The Global Elite: Rigging the Rules That Fuel Inequality

[canceled.2021.1]

Yes. We know. The rich are evil. Even the rich like Buffett and gates bemoan all of their riches saying "TAX ME MORE" so that they inoculate themselves from criticism.


Warren Buffet calling for higher taxes on himself is like someone wearing a Kevlar vest saying shoot me in the cheat with a .22 from 30 yards away.

 

[maineman]

wanting to somehow adjust the obscene inequity of the distribution of wealth in this country is NOT synonymous with "wanting everyone to have exactly the same amount of wealth" and it is certainly not "Marxist".

 

[Riggins]

The corporate tax rate is currently 35%. Would you like to see that number rise?

Absolutely. 90% is a nice round number.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

wanting to somehow adjust the obscene inequity of the distribution of wealth in this country is NOT synonymous with "wanting everyone to have exactly the same amount of wealth" and it is certainly not "Marxist".

I know it sounds all nice and swell when you say things like "we just want to adjust the obscene inequality". But, words do in fact mean things do they not?

For instance can you define what is obscene? And why is it obscene? By what objective standard?

Also how does one go about making it less obscene without forcibly confiscating the property of others?

Your answers to these seemingly straight forward questions is greatly appreciated.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Absolutely. 90% is a nice round number.

Why should a business be taxed at 90%?

Do you own a business?

 

[Riggins]

Business taxes are not paid by the businesses. They are paid by every customer they have. The taxes they pay are part of their cost of doing business. In order to maintain the same profit margin, if business taxes are increased, they are forced to raise prices.

If businesses are paying for a robust social safety net the rest of what they have to sell is just frivolous goods and services, not the necessities of life. And if they raise the prices of their frivolous goods and services too high, their former customers will buy them somewhere else or choose not to vacuously consume for the sake of consuming in the first place.

 

[maineman]

I know it sounds all nice and swell when you say things like "we just want to adjust the obscene inequality". But, words do in fact mean things do they not?

For instance can you define what is obscene? And why is it obscene? By what objective standard?

Also how does one go about making it less obscene without forcibly confiscating the property of others?

Your answers to these seemingly straight forward questions is greatly appreciated.

if you want to bitch about progressive income tax, I would suggest that that ship sailed long ago. It has been the law of the land through democratic and republican administrations for a century.

 

[evince]

Business taxes are not paid by the businesses. They are paid by every customer they have. The taxes they pay are part of their cost of doing business. In order to maintain the same profit margin, if business taxes are increased, they are forced to raise prices.

they are not forced they can choose.

less profit of no profit.


If passing along a tax to your customer means that item will no longer be bought then they can accept less profits.


Profits are not mana from heaven.

they are the reason people sell an item.


you don't automatically stop selling an item because your profits diminish.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

If businesses are paying for a robust social safety net the rest of what they have to sell is just frivolous goods and services, not the necessities of life. And if they raise the prices of their frivolous goods and services too high, their former customers will buy them somewhere else or choose not to vacuously consume for the sake of consuming in the first place.

So you want to use taxation to punish people for wanting things that you claim are frivolous? Just what sort of things do you call "frivolous"? And what becomes of the jobs manufacturing, shipping and selling those frivolous items?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

they are not forced they can choose.

less profit of no profit.


If passing along a tax to your customer means that item will no longer be bought then they can accept less profits.


Profits are not mana from heaven.

they are the reason people sell an item.


you don't automatically stop selling an item because your profits diminish.

Businesses exist to make a profit. Without profit, the business (and the jobs) disappear.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

they are not forced they can choose.

less profit of no profit.


If passing along a tax to your customer means that item will no longer be bought then they can accept less profits.


Profits are not mana from heaven.

they are the reason people sell an item.


you don't automatically stop selling an item because your profits diminish.

So, are you going to go to your tenants and tell them you are going to accept less profit? Are you Desh?

 

[Riggins]

Why should a business be taxed at 90%?

Do you own a business?

It doesn't strictly have to be 90% - it could be 91% - or 93.5%.

And why? To pay for a robust set of social programs, of course.

No, I don't own a business - which makes me perfectly qualified to comment on this since we don't want business owners deciding what their tax rate should or shouldn't be - that's for the rest of us to decide.

 

[maineman]

Businesses exist to make a profit. Without profit, the business (and the jobs) disappear.

that is not technically true... businesses can continue on ad infintum without making a profit.... just as long as they do not operate at a net loss.

 

[maineman]

So, are you going to go to your tenants and tell them you are going to accept less profit? Are you Desh?

if she charges too much rent, they will simply move. she obviously charges what the market allows.... every business does that.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

that is not technically true... businesses can continue on ad infintum without making a profit.... just as long as they do not operate at a net loss.

Without profit they will eventually fold. Most business owners depend on the profits for their own income, or it is the way stockholders are paid.

 

[Riggins]

So you want to use taxation to punish people for wanting things that you claim are frivolous? Just what sort of things do you call "frivolous"? And what becomes of the jobs manufacturing, shipping and selling those frivolous items?

It's not punishment - it's helping foster a society of which we are all a part. If the goods and services a business is selling are not the necessities of life, they are by definition, frivolous. The jobs involved with manufacturing, shipping, and selling frivolous goods and services won't completely disappear, not for a while anyway - as long as there's crap to buy, people will buy it. And if they buy less of it, yes that means fewer jobs - in the long run the idea of a "job" is disappearing anyway - in the meantime, we should try to make that transition to complete, society-wide joblessness as painless as possible.

 

[DigitalDave]

It doesn't strictly have to be 90% - it could be 91% - or 93.5%.

And why? To pay for a robust set of social programs, of course.

No, I don't own a business - which makes me perfectly qualified to comment on this since we don't want business owners deciding what their tax rate should or shouldn't be - that's for the rest of us to decide.

I'm getting the feeling you are a troll, sir.

What sane person would assume a 90%+ tax rate on corporations would be remotely feasible? Add on top of that, that you also believe in taxation without representation ("we don't want business owners deciding what their tax rate should or shouldn't be"), I've got no other conclusion to draw other than you are here to stir the pot.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

It doesn't strictly have to be 90% - it could be 91% - or 93.5%.

And why? To pay for a robust set of social programs, of course.

No, I don't own a business - which makes me perfectly qualified to comment on this since we don't want business owners deciding what their tax rate should or shouldn't be - that's for the rest of us to decide.

So you want to take away 90% of what a business earns so you can give the money to people who do nothing for it? That is a sure way to kill an economy. It will certainly guarantee to kill business expansions and employee raises.

And no, I am not against social programs.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

It's not punishment - it's helping foster a society of which we are all a part. If the goods and services a business is selling are not the necessities of life, they are by definition, frivolous. The jobs involved with manufacturing, shipping, and selling frivolous goods and services won't completely disappear, not for a while anyway - as long as there's crap to buy, people will buy it. And if they buy less of it, yes that means fewer jobs - in the long run the idea of a "job" is disappearing anyway - in the meantime, we should try to make that transition to complete, society-wide joblessness as painless as possible.

So everything except food, utilities and housing is frivolous?

Or perhaps you would like to be more specific about what you consider frivolous? Is the computer you are using now a necessity?

 

[maineman]

Without profit they will eventually fold. Most business owners depend on the profits for their own income, or it is the way stockholders are paid.

smart business owners consider their own compensation as one of the costs of doing business on their income statements... and many business do not pay dividends to their stockholders, and those stockholders consider the increase in share price as the return on their investment.