Lets Raise Taxes on Big Corporations!

Bluehawk · 10-09-2008, 12:53 PM

More new definitions, from an indirect descendant of Ambrose Bierce, Will Rogers and Mark Twain:

Bull Market = What happens when income exceeds expenses.

Inflation = What happens when expenses exceed income.

Messy1 · 10-10-2008, 12:13 PM

Quite frankly guys, I do not know who to believe anymore. This process this year is getting very frustrating to me. I'm tired of this he said/I said politics! McCain says Obama's plan is flawed, Obama says McCain's is flawed. I'm tired of this scenario in the debates. Who do you believe, and how do you find out who's right or wrong?

Bucksnort101 · 10-10-2008, 01:02 PM

Did anyone else find this somewhat funny at the last Presidential debate? John McCain says he wants to lower taxes and cut Goverment spending, but a little later he says he will authorize the US Gov't buy up all the bad housing loans? So much for cutting spending.

Messy1 · 10-10-2008, 01:24 PM

I do realize that now that you brought that up. You help to prove my point Buck! It's all double talk anymore.

Bucksnort101 · 10-10-2008, 01:30 PM

Yep, I don't trust, or particularly like either Presidential Candidate. McCain is the lesser of two evils, but for once in my lifetime I'd like to vote for a Presidential candidate that I truly believe in.
I'm still not sure how I'll be voting this fall, not Obama, but I'm having a very hard time in voting for McCain as well, write in is an option, but will do nothing other than maybe make me feel better about my not supporting someone I do not have confidence in.
If I'm in a foul mood due to my choices on Election day I may just stay home this time round.

Bluehawk · 10-10-2008, 03:44 PM

PLEASE, nobody stay home or sit this one out...

That is exactly how Ahmadinejad got elected in Iran. The opposition intentionally boycotted the election, thereby handing him the victory.

The Sunni's did the same thing for the first free election in Iraq... and it led to 3 years of unstoppable savagery.

Harvard · 10-13-2008, 02:54 AM

Messy1 wrote:

"Quite frankly guys, I do not know who to believe anymore. This process this year is getting very frustrating to me. I'm tired of this he said/I said politics! McCain says Obama's plan is flawed, Obama says McCain's is flawed. I'm tired of this scenario in the debates. Who do you believe, and how do you find out who's right or wrong?"

Messy1:

Pay careful attention, and do not be deceived like so many who have no business voting. I should say also don't vote if you don't know what's going on!

Let me say this: believe the more honest one of the 2. Obama clearly speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

On the one hand he said at a rally to wealthy people in San Fransisco about middle class small town Americans: They are bitter people clinging to their guns and religion. Then he went to these same small town folks, and told them whatever they wanted to hear.

and let me say this: Believe the one who isn't a socialist: Barack says he will let the bush tax cuts expire and will raise taxes on businesses making over 250k/yr. This will cause economic damage.

Then this: Obama refuses to wear a flag lapel pin even after others have suggested that he do it, and he refuses to put his hand over his heart when he says the pledge of allegiance. He is absolutely in agreement with Rev Wright, and went to his hate American sermons for 20 years.

pbfoot · 10-13-2008, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harvard

Pay careful attention, and do not be deceived like so many who have no business voting. I should say also don't vote if you don't know what's going on!

.

I hope you heed your own advice

Njaco · 10-13-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Let me say this: believe the more honest one of the 2. Obama clearly speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Classic example (at least to me)

Obama has two commercials going in my area.

One touts his "plan" which would include taxing corporations.

Second attacks McCain which says McCain would raise employer costs.

Is it me or isn't that the same thing? Don't taxes affect employer costs?

mkloby · 10-13-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Njaco

Classic example (at least to me)

Obama has two commercials going in my area.

One touts his "plan" which would include taxing corporations.

Second attacks McCain which says McCain would raise employer costs.

Is it me or isn't that the same thing? Don't taxes affect employer costs?

Sen Obama also supports an increase of minimum wage to make it more "fair." This will increase unemployment and hurt ecomomic growth right there. Also, how is that not going to hurt employer costs? His whole economic plan is full of holes - but he's basing his campaign on populism so it does not have to make any sense.

Bluehawk · 10-13-2008, 10:23 AM

Does anyone believe that an abusive employer will VOLUNTARILY pay the workers a "living wage"?

One of the few useful purposes of government is precisely to redress problems that the citizens cannot possibly have an effect upon by themselves.

And, if minimum wages actually DID increase the cost of goods and inflation, then how is that different from or worse than every other excuse businesses use to increase prices right across the board whenever they please?

Did AIG ever increase the cost of its insurance products so as to make possible multi-million dollar salary and bonus benefits to its executives and to take $500,000 junkets to fancy spas?

Is it perfectly fine for them to do that, and bad bad bad for them to help their working stiffs out a little bit more?

Wouldn't we rather see some of that inflation hit regular folks IN the wallet instead of OUT of it?

mkloby · 10-13-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluehawk

Does anyone believe that an abusive employer will VOLUNTARILY pay the workers a "living wage"?

Since when is it the government's responsibility to set wages that it believes are "fair?" Also, define "fair" please. If someone has a minimum wage job, they have the freedom to gain education and/or skills to make themselves more valuable in the job market and secure a better paying job. They don't, however, have the freedom to make others pay their higher wages because they will not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluehawk

One of the few useful purposes of government is precisely to redress problems that the citizens cannot possibly have an effect upon by themselves.

That right there opens the door for government to control virtually everything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluehawk

And, if minimum wages actually DID increase the cost of goods and inflation, then how is that different from or worse than every other excuse businesses use to increase prices right across the board whenever they please?

First of all, in a free and competitive market, the market determines the cost of goods and services as buyers and sellers come together, not the seller arbitrarily. Are you actually arguing that increasing the labor component of a company will NOT increase the cost of goods/services produced? Should the owners of the corporation/business eat the higher costs and earn less money themselves and not raise the cost of such products? It goes beyond the "big bad evil corporation." This would hurt small business owners badly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluehawk

Did AIG ever increase the cost of its insurance products so as to make possible multi-million dollar salary and bonus benefits to its executives and to take $500,000 junkets to fancy spas?

Is it perfectly fine for them to do that, and bad bad bad for them to help their working stiffs out a little bit more?

Wouldn't we rather see some of that inflation hit regular folks IN the wallet instead of OUT of it?

No cost is hidden, so the money for such extravagance must come from somewhere. However, this is a separate issue from raising the minimum wage. I agree that CEO and senior officer compensation pisses me off, but what is the solution? Pointing out a perceived problem without any possible solution does not do any good. Does the government belong setting salary caps for private businesses - I would say no. Should the government enact regulation that forces corporations to have compensation packages approved by stockholders? It's a possible solution, but the problem is that the government would be getting involved in private corporate governance. I believe an underlying cultural cause of this problem is American short-sightedness with respect to the economy. It seems that most stockholders don't care about compensation as long as that stock value gets fluffed up as high as possible in the short term. I'm not sure how this issue should be addressed - I'm open to suggestions.

pbfoot · 10-13-2008, 03:08 PM

Matt I believe the gov't should mandate a minimum wage there are a lot of people out there that take advantage of the disadvantaged , there are a lot more unscrupulous people out there more then there are fair . Not everyones lot in life is by choice .

timshatz · 10-13-2008, 03:14 PM

Thanks for taking care of that MK, I was going to respond but your answer covered it.

For the record, there have been repeated attempts in our nation's history to set prices. They failed, badly. Jimmy Carter was the last one to try. The same act is being tried in Venezuela right now. It has always failed and always will. Setting prices just makes a certian product less likely to be made (as price are not set in accordance to costs but to Govt mandate) and the producers go on to produce things that are not price set, leading to a shortage in the product with a Govt Price and the exact opposite of what the Govt intended.

There is a system where prices are set by the Govt. To avoid shortages, this system also sets the number to be produced.

System is called Communism. It's been tried. Didn't work.

timshatz · 10-13-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Matt I believe the gov't should mandate a minimum wage there are a lot of people out there that take advantage of the disadvantaged , there are a lot more unscrupulous people out there more then there are fair . Not everyones lot in life is by choice .

Setting a minimum wage tends not to work. Simply because it prices the low cost items out of the market. Those object, low cost, high labor, are then made in countries or areas without labor costs set by Govt (or favorable compared to the home country). Further, the govt action in setting prices for labor invariable leads to increases in the price of labor as voters demand more for their services. In essence, Voters vote themselves a pay raise. This leads to a general higher standard of living and a lower level of industrialization. As industrialization decreases, so the real wealth in the society decreases as manufacturing is one of the few ways to have value added in a society (creation of wealth).

You are seeing this now in China as plants formerly in the US are moved to lower cost countries.

But for the US, it gets worse. To sustain the standard of living, the US will accrue growth by increasing use of credit. Essentially borrowing from the country we have bought from in recent past to keep our lifestyle up. This will go on until the value of our money is lowered or the lending country no longer figures it is worth it to lend to the US.