GE and Crony Capitalism - We should all be against this

#26
#26
utgibbs said:
Surely though, if you believe a corporation is a legal person (as the US does), it should simply be taxed at the individual rate? There is absolutely no need for separate tax laws...

Progressivity is elementary fairness. There is no other way around it. If you do not want progressivity, you do not want fairness. If you can justify the unfairness, then by all means.
Click to expand...

I don't believe a corp is a person and you are stretching the view that the US does.

Progressivity =/= fairness. My is it fair? How does differences in absolute profitability relate to fairness?

If a large company employees thousands of people with good wages and benefits you believe they should pay a higher rate than a smaller company that may employ fewer and pay worse?
 
#27
#27
MG1968 said:
fairness would be a uniform tax rate with no exceptions, which is what the US Constitution calls for. Progressive taxation is a Marxist ideal and is inherently unfair because it punishes success although only to a certain point. If an individual's tax rate increased by 1% for every earned million after the first 5, a lot of Hollywood types would suddenly realize how unfair progressive taxation truly is and the democrats would lose a reliable base of advocates.
Click to expand...

Progressive taxation is the only fair tax policy. It in no way "punishes" success.

These are not the tax policies of Marx or Lenin; they are the tax policies of Adam Smith.
 
#28
#28
volinbham said:
I don't believe a corp is a person and you are stretching the view that the US does.

The US legal system absolutely does. In fact, it has extended to corporations 14th amendment rights, making the sanctity of the individual in classical liberalism complete farce.

Progressivity =/= fairness. My is it fair? How does differences in absolute profitability relate to fairness?

Progressivity is an elementary moral principle.

If a large company employees thousands of people with good wages and benefits you believe they should pay a higher rate than a smaller company that may employ fewer and pay worse?

This is simply a red herring and elliptical.
Click to expand...

What if the large company pays several thousand of its several thousand employees less than the lowest paid wage earner at the small company? In real life, this would probably be the norm.
 
#29
#29
utgibbs said:
Progressive taxation is the only fair tax policy. It in no way "punishes" success.

These are not the tax policies of Marx or Lenin; they are the tax policies of Adam Smith.
Click to expand...

ok, then explain how it's fair that 49% of American wage earners end up with no tax liability once you factor in wealth transfer programs like earned income tax credits.
 
#30
#30
Im still lulzing at the thought of one set of TX laws governing individuals and corporations.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#31
#31
utgibbs said:
Progressive taxation is the only fair tax policy. It in no way "punishes" success.

These are not the tax policies of Marx or Lenin; they are the tax policies of Adam Smith.
Click to expand...

How is it fair? It does penalize success. If there is a flat tax rate and you are rich you are still paying more. A graduated tax rate punishes success in the sense that it diminishes the incentives of increasing productivity.

How is it fair that 49% of America doesn't pay taxes?

Adam Smith isn't the God of capitalism. He and David Ricardo both had their share of socialistic ideas.
 
#32
#32
utgibbs said:
What if the large company pays several thousand of its several thousand employees less than the lowest paid wage earner at the small company? In real life, this would probably be the norm.
Click to expand...


I think you are wrong with your assumption. I would bet the lowest paid at Exxon is not paid lower than the lowest at a 500 employee company.

Again, where is the need for progressiveness in corporate taxation? Does more total profit really mean the company is better off than one with less total profit? What about profit margins?

I don't know that Adam Smith was advocating progressive taxation (or any taxation) of corporations.
 
#33
#33
volinbham said:
I think you are wrong with your assumption. I would bet the lowest paid at Exxon is not paid lower than the lowest at a 500 employee company.

Again, where is the need for progressiveness in corporate taxation? Does more total profit really mean the company is better off than one with less total profit? What about profit margins?

I don't know that Adam Smith was advocating progressive taxation (or any taxation) of corporations.
Click to expand...

Adam Smith made very plain his maxims on taxation, applicable to individuals or other institutions. Moreover, since corporations are legal persons in the US, there should obviously be no distinction.

Your argument is elliptical. What about profit margins? Think about this in terms of individuals, and it is clear how ridiculous it is.

And finally, it is actually well-known smaller companies generally pay more than their transnational counterparts as they have to compete for talent. Start-ups and small companies generally pay above "market" salaries in order to attract the talent they need.
 
#34
#34
nbakerld said:
How is it fair? It does penalize success. If there is a flat tax rate and you are rich you are still paying more. A graduated tax rate punishes success in the sense that it diminishes the incentives of increasing productivity.

How is it fair that 49% of America doesn't pay taxes?

Adam Smith isn't the God of capitalism. He and David Ricardo both had their share of socialistic ideas.
Click to expand...

Please name them.
 
#35
#35
tigervol9802 said:
:eek:lol::eek:lol::eek:lol:
Click to expand...

Are you being serious? You don't think that is the case?

You have much to learn, young Paduwan.

They have been given the rights of "natural" persons. They enjoy protection under the 14th Amendment.

A primer:

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before women or blacks were recognized as people, corporations were sanctified by the Supreme Court in one of the most absurd and counter-revolutionary positions in the history of humankind.
 
#37
#37
utgibbs said:
Are you being serious? You don't think that is the case?

You have much to learn, young Paduwan.

They have been given the rights of "natural" persons. They enjoy protection under the 14th Amendment.

A primer:

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before women or blacks were recognized as people, corporations were sanctified by the Supreme Court in one of the most absurd and counter-revolutionary positions in the history of humankind.
Click to expand...

And you have no idea the vast practical differences in real life of a individual and a corporation.

But I suppose you believe then that dividends should not be taxed in the fairness of double taxation of individuals?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#38
#38
utgibbs said:
There is no "free market" (another so-called "Letter to Santa Claus") and this is what has happened since the advent of state capitalism (again, utopian to believe there is a magic nirvana-land where the free market guides us infallibly with its "invisible hand.")
Click to expand...

The use of the word "utopia" is a misnomer. In More's book, a satirica letter to a friend by the way, Utopia is not anywhere near perfect.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#39
#39
tigervol9802 said:
And you have no idea the vast practical differences in real life of a individual and a corporation.

But I suppose you believe then that dividends should not be taxed in the fairness of double taxation of individuals?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm well informed a corporation actually enjoys superior rights and freedoms than those accorded to "natural persons."

Dividends are so 1970s. I generally do not believe in double taxation, except in the case of an estate tax.

Simple, transparent, progressive.
 
#40
#40
therealUT said:
The use of the word "utopia" is a misnomer. In More's book, a satirica letter to a friend by the way, Utopia is not anywhere near perfect.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No. Utopia has come down to have real meaning in our time apart from the book by Sir Thomas More.

I'm interested in your thoughts on More's politics and outlook though, given your post.
 
#41
#41
utgibbs said:
Adam Smith made very plain his maxims on taxation, applicable to individuals or other institutions.

In your view they are applicable to individuals or institutions. Not sure AS agrees with your interpretation of your view.

Moreover, since corporations are legal persons in the US, there should obviously be no distinction.

You are taking this "corp is a person" thing way too far. Case in point, if I dissolve a corporation I'm not charged with murder. There are clear distinctions and the "corp as a person" is actually a quite narrow concept legally.

Your argument is elliptical. What about profit margins? Think about this in terms of individuals, and it is clear how ridiculous it is.

You do understand that individuals pay taxes on revenues while corporations pay on profits right?

Company A makes $10 million in revenues and $2 million in profits. Company B makes $100 million in revenues and $10 million in profits and you think Company B should pay a higher tax rate. Why? How is it unfair to charge both companies the same tax rate?

And finally, it is actually well-known smaller companies generally pay more than their transnational counterparts as they have to compete for talent. Start-ups and small companies generally pay above "market" salaries in order to attract the talent they need.
Click to expand...

Another "it's well known" tactic.

You yet to link any of your assumptions/assertions to the notion of fairness and explain why more absolute profit should be taxed at a higher rate.

You've got the makings of another "because I said so" argument going.
 
#42
#42
Some Adam Smith tax wisdom:

Excise, customs, taxes on profits, were, according to Smith, either expensive to collect, as in the case of excise, or disincentives to produce, as in the tax on profits.
Click to expand...

Smith was most critical of taxes on wages and profits. Both diverted resources from wealth-creating activities, he pointed out, and raised the prices of manufactured goods by more than the amount of the tax. Taxes on the profits of “stock” were destructive of wealth creation because “stock cultivates land; stock cultivates labor,” and a tax on profits diminishes both “the rent of land and the wages of labor.” These considerations remain relevant today as politicians debate the taxation of dividends and capital gains.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#43
#43
utgibbs said:
No. Utopia has come down to have real meaning in our time apart from the book by Sir Thomas More.
Click to expand...

In the same way that the term "scape goat" has been erroneously passed on to mean "sacrificial goat". Yet, the "scape goat" was the goat that was set free into the wild.

utgibbs said:
I'm interested in your thoughts on More's politics and outlook though, given your post.
Click to expand...

Aside from More's Utopia, all I can refer to are a litany of More's letters to friends and peers. However, according to them, as a lawyer, More was an advocate for individual justice and for each and every case to be viewed completely on its own merits, regardless of precedent. As an adviser to Henry VIII, More certainly advocated Supreme Power for the King, yet never explicitly advocated for legislation concerning morality. As a "traitor", More simply chose not to swear to the authority of Henry VIII over the authority of the Pope. Throughout his ordeal, though, he never publicly decried Henry VIII for his secession from the Church.

He is certainly an interesting, and very intelligent, historical figure.
 
#46
#46
utgibbs said:
Oh, I'm well informed a corporation actually enjoys superior rights and freedoms than those accorded to "natural persons."

Dividends are so 1970s. I generally do not believe in double taxation, except in the case of an estate tax.

Simple, transparent, progressive.
Click to expand...

Once again, you show you have no frigging clue.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#47
#47
utgibbs said:
There is no "free market" (another so-called "Letter to Santa Claus") and this is what has happened since the advent of state capitalism (again, utopian to believe there is a magic nirvana-land where the free market guides us infallibly with its "invisible hand.")
Click to expand...

Because elves like you always want to inject government into the equation.

And the free market does not guide us, we guide the free market.
 
#50
#50
MG1968 said:
meanwhile, Exxon/Mobil pays over 30 billion in one year in taxes and they're regarded as the spawn of Satan.
Click to expand...

They didn't kiss the ring.

This is EXACTLY what you should expect when you get the Progressive solutions advocated by LG, gibbs, and others.

They bristle at the notion that the modern Dem party is basically fascism on economic issues but this is exactly what fascism did. Private ownership is allowed but ascendancy in business is not due to merit. It is accomplished through politics. Supporters of the "Party" are rewarded while those who resist or dissent are punished.

IF you allow gov't to be anything more than the referree upholding the RIGHTS of all blindly (rule of law) then things like this are inevitable... as are things like TARP, the "stimulus" payola plans,... All the while the Progressives (Dems and establishment Republicans) will claim they are just taking care of their constituents.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top