taxation.

By "changing the methodology of taxation" you mean meet the standards of those tax havens?

So instead, the rich should subsidize the lower income households?

yes; why, do you think that's a problem?

Why? It's none of a government's business.

Says who? You? Friedman? Hayek? Sachs?

Agreed, all subsidies should be rescinded, especially agricultural subsidies.

Yes let's destroy the last people who are able to find a job in USA. Let's destroy american farmers so that cheap imports from corporations who treat Latin Americans like slaves can flood the market.

Agreed, fuck tariffs.

As I explained above that would make things even worse for the american worker.

Okay, no. You're insane and / or evil.

On one hand you have the person who wants corporate taxation to help the middle and lower classes and on the other we have the wealthy corporate puppet who is always on the side of faceless corporations and has no empathy whatsoever for the poor or those suffering. I hope it's clear to people who's the "evil" one (ridiculous word but you're the one using it).

 

[JayDubya]

So people should have obligations to the country they live in but not corporations? Spoken like a true libertarian.

Corporations don't employ residents of the United States? Huh.

By "changing the methodology of taxation" you mean meet the standards of those tax havens?

I mean use taxes that apply to everyone and are not bugfuck convoluted, like our current system.

Yes let's destroy the last people who are able to find a job in USA. Let's destroy american farmers so that cheap imports from corporations who treat Latin Americans like slaves can flood the market.

Wow. Just, wow.

Actually no, I think farm subsidies and tariffs are so lousy particularly because they destroy the market for goods from other countries; this is a means of production that the so called "third world" can readily employ in the multitude of optimal environments for agriculture (Latin America, Africa, etc.) and so on, thus creating a means for the creation of wealth and stability rather than the constant need for foreign aid.

But by all means, let's keep making more corn, market forces naturally causing an extreme amount of over-supply to be worth less money be damned. More HFCS, woo!

On one hand you have the person who wants corporate taxation to help the middle and lower classes and on the other we have the corporate puppet who is always on the side of faceless corporations even if that's always hurting the little guy. I hope it's clear to people who's the "evil" one.

He wants extralegal "taxation" in the form of seizure of profits arbitrarily deemed to be too high. If that feels just to you, it's because you prop up all corporations as the bogeyman.

"Darn all those evil corporations! They make things that I like to buy and derive so much quality of life from! The bastards!"

 

[fortified_concept]

Corporations don't employ residents of the United States? Huh.

They do. What does that have to do with corporate profits and the obligations a corporation should have to the country it resides in? Why do corporations have most of the rights a normal citizen would have and none of the obligations?

I mean use taxes that apply to everyone and are not bugfuck convoluted, like our current system.

And how would that solve the problem with the tax havens? Corporations and the rich would still "use" them because they're cheaper.

Wow. Just, wow.

Actually no, I think farm subsidies and tariffs are so lousy particularly because they destroy the market for goods from other countries; this is a means of production that the so called "third world" can readily employ in the multitude of optimal environments for agriculture (Latin America, Africa, etc.) and so on, thus creating a means for the creation of wealth and stability rather than the constant need for foreign aid.

But by all means, let's keep making more corn, market forces naturally causing an extreme amount of over-supply to be worth less money be damned. More HFCS, woo!

You just rephrased what I said trying to hide the fact that it would destroy the american farmer and bring the cheap imports from corporations who exploit the Latin american population. Your only argument as always is the money and market forces, nothing about the people.

He wants extralegal "taxation" in the form of seizure of profits arbitrarily deemed to be too high. If that feels just to you, it's because you prop up all corporations as the bogeyman.

It's called progressive taxation. Deal with it.

 

[JayDubya]

They do. What does that have to do with corporate profits and the obligations a corporation should have to the country it resides in? Why do corporations have most of the rights a normal citizen would have and none of the obligations?

If every citizen in the organization is already paying taxes, why then does the collective organization have to pay taxes? How many times do you want to tax the same group of people?

You just rephrased what I said trying to hide the fact that it would destroy the american farmer and bring the cheap imports from corporations who exploit the Latin american population. Your only argument as always is the money and market forces, nothing about the people.

I just identified how subsidies destroy a very good prospect for improving quality of life abroad.

The marketplace can say "Okay, we have enough corn already; what else you got?" Subsidies just promote useless production for the sake of production.

It's called progressive taxation. Deal with it.

Zounds, man. We're not even talking about "progressive taxation," we're talking about just seizing the excess of what has already been taxed on the basis that it's a big number and we want us some of that.

 

[TAJ]

so where is the incentive to work again?

Who says that the top 1% work? When I was building $10-20 million dollar houses, every fucking person on every street I worked on was routinely in bathrobes at noon on weekdays.

 

[Chinner]

Didn't I see you complain about a politician that wanted to ensure people on the dole in Britain actually looked for work?

that's spinning it.ii did however make a effort post after the initial "

tories" post

bioshock is the ultimate proof against Libertarianism

.

 

[fortified_concept]

If every citizen in the organization is already paying taxes, why then does the collective organization have to pay taxes? How many times do you want to tax the same group of people?

Because of this:

Not to beat a dead horse, but when talking about taxes and the rich you need to talk about Capital Gains tax. Income tax holds as much relevance as sales tax or property tax with the rich. The bulk of their money comes off long term capital gains from stocks. And yes, long term stocks always make ~9% average annualized interest. Meaning that you double your money every 8 years. So if your net worth is about 100 million dollars, you can blindly put that money into a few broad stock index funds, and on average you'll make about 12 million dollars in capital gains income per year sitting on your ass. And rich people get this taxed at 15%. Meanwhile a hard working middle class family with two working parents earning 70k family income get taxed 25%. And if that doesn't seem unfair enough, consider the effect of the rich guy reinvesting the gains and letting them compound.

and because the corporations own money and make profits that aren't being physically transfered to the people who own them. They just sit there in a theoretical economic purgatory and while they can move that money to buy other companies (or politicians). In other words and as I've repeated corporations have the rights of a person but you don't want them to have the obligations of one.

I just identified how subsidies destroy a very good prospect for improving quality of life abroad.

The marketplace can say "Okay, we have enough corn already; what else you got?" Subsidies just promote useless production for the sake of production.

They don't improve the life abroad. As I said trickle down economics is a bullshit theory that has been proven wrong again and again. Corporations treat the latin american populations like slaves and the profits certainly don't trickle down to them. Thank for that CIA and the various US governments who imposed libertarian economics to most of these countries through coups and IMF/World Bank blackmail.

And btw thank you for admitting that it would destroy the american farmer by avoiding to touch the subject. Do you even care what will happen to these people? Sometimes I feel like a better american than you and I'm not even american. :lol

Zounds, man. We're not even talking about "progressive taxation," we're talking about just seizing the excess of what has already been taxed on the basis that it's a big number and we want us some of that.

"Seizing the excess profit" can be accompliced by strict progressive taxation and I completely agree with it.

 

[JayDubya]

Your chief argument is a work of fiction?

 

[fortified_concept]

Your chief argument is a work of fiction?

I'm not a libertarian if that's what you're trying to imply.

 

[JayDubya]

And btw thank you for admitting that it would destroy the american farmer by avoiding to touch the subject. Sometimes I feel like a better american than you and I'm not even american. :lol

So... if I don't play into your delusions... obviously I must be concurring with them.

But you know what? If you're making something people don't want, or in this case, don't want enough to make it worth your while, you probably ought to make something else.

I suppose that translates to you as "zOMG DESTOY TEH FARMRAZ!" somehow.

 

[fortified_concept]

So... if I don't play into your delusions... obviously I must be concurring with them.

But you know what? If you're making something people don't want, or in this case, don't want enough to make it worth your while, you probably ought to make something else.

I suppose that translates to you as "zOMG DESTOY TEH FARMRAZ!" somehow.

JayDubya avoiding to answer for the third time about what will happen to the american farmers.

 

[GoutPatrol]

JayDubya avoiding to answer for the third time about what will happen to the american farmers.

There are no American farmers anymore. Its all agribusiness.

 

[ToxicAdam]

There are around 2 million farms today (down from 6.5 million in the 30's). 25% of today's farm's account for 80 percent of all production.

 

[fortified_concept]

There are no American farmers anymore. Its all agribusiness.

Truth is I don't know shit about american agriculture and I admit it so anyone can correct me on the following. From a quick google search I read that 90% of the 2 million farms belong to american farmers that have focused more on biological products than the mutated ones produced from the huge agricultural conglomerates. Overall there are more than 800 thousand people working in agriculture in USA. Free market says that these people should lose their jobs. But don't worry about it, the unemployment will auto-correct itself.

 

[dinazimmerman]

Truth is I don't know shit about american agriculture and I admit it so anyone can correct me on the following. From a quick google search I read that 90% of the 2 million farms belong to american farmers that have focused more on biological products than the mutated ones produced from the huge agricultural conglomerates. Overall there are more than 800 thousand people working in agriculture in USA. Free market says that these people should lose their jobs. But don't worry about it, the unemployment will auto-correct itself.

This actually could work. Not saying it will, but it makes sense. The money people save from being able to purchase cheap agricultural goods from afar would in turn be spent in other industries that aren't as failsome as the small farm industry, actually creating more jobs than were lost from removing the tariffs. It doesn't make sense to subsidize failing industries. In fact, since it's hard to know which industries will succeed, it's better to be extremely cautious when thinking about subsidize any industry. But whatever, I might be wrong.

Also, if you're worried about unemployment, tariffs aren't the solution you're looking for. Just ramp up the social safety net and increase unemployment benefits. More sensible.

 

[adamsappel]

In other words and as I've repeated corporations have the rights of a person but you don't want them to have the obligations of one.

People, and corporations, have no obligations but to themselves.

I wrote this before seeing if Jay replied.

 

[fortified_concept]

This actually could work. Not saying it will, but it makes sense. The money people save from being able to purchase cheap agricultural goods from afar would in turn be spent in other industries that aren't as failsome as the small farm industry, actually creating more jobs than were lost from removing the tariffs. It doesn't make sense to subsidize failing industries. In fact, since it's hard to know which industries will succeed, it's better to be extremely cautious when thinking about subsidize any industry. But whatever, I might be wrong.

Also, if you're worried about unemployment, tariffs aren't the solution you're looking for. Just ramp up the social safety net and increase unemployment benefits. More sensible.

Wouldn't the subsidies just barely make up for the money lost from the tariffs? And doesn't the US government already have this plan to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment by throwing money at it? How's that going?

 

[fortified_concept]

People, and corporations, have no obligations but to themselves.

I wrote this before seeing if Jay replied.

Then make a hat in the woods and live by yourself because if you live in a society they are going to tax you and they are going "regulate" your behavior.

 

[jorma]

This actually could work. Not saying it will, but it makes sense. The money people save from being able to purchase cheap agricultural goods from afar would in turn be spent in other industries that aren't as failsome as the small farm industry, actually creating more jobs than were lost from removing the tariffs. It doesn't make sense to subsidize failing industries. In fact, since it's hard to know which industries will succeed, it's better to be extremely cautious when thinking about subsidize any industry. But whatever, I might be wrong.

Also, if you're worried about unemployment, tariffs aren't the solution you're looking for. Just ramp up the social safety net and increase unemployment benefits. More sensible.

Well it does make sense to subsidize your agriculture output, since not being at least somewhat self dependant leaves you extremely vulnerable as a nation.

 

[Javaman]

Not to beat a dead horse, but when talking about taxes and the rich you need to talk about Capital Gains tax. Income tax holds as much relevance as sales tax or property tax with the rich. The bulk of their money comes off long term capital gains from stocks. And yes, long term stocks always make ~9% average annualized interest. Meaning that you double your money every 8 years. So if your net worth is about 100 million dollars, you can blindly put that money into a few broad stock index funds, and on average you'll make about 12 million dollars in capital gains income per year sitting on your ass. And rich people get this taxed at 15%. Meanwhile a hard working middle class family with two working parents earning 70k family income get taxed 25%. And if that doesn't seem unfair enough, consider the effect of the rich guy reinvesting the gains and letting them compound.

No they don't.

The first $16,700 gets taxed at 10%, from $15,100 to $67,900 at 15% and $67,900 to $70,000 at 25%. The effective tax rate is much lower for the middle class family, and it is somewhere around 15%.

This doesn't even take into consideration standard or itemized deductions, The former would bring the effective tax rate down to 8.66%

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Fortified-I'm curious as to why you're defending tariffs.

This actually could work. Not saying it will, but it makes sense. The money people save from being able to purchase cheap agricultural goods from afar would in turn be spent in other industries that aren't as failsome as the small farm industry, actually creating more jobs than were lost from removing the tariffs. It doesn't make sense to subsidize failing industries. In fact, since it's hard to know which industries will succeed, it's better to be extremely cautious when thinking about subsidize any industry. But whatever, I might be wrong.

Tariffs probably worked in the late 1800s-early 1900s because it sped up low productivity agricultural workers into higher productivity manufacturing jobs.

 

[fortified_concept]

Fortified-I'm curious as to why you're defending tariffs.

Tariffs probably worked in the late 1800s-early 1900s because it sped up low productivity agricultural workers into higher productivity manufacturing jobs.

Because unless there's a worldwide agreement on on wages, tax havens, child labor etc etc tariffs are the only thing that barely halts international corporations from exploiting cheap labor and disgusting working conditions in third world countries to then sell for huge profits the products made to western countries. Plus tariffs protect the wages and jobs of the populations of those western countries. As tariffs go down and tax havens are allowed to exist the more the corporations keep moving their factories to cheaper countries while using the tax havens to avoid taxation. In other words corporations are ahead of the game and we're losing. Btw I'm not just talking about agricultural tariffs here.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Tariffs do more harm than good. Remember the 30% tariff imposed on imported steel? The tariff increased the price of imported steel, making steel more competitive in the U.S. to domestic buyers. Prices rose and production lowered, which led to the increased cost of other goods.

Tariffs hurt both foreign and domestic producers.

 

[fortified_concept]

Tariffs do more harm than good. Remember the 30% tariff imposed on imported steel? The tariff increased the price of imported steel, making steel more competitive in the U.S. to domestic buyers. Prices rose and production lowered, which led to the increased cost of other goods.

Tariffs hurt both foreign and domestic producers.

Tariffs almost always result in prices increases. Small price to pay for the employment of the local population and for discouraging corporations from practically stealing the national resources of third world countries or exploiting their populations. In a perfect world there wouldn't be a reason for tariffs but in this shithole we live in I'm a staunch supporter.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Tariffs work in short-term (18-24 months) instances to protect industries from dumping or other hardships/unforeseen circumstances. Long-term tarriffs are bad for the producer and ultimately the consumer.

 

[GaimeGuy]

If every citizen in the organization is already paying taxes, why then does the collective organization have to pay taxes? How many times do you want to tax the same group of people?

good lord, JayDubya.

A corporation is a separate legal entity from the people inside of it. It has its own income. It has its own assets. It has its own liabilities. A corporation is legally separate from the individuals inside of it. Which means the individuals inside of it have limited liability, and it also means that their personal income is not tied to the company's from a legal standpoint.

i know you didn't specifically mention corporations, or even businesses, but most businesses, big and small, have limited liability like this, so that the organization's success or failure is isolated from the individuals within it. You HAVE to know this. And thus they are taxed on their profits. Really, you're arguing that businesses deserve more privileges and rights than individuals do, here.

 

[dojokun]

good lord, JayDubya.

A corporation is a separate legal entity from the people inside of it. It has its own income. It has its own assets. It has its own liabilities. A corporation is legally separate from the individuals inside of it. Which means the individuals inside of it have limited liability, and it also means that their personal income is not tied to the company's from a legal standpoint.

i know you didn't specifically mention corporations, or even businesses, but most businesses, big and small, have limited liability like this, so that the organization's success or failure is isolated from the individuals within it. You HAVE to know this. And thus they are taxed on their profits. Really, you're arguing that businesses deserve more privileges and rights than individuals do, here.

He presented a conceptual concern and you responded with a legal excuse. I'm sure he knows that individuals are legally treated separately than the companies they work for. The concept that I think he was trying to convey was that the money that went into their paychecks was already taxed when it went into the company's bank account. Legally, yes, the government gave itself the ability to do that. But don't you think there is something wrong with the government taxing the same sum of money more than once simply because it has exchanged hands more than once? And when I say something wrong, I don't mean illegal. I just mean wrong.

 

[turnbuckle]

No they don't.

The first $16,700 gets taxed at 10%, from $15,100 to $67,900 at 15% and $67,900 to $70,000 at 25%. The effective tax rate is much lower for the middle class family, and it is somewhere around 15%.

This doesn't even take into consideration standard or itemized deductions, The former would bring the effective tax rate down to 8.66%

The middle class worker also pays medicare and social security taxes on those wages. So the effective tax rate is still higher than capital gains.

Anyways, taxes need to be increased for everybody. There needs to be new brackets added at the top, too. Capital gains rates need to get bumped up. When capital tax rates / loopholes allow the wealthiest people and companies reduce their tax burden with no accompanying contribution to society, the result will always be them taking advantage of tax laws to the detriment of everyone else. That doesn't make them evil, it just makes them smart. Through higher tax rates, the government has more leverage to offer tax credits / subsidies for corporations to provide more jobs.

It sounds counterintuitive, but if a company is taxed at 50% of their profit then the marginal cost of a new employee is 50% of whatever their salaries+benefits are. Same goes for raises - a dollar raise effectively only costs the company 50 cents. As you reduce the tax rate, the opportunity cost of hiring or providing new benefits goes up. Conversely, the benefit of not hiring or providing new benefits also increases. In addition, as said before, the government also gains the ability to offer better incentives to companies to hire or produce a desired function.

Of course, this would hurt the profit margin of companies but I'm not really interested in that. The goal of a business is to earn a profit; the goal of a person is to make a living. They don't have to diametrically oppose each other, but business won't exist without a healthy workforce and an active consumer base.

There are certainly a lot of holes in my argument (and I'd love to hear them so long as you're not JayD - as I already know what he'll say) but I believe policy built upon a similar framework would make most or all of us better off - well, except those whose ideology would have them buy a private insurance policy for 10,000 over a near identical public insurance policy for 7,000.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Tariffs almost always result in prices increases. Small price to pay for the employment of the local population and for discouraging corporations from practically stealing the national resources of third world countries or exploiting their populations. In a perfect world there wouldn't be a reason for tariffs but in this shithole we live in I'm a staunch supporter.

Okay, you seem to be focused on exploitation of labor while not focusing on what I said. Are you denying the facts of what happened after the U.S. imposed tariffs on steel?