Redistribution of Wealth At Gunpoint Is Tyranny

toongeorges said:
No law and order? ;-)
That too.

In fact most stuff that helps shape a society we all want to live in.

Situations where governments are involved in business (i.e. the crazyness that was British leyland) just don't work but creating rules to help businesses operate responsibly and for the benefit of all society is generally a good idea.

Getting them to all pay towards something that can help everyone is also a good idea.

Be it helping educate future workers for those companies (maybe even creating scientists who go on to invent new products for companies to use)
Creating infrastructure that allows those companies to transport goods. Providing healthcare so their workers can happily work away without the worry of having to spend a fortune to some insurance company whom may decide their illness cost too much, doesn't provide a nice profit for their shareholders and they drop them as soon as they can.

Societies like in Scandinavia where everything is open are what most countries should strive to provide.
 
Well then who does create value if the individual doesn't? Or is value not created?

Phil, you seem not to be able to understand both scale and abstraction. You seem to grasp a free economy in the case of a small holding, a family or a hermit, or as you say a primitive society. The opposite is true. Capitalism (I don't care for Libertarianism TM) arises out of sheer scale and complexity!

Isn't "give back" or "make a contribution" higher class code for getting super rich out of cronyism and nepotism?
 
scotttswan said:
Societies like in Scandinavia where everything is open are what most countries should strive to provide.

Yeah, those balances are not inherently a bad thing, it absolutely depends on the society you're talking about.

A homogeneous society (pre 80s Sweden) can afford a safety net. A sovereign society (Switzerland) can sovereignly chose what to spend the taxes (4% corp?) collected by themselves without much force, and the same goes for a Benevolent Dictatorship or Phascist city state (Singapore).

What about a Benevolent Empire like the West? or a industrial powerhouse like PR China? IDK
 
cbphoto said:
"Corporations in the US pay some of the highest taxes in the world... 40%..." please share that source with the rest of us.. think last year GE paid something like 2.7%

You're right, I was wrong. It is not one of the highest in the world. Now that Japan has lowered its corporate tax, the US has THE highest corporate (I forgot to write that there) tax rate in the world! Thanks for correcting me.

Anyway, you must not be known for your financial research skills.

On US Corporate Tax:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/pf/taxes/corporate-taxes/index.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/us-corporate-tax-rate_n_1392310.html
To briefly understand why they end up paying less:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/international/corporate_taxes/index.htm?iid=EL

GE's effective tax rate last year was 38.3% (2011):
Read the SEC filing (form 10K) on why they paid the tax rate they paid:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/40545/000004054512000016/ge10k.htm
Just keep in mind that effective tax rate is different than actual tax rate.

As for what Bush did, or didn't do, I'm not an American so I don't care.

What I do know for a fact is that the global economic crises is not because of lack of regulation or solely the fault of banks. The government intervention (because of their housing programs -- good thing Argentina is going down that road too) was one of the biggest factors. Second, the perceived government backing for any loans written (seeing that Fannie Mae started as a government agency) by the banks.

Its true the bundling of those loans as securites by the banks to rid themselves of any risk whatsoever was another huge factor but just the bundling of loans didn't do anything, it was those who bought those securities too. You know, the idiots who wanted to ride the wave.

Then there were the regular people (the ones who no one ever mentions, but the ones who started the crisis by failing to make their mortgage payments, particularly those whom the NINJA loans were given to) who knew the government would take care of them even if they failed to make their payments. They could just declare bankruptcy and that would be that.

Its easy to blame the big bad corporations (many times its all for good reason too that they are blamed) but this one was not just their fault. This one is on all who took part in the housing bubble in one way or another. The government being one of the biggest players.

I guess all of what I said wouldn't matter to those who see the covers of Newsweek and Time magazines and think "Oh, Obama The One, with a Halo around His head, will save us from the big bad corporations." You keep living in your dream.

And on this note, those who think Bush and his policies were pro-business and "yay for Bush" or "Miss him yet?" You are just as delusional as Obama worshippers. You haven't had a pro business government in decades because that would actually mean the government having to relinquish some of its powers, not grab a bunch more!
 
PhilinBSAS said:
bastante!

Dude you've got an aggression problem. You might wanna tone it down a bit seeing that this is just a forum filled with people with differing opinions.
 
Matt84 said:
You're one to talk!

(I agree with your viewpoint, but still)

Lol. You're right. I don't know what I was thinking. Must have been all the alcohol I just consumed to calm myself down!
 
roger that, why do you think I'm back on the deabte threads?
btw, thanks for correcting me on the Swiss Franc backing back in that other thread. Your posts are about the most informative, 'society' might push you to work on your delivery though
 
Matt84 said:
roger that, why do you think I'm back on the deabte threads?

btw, thanks for correcting me on the Swiss Franc backing back in that other thread. Your posts are about the most informative, 'society' might push you to work on your delivery though

Yeah, I'm not really known for getting my point across effectively.

I'm sure sooner or later someone will whip me into a well-mannered, well-spoken gentleman!
 
nicoenarg said:
Yeah, I'm not really known for getting my point across effectively.

I'm sure sooner or later someone will whip me into a well-mannered, well-spoken gentleman!

I think you are holding your own quite well, sir (said from one logical gentleman to another).

Keep it up!
 
Back
Top