Big Business Got Greedy

[Bern80]

ThomHartmann.com - Nobles Need Not Pay Taxes

Once the rich and powerful gain control of the government, they turn it upon itself, usually first eliminating its taxation process as it applies to themselves.
"General Electric Co., for example, reported paying an effective tax rate of 19% last year on world-wide income, compared with 26% in 2003."
Corporations are taxed because they use public services, and are therefore expected to help pay for them - the same as citizens.
Corporations make use of a work force educated in public schools paid for with tax dollars. They use roads and highways paid for with tax dollars. They use water, sewer, and power and communications rights-of-way paid for with taxes. They demand the same protection from fire and police departments as everybody else, and enjoy the benefits of national sovereignty and the stability provided by the military and institutions like NATO and the United Nations, the same as all residents of democratic nations.
In fact, corporations are heavier users of taxpayer-provided services and institutions than are average citizens. Taxes pay for our court systems, which are most heavily used by corporations to enforce contracts. Taxes pay for our Treasury Department and other governmental institutions which maintain a stable currency essential to corporate activity. Taxes pay for our regulation of corporate activity, from assuring safety in the workplace to a pure food and drug supply to limiting toxic emissions.
Under George W. Bush, the burden of cleaning up toxic wastes produced by corporate activity has largely shifted from polluter-funded Superfund and other programs to taxpayer-funded cleanups (as he did in Texas as governor there before becoming President).
Every year, millions of cases of cancer, emphysema, neurological disorders, and other conditions caused by corporate pollution are paid for in whole or in part by government funded programs from Medicare to Medicaid to government subsidies of hospitals, universities, and research institutions funded by tax dollars through the NIH and NIMH.
Because it's well understood that corporations use our tax-funded institutions at least as heavily as do citizens, they've traditionally been taxed at similar rates. For example, the top corporate tax rate in the US was 48% during the Carter administration, down from the a peak of 53% during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
Today it stands at 35%, but in May of 2001 Bush administration Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill suggested there should be no corporate income tax whatsoever. This was the opening salvo in a very real war to have working people bear all the costs of the commons and governance, while the wealthy corporate elite derive most of its benefits.
And, as George H.W. Bush pointed out when he was president, this isn't just an American phenomenon. It's a New World Order.
A cornerstone of the conservative movement to consolidate power in the hands of a wealthy corporate elite, the campaign to end corporate income taxes altogether - and leave the rest of us to pick up the entire tab for corporate use of our institutions and corporation despoliation of our commons - first picked up steam when Reagan came to power in 1980.
The December 1, 2004 Washington Times article, titled "End Corporate Income Tax," reflects a powerful and growing movement not just in the United States but across the world. So-called "free trade" agreements and supranational institutions like the WTO have given multinational corporations control of the economic lives of nations that were previously democracies. Holland, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, Belgium - the list goes on and on.
In a feudal state, as Bloch reminds us, the nobles need not pay taxes.
And as Mussolini told us, the newest form of feudalism has been reinvented and renamed. He called it "fascism" - a word that was defined by The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) as "fas-cism (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
We are quickly shifting toward a corporate-run state in countries all over the world. It appears "free" and even allows elections, albeit they are only among candidates funded and approved by corporate powers, held on voting machines owned by those corporate powers, and marketed in media owned by those corporate powers.
But this bears little resemblance to the democratic republic envisioned by our nation's Founders.
If our elected representatives - and those of other "free" nations - don't quickly wake up and reverse course, we will soon again be in a feudal world. And it's up to us - We the People - to help them awaken.

You know what bobo, I will actually buy that argument. One minor problem. It doesn't refute mine. It doesn't change the fact that if corporations are required to pay more taxes it makes it more difficult for them to put more people to work. And it actually contradicts yours. Mr. Hartman writes a convincing article about distribution of tax burden based on usage of tax provided services. He isn't advocating that one group pay everything and another pay nothing despite the fact that both use said services to one extent or another.

It also isn't what I was talking about in the first place. My original focus was on the behaviors and attitudes behind rich and poor individuals. And in reality it is also what you were talking about. You didn't differenitate 'rich' in terms of people or corporations. Presumably rich peopel aren't using the roads any more or less then the middle class or poor and yet for some inexplicable reason you feel the rich person should have to pay for said roads and not the middle/poor class.

This house slave mentality is ridiculous and at the very leat completely backwards. I am not the one claiming victim status or letting others dictate to me or expecting someone else to facilitate my ends. How that makes me a slave is beyond me. YOU are the one behaving like a slave bobo, you are the one claiming the condition you're in is someone elses fault, you are the one who won't look to yourself for the answers. Slaves do not have power, nor do victims. When you claimed victim status you gave up your power willingly and YOU became the slave of your own fucked up attitudes and beliefs, not me.

 

[sealybobo]

You know what bobo, I will actually buy that argument. One minor problem. It doesn't refute mine. It doesn't change the fact that if corporations are required to pay more taxes it makes it more difficult for them to put more people to work. And it actually contradicts yours. Mr. Hartman writes a convincing article about distribution of tax burden based on usage of tax provided services. He isn't advocating that one group pay everything and another pay nothing despite the fact that both use said services to one extent or another.

It also isn't what I was talking about in the first place. My original focus was on the behaviors and attitudes behind rich and poor individuals. And in reality it is also what you were talking about. You didn't differenitate 'rich' in terms of people or corporations. Presumably rich peopel aren't using the roads any more or less then the middle class or poor and yet for some inexplicable reason you feel the rich person should have to pay for said roads and not the middle/poor class.

This house slave mentality is ridiculous and at the very leat completely backwards. I am not the one claiming victim status or letting others dictate to me or expecting someone else to facilitate my ends. How that makes me a slave is beyond me. YOU are the one behaving like a slave bobo, you are the one claiming the condition you're in is someone elses fault, you are the one who won't look to yourself for the answers. Slaves do not have power, nor do victims. When you claimed victim status you gave up your power willingly and YOU became the slave of your own fucked up attitudes and beliefs, not me.

Companies in the 90's paid more taxes than they do now and they somehow figured out a way to grow and hire more people.

But yes, it is or can be true that if you raise a corporations costs, it might affect their ability to hire more people. IE Joe the Plumber. But, if business/the economy is good, they'll hire to make more sales and they won't let taxes stop them. If taxes are stopping them, then their business is failing really.

Ok, and when I say $40K people should pay NOTHING and the rich should pay everything, I was exaggerating. I also don't think a guy that makes a million should be taxed 50% either. That would be wrong/unfair/too much.

But I would still rather be the guy taking home $500K than I would be the guy making $40k and not paying any taxes.

I found these quotes from Republicans about what Bill Clinton would do to the economy:

"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact
on job creation is going to be devastating."
-Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas)

"The tax increase will.lead to a recession.and will actually
increase the deficit."
-Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)

"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage
on it.the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my
judgment, inflation will be up."
-Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)

"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is
today, not lower."
-Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)

"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and
his party imposed the largest tax increase in American
history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the
economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited.
Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and
increased government regulations, Republicans would take
America in a different direction."
-Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)

And, I am where I am in life because of hard work, because I took the time to graduate college and because of my talents. I'm not a fucking loser you know? I just see how corporations are getting more from us and paying us less. I saw it coming before it happened and now I can say I told you so. I work with 50 people, who will all tell you the company is demanding more and paying less for it. And I know it's happening all across the country, in every industry/department. IT people are in high demand, yet still IBM cut their pay 15%. What's that all about? Supply and demand suggests that they should be able to go out and get another job tomorrow, for more money. Yet wages are not going up, not even for them. They sent jobs overseas and flooded the market with illegals, so there are more people who need jobs than there are jobs. That's lowering wages. Maybe we should kick the illegals out?

You know what I kick myself over? I could have easily got a job with Ford right out of highschool and I'd be getting a big fat buyout for $100k and I'd have a 20 year pension. I'm KICKING MYSELF!!! I should have went that route. LOL.

PS. Yes, often times I interchange rich people and corporations. I usually mean corporations. Typically, most rich people are corporations, no? Remember Kerry said Bush had a lumber company and he used it for tax write offs? So many times I mean Corporations but sometimes I mean super rich people too. Like if you are willed $20 million dollars, I think you should pay a death tax of 50% on that.

ThomHartmann.com - How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

Thom & I both believe that it is bullshit to charge a farmers son the death penalty on a farm worth $5 million dollars. That person should not pay the death tax at all. It should only be meant for the super rich. For example, Paris Hilton? Let's say she enherits $20 million dollars. Read Thom's article on why she should be subject to a death tax.

 

[Bern80]

And, I am where I am in life because of hard work, because I took the time to graduate college and because of my talents. I'm not a fucking loser you know? I just see how corporations are getting more from us and paying us less. I saw it coming before it happened and now I can say I told you so. I work with 50 people, who will all tell you the company is demanding more and paying less for it. And I know it's happening all across the country, in every industry/department. IT people are in high demand, yet still IBM cut their pay 15%. What's that all about? Supply and demand suggests that they should be able to go out and get another job tomorrow, for more money. Yet wages are not going up, not even for them. They sent jobs overseas and flooded the market with illegals, so there are more people who need jobs than there are jobs. That's lowering wages. Maybe we should kick the illegals out?

You know what I kick myself over? I could have easily got a job with Ford right out of highschool and I'd be getting a big fat buyout for $100k and I'd have a 20 year pension. I'm KICKING MYSELF!!! I should have went that route. LOL.

What it's about is basic economics and how the economic landscape of this country is changing in a global economy and how our cultural behaviors have changed. As others have alluded to several times the wages of places like the big 3 are simply out of line. In a free market the value of something is based on things like demand and scarcity. Finding a person that can be trained in a day to put piece x on piece y is not a scarce skill and thus doesn't warrant the exhorbitant amount that the big 3 (really forced by the unions) pay them.

We switched from a predominantly manufacturing based economy to a predominantly service based economy. Ultimately the citizens of this country will be better served learning that they need to adapt to the changing landscape rather then waiting for government to throw life jackets to peopel on ships that are gonna sink anyway.

PS. Yes, often times I interchange rich people and corporations. I usually mean corporations. Typically, most rich people are corporations, no? Remember Kerry said Bush had a lumber company and he used it for tax write offs? So many times I mean Corporations but sometimes I mean super rich people too. Like if you are willed $20 million dollars, I think you should pay a death tax of 50% on that.

Actually no that isn't really correct. In the eyes of the law a business is considered it's own enitity. I was taught think of it like another person. It has it's own income, seperate from whomever the owner is, it's own tax liability seperate from the owner, etc. The revenue of the business is not tied to the income of the indivudual in terms of taxes.

And why should I owe the government something when I keel over? You're becoming more reasonable, but you still seem to be stuck on this illogical position that the rich should pay taxes just because their rich. If we really want to talk about real fairness, the fairest way to tax people should be based the extent to which the use the services taxes provide. that would be fair, pretty impossible, but that's as fair a system as you can get.

Shouldn't the argument be that government should be working within a budget that renders asanine crap like a death tax unneccessary? Rather than debating who should pay and whether their should be such a tax at all?

 

[sealybobo]

This house slave mentality is ridiculous and at the very leat completely backwards. I am not the one claiming victim status or letting others dictate to me or expecting someone else to facilitate my ends. How that makes me a slave is beyond me. YOU are the one behaving like a slave bobo, you are the one claiming the condition you're in is someone elses fault, you are the one who won't look to yourself for the answers. Slaves do not have power, nor do victims. When you claimed victim status you gave up your power willingly and YOU became the slave of your own fucked up attitudes and beliefs, not me.

When I say house slave, I mean a person who really isn't a HAVE, but has it better than the HAVE NOTS, so they don't want to rock the boat. So let's say you made $70k a year and everyone else at your company made $40k, and the company cut all of your pay by $10K. You might not want to buck the system because you still make $60k, where the people who now make $30k are pissed.

And no, a house slave never complains. He tells the field slaves that they shouldn't complain because they too don't know how good they got it.

PS. I was reading the news and had some questions for you. As far as what we were talking about before, I think I get where you are coming from, and I hope you realize that I'm not being a victim. I'm not failing and blaming someone else. I'm actually succeeding and seeing that "the man" is making me work more for less. Now you may not agree with me because you don't think they crashed this economy on purpose, but maybe you haven't read Naomi Klein's Disaster Capitalism or Shock Doctrine yet. Or maybe you don't realize the same thing they super rich are doing now is the same thing they did during the Great Depression and Guilded Age. It sure seems like this is by design. And only the super duper rich are benefitting from it. Even people that make $1 million a year are strugging/losing their jobs/going bankrupt. I guess you could make an argument that they should have saved more and they should have seen it coming.

And you would be right. But, when I see Bush/Delay policies caused this financial mess, I'm not being a victim by pointing it out.

Anyways, here's the news and my comments:

Jobless claims remain at recessionary levels, Americans cut back on their spending by the largest amount since the 2001 terrorist attacks, orders to U.S. factories plummeted and new-home sales fell to the lowest level in nearly 18 years.
(YOU GUYS SAY AMERICANS SPEND TOO MUCH, BUT YOU SEE THE ECONOMY FALLS APART IF WE DON’T. SO DO YOU WANT TO CUT OUR PAY AND TELL US TO TIGHTEN UP OR DO YOU WANT TO PAY US MORE AND ENCOURAGE US TO GO OUT AND SPEND?)
Meanwhile, the Commerce Department reported that consumer spending plunged by 1 percent in October, even worse than the 0.9 percent decline that had been expected. Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of total economic activity.
(THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO BE PAID MORE NOT LESS)
(AND THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD NOT SEND MANUFACTURING OVERSEAS)

Orders to U.S. factories for big-ticket manufactured goods also plunged last month by the largest amount in two years. Orders for durable goods dropped by 6.2 percent, more than double the decline economists expected. The Commerce Department report showed widespread declines throughout manufacturing led by decreases in autos and airplanes.
(SO SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO SEND JOBS OVERSEAS SO WE CAN GET THERE CHEAPER PRODUCTS? EVEN IF NO ONE IN AMERICA CAN BUY THEM BECAUSE WE AREN’T MAKING ANY MONEY? IS IT EVERYONE’S FAULT THAT THEY AREN’T MAKING ANY MONEY? IS IT THE GUY SELLING AMERICAN MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS FAULT ALL HIS CUSTOMERS ARE BUYING FROM CHINA?)

 

[Bern80]

When I say house slave, I mean a person who really isn't a HAVE, but has it better than the HAVE NOTS, so they don't want to rock the boat. So let's say you made $70k a year and everyone else at your company made $40k, and the company cut all of your pay by $10K. You might not want to buck the system because you still make $60k, where the people who now make $30k are pissed.

And no, a house slave never complains. He tells the field slaves that they shouldn't complain because they too don't know how good they got it.

PS. I was reading the news and had some questions for you. As far as what we were talking about before, I think I get where you are coming from, and I hope you realize that I'm not being a victim. I'm not failing and blaming someone else. I'm actually succeeding and seeing that "the man" is making me work more for less. Now you may not agree with me because you don't think they crashed this economy on purpose, but maybe you haven't read Naomi Klein's Disaster Capitalism or Shock Doctrine yet. Or maybe you don't realize the same thing they super rich are doing now is the same thing they did during the Great Depression and Guilded Age. It sure seems like this is by design. And only the super duper rich are benefitting from it. Even people that make $1 million a year are strugging/losing their jobs/going bankrupt. I guess you could make an argument that they should have saved more and they should have seen it coming.

And you would be right. But, when I see Bush/Delay policies caused this financial mess, I'm not being a victim by pointing it out.

Anyways, here's the news and my comments:

Jobless claims remain at recessionary levels, Americans cut back on their spending by the largest amount since the 2001 terrorist attacks, orders to U.S. factories plummeted and new-home sales fell to the lowest level in nearly 18 years.
(YOU GUYS SAY AMERICANS SPEND TOO MUCH, BUT YOU SEE THE ECONOMY FALLS APART IF WE DON’T. SO DO YOU WANT TO CUT OUR PAY AND TELL US TO TIGHTEN UP OR DO YOU WANT TO PAY US MORE AND ENCOURAGE US TO GO OUT AND SPEND?)
Meanwhile, the Commerce Department reported that consumer spending plunged by 1 percent in October, even worse than the 0.9 percent decline that had been expected. Consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of total economic activity.
(THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO BE PAID MORE NOT LESS)
(AND THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD NOT SEND MANUFACTURING OVERSEAS)

Orders to U.S. factories for big-ticket manufactured goods also plunged last month by the largest amount in two years. Orders for durable goods dropped by 6.2 percent, more than double the decline economists expected. The Commerce Department report showed widespread declines throughout manufacturing led by decreases in autos and airplanes.
(SO SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO SEND JOBS OVERSEAS SO WE CAN GET THERE CHEAPER PRODUCTS? EVEN IF NO ONE IN AMERICA CAN BUY THEM BECAUSE WE AREN’T MAKING ANY MONEY? IS IT EVERYONE’S FAULT THAT THEY AREN’T MAKING ANY MONEY? IS IT THE GUY SELLING AMERICAN MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS FAULT ALL HIS CUSTOMERS ARE BUYING FROM CHINA?)

We should not be paid more just because. You want to really throw this economy out of whack and open the door to higher inflation, we'll do it your way and you can watch prices on everything sky rocket. The value of labor needs to based on something. Right now it's based on the free market (for the most part). That's the way basic supply and demand work. If everyone has more money, businesses know then that people have more disposable income which means they know they can charge more for their products. That's how a market works. You want this new system, I suggest you think about the ramifications of just giving people more money just because, and think about it A LOT.

So long as we're suggesting reading material I will suggest a few to you:

Rich Dad/Poor Dad
The Millionaire Next Door
The 4 Hour Work Week


Start with the first two. When you take a step back after reading your list and my list you will notice one major difference. Your books blame externalties for people's problems. Most of the stuff on my list is void of a politcal slant, or any external blame. The one thing I figured out (10 years faster than you) is that their is no surer way to fail then with the atittude you have. Blaming others does not move you forward. Attempting to point out all these external excuses will not move you forward. Not only do you need to acknowledge the things you have control of and the things you have or haven't done, but they need to be the FIRST things you examine when you start complaining about your financial condition. You have failed at that at every turn. Your first instinct is to blame something else for the plight of yourself and others. If you look at yourself first, heck, maybe you will find this really isn't your fault, but it's not very likely.