Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Tax corporations for each person they DON'T hire, it's brilliant!

I'm pretty sure he just meant "every US hire results in a tax break" but since I doubt that would even come close to the savings of outsourcing, don't think it would help.

Nah, I'm mostly serious about it. Outsourcing is probably the biggest killer of the US job market anyway.

I thought mechanization was?

But what of the "no corporate taxes" thing? Nobody's really said anything about that.

Because that's already, essentially, US policy for most corporations that use outsourcing. Generally its only corporations that lack an international presence that get taxed since they have limited control over their money flow.

[ECrownofFire]

Tax corporations for each person they DON'T hire, it's brilliant!

I'm pretty sure he just meant "every US hire results in a tax break" but since I doubt that would even come close to the savings of outsourcing, don't think it would help.

I still don't really see the difference. Perhaps taxing based on the fraction of employees in the US versus outside? The same can be accomplished with import tariffs, and is a lot less complicated.

Nah, I'm mostly serious about it. Outsourcing is probably the biggest killer of the US job market anyway.

I thought mechanization was?

We can't exactly deal with that in the same way we can with outsourcing.

But what of the "no corporate taxes" thing? Nobody's really said anything about that.

Because that's already, essentially, US policy for most corporations that use outsourcing. Generally its only corporations that lack an international presence that get taxed since they have limited control over their money flow.

Then let's stop doing that

But really I mean ZERO taxes on corporations that are exclusive to corporations. Either an equal sales tax or income tax for everyone would work just fine.

[GlyphGryph]

Since our goal is "get more US jobs", taxing income makes us a less attractive labour source (since all other factors being equal, they would need to pay more to the US employees), while sales taxes just makes us a less attractive market to sell to without saying anything about how the labour is sourced.

And corporations are privileged government entities. They should have to pay a fuckton in taxes - that's what they get in exchange for not having any personal liability when they royally fuck shit up, along with the host of other rights and powers non-corporations don't have.

If they're going to get to socialize their losses, then by god they should have to socialize some of their gains.

[ECrownofFire]

And corporations are privileged government entities. They should have to pay a fuckton in taxes - that's what they get in exchange for not having any personal liability when they royally fuck shit up, along with the host of other rights and powers non-corporations don't have.

And if they don't fuck up, we're taxing them for no real reason. Just increase the fines and punishments if you really have to. There is neither reason nor need to punish those that do not do wrong.

[GlyphGryph]

Taxes aren't a punishment. We're taxing them for two very real reasons. One, because they have lots of money, and so we can bring in lots of money, and two, because we have every right to since they couldn't exist without government assistance.

And meaningful fines and punishments are impossible, (and are currently $0 in all cases), because removal of liability is the reason corporations exist. If no one is liable, then who pays the fines?

If anything, corporate taxes are one of the few taxes that are actually morally justifiable from a rights based approach, since they would be a direct byproduct of an explicit agreement between a group of individuals and the government.

Anyways, ALL corporations, not just those that do things wrong, benefit from being incorporated. Else they wouldn't be incorporated. So why shouldn't they have to pay for those benefits?

[Glowcat]

And corporations are privileged government entities. They should have to pay a fuckton in taxes - that's what they get in exchange for not having any personal liability when they royally fuck shit up, along with the host of other rights and powers non-corporations don't have.

And if they don't fuck up, we're taxing them for no real reason. Just increase the fines and punishments if you really have to. There is neither reason nor need to punish those that do not do wrong.

I suppose you're against Insurance too then?

[ECrownofFire]

Taxes aren't a punishment. We're taxing them for two very real reasons. One, because they have lots of money, and so we can bring in lots of money, and two, because we have every right to since they couldn't exist without government assistance.

One is utterly ridiculous. There is no reason that somebody with lots of money should be expected to just give it away.

And meaningful fines and punishments are impossible, (and are currently $0 in all cases), because removal of liability is the reason corporations exist. If no one is liable, then who pays the fines?

They kind of are, with how pissed off they can make their customers. Just look at BP after Deepwater Horizon, their stock took a huge hit and hasn't recovered since. Adding on actual liability would be fine by me, too.

If anything, corporate taxes are one of the few taxes that are actually morally justifiable from a rights based approach, since they would be a direct byproduct of an explicit agreement between a group of individuals and the government.

Anyways, ALL corporations, not just those that do things wrong, benefit from being incorporated. Else they wouldn't be incorporated. So why shouldn't they have to pay for those benefits?

I'd say it's a right for somebody to start a company. But fine, have fees for somebody to start a company for the bureaucracy's paperwork if you must.

And corporations are privileged government entities. They should have to pay a fuckton in taxes - that's what they get in exchange for not having any personal liability when they royally fuck shit up, along with the host of other rights and powers non-corporations don't have.

And if they don't fuck up, we're taxing them for no real reason. Just increase the fines and punishments if you really have to. There is neither reason nor need to punish those that do not do wrong.

I suppose you're against Insurance too then?

Completely missing the point, there.

[Glowcat]

Completely missing the point, there.

More like I'm challenging your assertion that taxation is punishment. Just because a corporation has to pay more for advantages they might not immediately use doesn't mean they're being targeted by unfair policies.

As GlyphGryph pointed out, fines and other punishments aren't options when a corporation is designed to remove or at least limit liability. Your economic libertarian solution of customers "punishing" corporations simply isn't a solution. Even if a corporation went bankrupt because of something they did causing an unprecedented mass boycott, that still leaves everyone else dealing with their problem. With taxes said corporation is already paying its fair share of the burden for not only possible future disasters but also many immediate benefits such as infrastructure, stability, and a trained workforce to choose from. If a corporation's wealth is improved by all these things then they'd better damn well be willing to pay back into them so they continue to exist.

[Reelyanoob]

Taxes aren't a punishment. We're taxing them for two very real reasons. One, because they have lots of money, and so we can bring in lots of money, and two, because we have every right to since they couldn't exist without government assistance.

One is utterly ridiculous. There is no reason that somebody with lots of money should be expected to just give it away.

The state provides public education = skilled employees.
Public transport = your employees and customers able to access your company.
Public hospital funding = your employees / customers live longer are more productive etc (Just look at how much $$$ USA spends on health for a supposedly "private" system - the big health lie is that in USA you end up paying TWICE for half the care compared to a public health system in other countries. In Australia we pay a similar amount of tax each towards the health system, and that covers all basic care / hosiptal access. In the USA you pay about the same in tax, but gotta pay again to get any actual care).
Also, who pays for the army and police (and the legal / court system) ? That protects shipping lines as well as territory, protects nuclear fuels and waste during transport, protect property and business premises.

Remember, a "contract" would be only a piece of paper without a higher authority to whine to when the other party does not keep to the agreement. And enforcing contracts costs a lot of money (legal costs / courts / prisons). The alternative is to live by vigilante justice / corporate mercenaries and assassins.

All these are things that a corporation would need to budget for itself if not for what we call a "society". They are able to leverage existing infrastructure to make a profit with lower initial investment and costs.

It's the reason they're running business'es in the USA and not tax-free Somalia

That's "reason two" covered, why corporations need the nation-state to even exists. We'd have to call them "warlords" if there was no state, because that's what they'd effectively have to become to survive (survival of the fittest). There is no divide between criminals and businessmen without the state/laws, so they would blend together.

"reason one" is the same logic as "why shouldn't people get to keep every cent they can earn and get away with it?". That's the logic of accumulating big profits. Remember the value of my dollar is less if you have more dollars, so my "dollars" are not a static thing, it represents my share of the pie. That's why I'm stealing from you if I counterfeit dollars. Them having lots of dollars reduces the value of yours.

So the government has the exact same right to tax as highly as they can "because they can get away with it.".. That's the logic of power. You have a right to try and accumulate anything that's not nailed down, so does the government.

The other part of the equation for "reason one" is that all that social infrstructure costs money. (the poor who get meager hand-outs are held as the spending culprits, but how much wealth actual accrues with them? Almost none, it all goes to corporations). So we're left with a big bill, and "someone's got to pay for it".. That someone might as well be the corporations as they're the main beneficiaries and also the guys with all the money.
 

[ECrownofFire]

Completely missing the point, there.

More like I'm challenging your assertion that taxation is punishment. Just because a corporation has to pay more for advantages they might not immediately use doesn't mean they're being targeted by unfair policies.

As GlyphGryph pointed out, fines and other punishments aren't options when a corporation is designed to remove or at least limit liability. Your economic libertarian solution of customers "punishing" corporations simply isn't a solution. Even if a corporation went bankrupt because of something they did causing an unprecedented mass boycott, that still leaves everyone else dealing with their problem. With taxes said corporation is already paying its fair share of the burden for not only possible future disasters but also many immediate benefits such as infrastructure, stability, and a trained workforce to choose from. If a corporation's wealth is improved by all these things then they'd better damn well be willing to pay back into them so they continue to exist.

They are already paying back with their services and business that they provide. The infrastructure that the government supplies is already paid for by individuals both in- and outside of that corporation, why ask any more of them? There is no reason to expect a corporation to pay any more than individuals. I don't see taxing of corporations as punishment. I just see it as unnecessary, especially if they gained actual liability. Make them pay for whatever damages they cause, that's fine with me. Just don't say that they need to pay more just because they have more.

Taxes aren't a punishment. We're taxing them for two very real reasons. One, because they have lots of money, and so we can bring in lots of money, and two, because we have every right to since they couldn't exist without government assistance.

One is utterly ridiculous. There is no reason that somebody with lots of money should be expected to just give it away.

"reason one" is the same logic as "why shouldn't people get to keep every cent they can earn and get away with it?". That's the logic of accumulating big profits. Remember the value of my dollar is less if you have more dollars, so my "dollars" are not a static thing, it represents my share of the pie. That's why I'm stealing from you if I counterfeit dollars. Them having lots of dollars reduces the value of yours.

So the government has the exact same right to tax as highly as they can "because they can get away with it.".. That's the logic of power. You have a right to try and accumulate anything that's not nailed down, so does the government.

The other part of the equation for "reason one" is that all that social infrstructure costs money. (the poor who get meager hand-outs are held as the spending culprits, but how much wealth actual accrues with them? Almost none, it all goes to corporations). So we're left with a big bill, and "someone's got to pay for it".. That someone might as well be the corporations as they're the main beneficiaries and also the guys with all the money.
 

I don't disagree with any of reason two, I'm not one for anarchy, really.

I still don't see reason one though. "Someone's got to pay for it" still doesn't logically point to corporations. It doesn't really point to anyone at all, so why not make it everyone?

Also, honestly, "because we can" should never be allowed to be used by the government. Why make the country a police state?

[ChairmanPoo]

Because indirect taxes, which affect everyone equally, put the majority of the population at a disadvantage. It's not even remotedly fair, and makes it even more likely that the poor will remain poor. It's worth pondering whether it's sustainable, too. That big wealthy people like Buffet, or the president of Danone in France, are asking for more taxes for the wealthiest is as much a sign of genuine worry about the system cracking as it is of altruism.

[Reelyanoob]

I still don't see reason one though. "Someone's got to pay for it" still doesn't logically point to corporations. It doesn't really point to anyone at all, so why not make it everyone?

Also, honestly, "because we can" should never be allowed to be used by the government. Why make the country a police state?

Well they're the guys making the profits, they're the guys who get bailed out in the bad times. They are also by far the #1 beneficiary of federal spending (in terms of how much of that money ends up accumulating with them (corporations).

Poor people aren't accumulating anything. Let those who are accumulating the wealth pay for the maintenance of the system that enables that wealth to be generated and stored.

"Property" doesn't even exist without the state to enforce the rights of owners. Or it's back to being vigilantes. The value of money itself derives from the state (which is expensive to maintain). So maintenance of being wealthy itself has tangible resource costs, which the holders of that wealth are obliged to pay for.

[Virex]

Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't get why the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) has such a big problem with outsourcing, while countries north European like Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries have considerably less problems with this? I mean, taxes over here are supposedly a lot higher than those in the US, so we should be getting hit by it the hardest?

[Phmcw]

Because no one give a fuck about outsourcing of low skill jobs. Raising a westerner is so expensive that if he's going to be a minimum wage worker, he could as well be unemployed.
Germany have an high tech economy, and produce high qualities good, you can't export that in china (yet).

Crown of fire : corporation usually don't give a shit about your shenanigan : they look at the taxes, at the state of the country, and choose the best one.
We are in a capitalist economy aka everyone who have a chance to take money from someone (mostly from you) will do it. Tell them "moral justification to make someone pay" and they'll die laughing.
Moreover, what'd you achieve if you choose the "low cost labor" path is to turn your country into a poor factory state. I don't see the point.

[ECrownofFire]

I still don't see reason one though. "Someone's got to pay for it" still doesn't logically point to corporations. It doesn't really point to anyone at all, so why not make it everyone?

Also, honestly, "because we can" should never be allowed to be used by the government. Why make the country a police state?

Well they're the guys making the profits, they're the guys who get bailed out in the bad times. They are also by far the #1 beneficiary of federal spending (in terms of how much of that money ends up accumulating with them (corporations).

Poor people aren't accumulating anything. Let those who are accumulating the wealth pay for the maintenance of the system that enables that wealth to be generated and stored.

"Property" doesn't even exist without the state to enforce the rights of owners. Or it's back to being vigilantes. The value of money itself derives from the state (which is expensive to maintain). So maintenance of being wealthy itself has tangible resource costs, which the holders of that wealth are obliged to pay for.

Look, I'm not debating the necessity of government. I think it goes without saying that it's necessary. Stop trying to bring it up.

Moving on, what about the middle class? They make up the majority of the people in the US, and they hold the most money, all put together, so why not them? Why not the rich? We can play this game all we want, it doesn't matter. An even tax would work just fine if we reduced overall spending.

Also, in semi-unrelated news:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/marijuana-bill-barney-frank-ron-paul_n_882707.html
Ron Paul and Barney Frank introduce bill in Congress to legalize marijuana. Nice to see somebody aiming to stop the useless and wasteful "War on Drugs".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFf4P20cWmU
Gary Johnson announces his presidential campaign. He's basically another Libertarian-esque Republican. I'd vote for him from what I've heard of him so far. He even admits to smoking marijuana

Ninja-edit:

Because no one give a fuck about outsourcing of low skill jobs. Raising a westerner is so expensive that if he's going to be a minimum wage worker, he could as well be unemployed.
Germany have an high tech economy, and produce high qualities good, you can't export that in china (yet).

Crown of fire : corporation usually don't give a shit about your shenanigan : they look at the taxes, at the state of the country, and choose the best one.
We are in a capitalist economy aka everyone who have a chance to take money from someone (mostly from you) will do it. Tell them "moral justification to make someone pay" and they'll die laughing.
Moreover, what'd you achieve if you choose the "low cost labor" path is to turn your country into a poor factory state. I don't see the point.

It's not just about the outsourcing though. While it is a problem, we're just not generating enough jobs.