Socialism is GOOD for EVERYONE!

[Modbert]

Meaning? The government should confiscate the products of coal, oil, nuclear, electric companies? Is that what you mean?

What Del said below puts it nicely.

 

[Annie]

Modbert;875085]What Del said below puts it nicely.

That I don't have a problem with. It's a regular conservative reaction. Lower taxes on the people. Not difficult.

I don't know how familiar you are with Chicago, but I live close to a suburb with a huge shopping and commercial office district, Oak Brook Terrace. Everyone thinks 'Oak Brook' which is a very high income suburb, but the offices and shopping center are located in the 'terrace.' Highest per pupil expenditure. No taxes to the homeowner, which is cool, since most are working class and below. Best gifted and special ed around. It's not all about money, some is the parents and where they chose to buy.

 

[alupka]

Socialism can't beat capitalism but it needs to be capitalism with a social responsibility. That is what the US system lacks and that is what too many Americans are still not coming to understand.

It's going to take a lot longer to break through the programming which Americans have succumbed to and start to understand why the country is failing.

The system and the country are failing the people.

Excellent post.

 

[jillian]

...and taking money from small business owners and giving it to people who don't pay taxes is going to do that??

...and raising taxes on businesses so they move overseas and take all of their jobs and profits with them is going to do that??

Your point is a complete non sequitur.

reading that, I think you don't know much about business at all and are parroting what the loonies told you. Given that I ran my own business for more than a decade and paid my share of taxes during that time, let me explain how things work. You run your business. The costs of running that business... rent, staff, health, operational expenses right down to the coffee in the kitchen of the office, all gets deducted. you pay yourself separately in taxable income. it is unlikely you would show "profit" of above $250,000, because one would take the excess and put it into more employees, more capital improvements, etc. And if you're taking out more than $250,000 a year in income after all expenses, then you need to be paying your taxes.

As far as I can see the only non sequitur is you acting put upon as if it is you who is going to be paying the taxes.

And if that were the barometer, why do you think it is that the red states take more from the government than they put in while blue states give more than they take?

Hmmmmmmmmm... could there be a correlation? or is it just you've been kool-aided into voting against your interests?

as for your specious comment that you're paying so people who don't pay taxes get money, you do realize that isn't what the problem is with our economy, right? there was a little thing called welfare reform a number of years back ... you know when bill clinton was president. of course, we can tell all those unwed moms in the red states to stop living off the dole.

 

[NO!bama08]

The top 10% already pay about 60% of all taxes paid. Hell what do you want? 80? 90?

 

[alupka]

reading that, I think you don't know much about business at all and are parroting what the loonies told you. Given that I ran my own business for more than a decade and paid my share of taxes during that time, let me explain how things work.

Actually I'm the managing partner of my firm who's directly responsible for transferring our assets and rebuilding the infrastructure of our company in China, which is where I currently reside...and the reason I'm here. So I actually do know a little about why American companies leave the U.S.

Admittedly, I'm not an accountant and rarely look beyond the summaries provided to me. But so far, those summaries have always been dead on accurate, so I don't really need to worry about the details.

As far as the 250,000 goes though, do you mean to say that you cannot own a company that profits more than $250,000 a year? When I say profit, I mean beyond all the expenses you listed. Because this is a pretty common scenario, and a fairly easy milestone to reach. Now who do you think has to pay the tax on that money? And how long do you think they're going to do it when there are significantly cheaper places to operate?

Look, I get where you're coming from, I just don't think it's enough to convince profitable companies to stay in the U.S.

And when they leave, you will have more Americans looking for jobs and less people actually paying taxes. That was the point of the original post.

I would be happy to fairly consider any opposing arguments though, if anyone disagrees with that assessment.

 

[Modbert]

The top 10% already pay about 60% of all taxes paid. Hell what do you want? 80? 90?

The lower 40% have about 4% of the wealth.

The top 10% pay most of the taxes because they have the majority of the wealth.

Simple concept no?

Besides, the top Marginal Tax Rates for married couples currently is about 35%. Nowhere near 60% for one family.

The top 10% TOGETHER may pay 60% however.

 

[jillian]

Actually I'm the managing partner of my firm who's directly responsible for transferring our assets and rebuilding the infrastructure of our company in China, which is where I currently reside...and the reason I'm here. So I actually do know a little about why American companies leave the U.S.

Admittedly, I'm not an accountant and rarely look beyond the summaries provided to me. But so far, those summaries have always been dead on accurate, so I don't really need to worry about the details.

As far as the 250,000 goes though, do you mean to say that you cannot own a company that profits more than $250,000 a year? When I say profit, I mean beyond all the expenses you listed. Because this is a pretty common scenario, and a fairly easy milestone to reach. Now who do you think has to pay the tax on that money? And how long do you think they're going to do it when there are significantly cheaper places to operate?

Look, I get where you're coming from, I just don't think it's enough to convince profitable companies to stay in the U.S.

And when they leave, you will have more Americans looking for jobs and less people actually paying taxes. That was the point of the original post.

I would be happy to fairly consider any opposing arguments though, if anyone disagrees with that assessment.

a company that profits more than $250,000 isn't a "small business". Remember, we're talking "profit"... not salaries... not income... but PROFIT.

And, no offense, but companies removing jobs from our country and giving tax benefits for sending employment overseas are a huge part of the problem over the past eight years. I can't see democratic policies being worse in that regard than what we've had.

I do see why you'd be concerned, though, given your company's interests have anything in common with a small business owner in this country.

But I do understand people voting their self-interest. Most of the people I see doing the whine are barely middle class themselves.

 

[alupka]

The top 10% already pay about 60% of all taxes paid. Hell what do you want? 80? 90?

Exactly! I would love to hear someone actually answer that question with a rational response!

 

[editec]

Originally Posted by NO!bama08
The top 10% already pay about 60% of all taxes paid. Hell what do you want? 80? 90?

Exactly! I would love to hear someone actually answer that question with a rational response!

The top 10% already own 96% of everything.

How much more do they need?

 

[jillian]

The top 10% already pay about 60% of all taxes paid. Hell what do you want? 80? 90?

something proportionate with this (although this one's from 2004 and it's way worse now)

The top 1% of households owns nearly 40% of total household wealth -- more than the bottom 90% of households combined -- and earns half of all capital income. Income and wealth are more unevenly distributed among Americans than at any time since the Jazz Age of the 1920s. On measures of income and wealth inequality, the U.S. tops the charts among the advanced industrial nations.

How Bush Widened The Wealth Gap

Somehow, I don't think you're in that top 1%.

 

[alupka]

And, no offense, but companies removing jobs from our country and giving tax benefits for sending employment overseas are a huge part of the problem...

None taken. You're right. But we don't have a choice. I suppose we could choose to stay in America just to be compassionate or whatever, but then it would be impossible to compete with our competitors who didn't, and so eventually we wouldn't be hiring anyone...anywhere.

I don't know a single business owner here who wants to be here. I love America, and I want to help America, and I personally haven't found anyone in the world that can compete with the American workers. But we just simply can't afford to stay in business doing that when the American government is looking to us to pay for all their silly programs. American labor alone is too expensive. But I would be willing to deal with that if it was the only added expense. But paying for socialist policies on top of it just isn't an option.

And lastly, there are many small businesses that make 300,000-500,000 a year. I know sole proprietors that set a goal of making a million a year, and are working to try and achieve that. Good for them. That's what America should be about. But that's not even close to being a multi-billion dollar corporation! But now, under Obama's plan, they're suddenly considered the wealthy elite! And are going to be taxed accordingly. I just don't get it.

 

[Andrew2382]

a company that profits more than $250,000 isn't a "small business". Remember, we're talking "profit"... not salaries... not income... but PROFIT.

And, no offense, but companies removing jobs from our country and giving tax benefits for sending employment overseas are a huge part of the problem over the past eight years. I can't see democratic policies being worse in that regard than what we've had.

I do see why you'd be concerned, though, given your company's interests have anything in common with a small business owner in this country.

But I do understand people voting their self-interest. Most of the people I see doing the whine are barely middle class themselves.

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf


All those industries that are classified as small business....you really don't have a clue on what is classified as a small business.

It is defined onw hat industry and then it is measured on receipts or employees

Some small examples

In the Construction industry Small business if defined as 33 million a year or less.

For the Electronic and applicance stores is has to be 9 million....


Just 2 examples please look at the list and look at all the industries and how much money or employees they need to be considered a small business.


Just because a place makes a lot of money doesnt mean its not a small busienss

 

[Annie]

None taken. You're right. But we don't have a choice. I suppose we could choose to stay in America just to be compassionate or whatever, but then it would be impossible to compete with our competitors who didn't, and so eventually we wouldn't be hiring anyone...anywhere.

I don't know a single business owner here who wants to be here. I love America, and I want to help America, and I personally haven't found anyone in the world that can compete with the American workers. But we just simply can't afford to stay in business doing that when the American government is looking to us to pay for all their silly programs. American labor alone is too expensive. But I would be willing to deal with that if it was the only added expense. But paying for socialist policies on top of it just isn't an option.

And lastly, there are many small businesses that make 300,000-500,000 a year. I know sole proprietors that set a goal of making a million a year, and are working to try and achieve that. Good for them. That's what America should be about. But that's not even close to being a multi-billion dollar corporation! But now, under Obama's plan, they're suddenly considered the wealthy elite! And are going to be taxed accordingly. I just don't get it.

I hear you. I empathize. Truth is, the American worker needs to recognize that the employer needs to make a sustainable profit. There are different ways to get there, needs to be filled, but it does need to be a partnership.

 

[alupka]

The top 10% already own 96% of everything.

How much more do they need?

Touché

 

[alupka]

I hear you. I empathize. Truth is, the American worker needs to recognize that the employer needs to make a sustainable profit. There are different ways to get there, needs to be filled, but it does need to be a partnership.

I agree with you completely. I personally have no tolerance for corporate corruption or disrespecting the people who got you where you are.

 

[Agnapostate]

In any thread regarding socialism, one critical element must be noted. Capitalism is plagued by imperfect contracting, primarily that of the nature caused by information asymmetries, which have the inevitable tendency to cause adverse selection and moral hazard problems.

However, the same is not true for socialism inasmuch as an integral component of socialism is autogestion. (Workers' self-management.) This autogestion has the tendency of minimizing principal-agent problems. For instance, if we were to consider the available data on worker-owned enterprises, we might look to the work of researchers Logue and Yates in Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization

A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital.

Hence, we see that capitalism has the tendency to create inefficiencies because of its information asymmetries and more general principal-agent problems. Socialism has the benefit of correcting those issues, and thereby generating efficiency gains.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Now the rich man, feeling gypped

You can't let off more than a couple of sentences without spouting off racial epithets can you?

and sensing the obvious pattern, packs up his small technology firm and moves it to China. When he gets there, he realizes that he can save 70% off his labor costs, build a state of the art production studio and never pay property taxes (ever), get an instant business tax cut of 98%, and relish in the fact that Uncle Sam no longer has the legal authority to swipe benjamins from his checking account to give to the poor guy.

And he'd be living in a country where there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom to assemble, no protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and no freedom of religion, and relish in the fact that the Communist government he lives under might just decide to come and take all his property one day.

If such a man is willing to give up all those freedoms to save a little money on his taxes - THEN FUCK THAT PIECE OF SHIT BECAUSE AMERICA DOESN'T NEED PEOPLE LIKE HIM


The End.

 

[Agnapostate]

China really isn't "communist" in any sense of the word, and haven't been fully economically state capitalist in nature since the reign of Deng Xiaopang.

 

[editec]

The top 10% already pay about 60% of all taxes paid. Hell what do you want? 80? 90?

They also own the vast majority of assets so maybe.