Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

A corporation would pay the fair tax on the goods and services it buys, but not on the profits. Profits would go to the shareholders, managers, employees, tax free. Just like how an employee's salary and wages will be tax free. Everyone would only pay a tax when they buy things.

Smc, I think that a truly free market would resolve prices, but we haven't had a truly free market for a long time. Big companies get regulation passed so small companies can't compete and even conservative republicans can't vote to eliminate oil subsidies or jets for billionaires.

I wouldn't be opposed to a progressive fair tax. Purchases under $1,000 pay 10% tax, under $10,000 but over $1,000, 20% etc. If need be you could make exceptions for houses and cars, which most people need.

But this could turn into a luxury tax. You want to purchase a $5 million home, go right ahead. You'll pay a 50% tax on it, or whatever.

I genuinely admire your commitment to this concept, and I especially value your willingness to have a real discussion about it without any of the hyperbolic bullshit and made-up "facts" that are so often posted here.

Unfortunately, where we differ goes far beyond the merits of the "fair tax" idea. The notion that one can create a "fair" version of a system that is fundamentally based on exploitation is, frankly, ridiculous.

[randolph]

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however.

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however.

Prostitution should be legal.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

Prostitution should be legal.

Yes and so should pot. The drug trade is terrible.

[Amy]

Originally Posted by randolph

Yes and so should pot. The drug trade is terrible.

Yep. All across the world, big drug lords LOVE their billions of dollars annually of completely untaxable income.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey, why don't we tax sex!
A buck a fuck could bring in tons of cash.
Collecting it could be a problem, however.

Well, I guess this kind of post in the middle of a serious discussion is better than hyperbolic xenophobia.

[franalexes]

Which is more likely, people come here because it's a porn site; or is this the home of political enlightenment?

Really people! A post about having a sex tax. Somebody had to say it. and somebody did.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Which is more likely, people come here because it's a porn site; or is this the home of political enlightenment?

Really people! A post about having a sex tax. Somebody had to say it. and somebody did.

The primary reason people come here is obvious, but keep in mind who it is that has started all these threads (Liberal free for all coming to an end; GOP'ish candidates; Immigration law; If police question/detain a black person is it racism?). The answer is not me.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

The primary reason people come here is obvious, but keep in mind who it is that has started all these threads . The answer is not me.

I'll give you that. He struck a raw nerve in a lot of people.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

If police question/detain a black person is it racism?). The answer is not me.

You're kidding. I have to look that up now.

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by smc

I genuinely admire your commitment to this concept, and I especially value your willingness to have a real discussion about it without any of the hyperbolic bullshit and made-up "facts" that are so often posted here.

Unfortunately, where we differ goes far beyond the merits of the "fair tax" idea. The notion that one can create a "fair" version of a system that is fundamentally based on exploitation is, frankly, ridiculous.

Think of the fair tax, or the progressive fair tax, as a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more in taxes you pay.

From a business point of view, the more you consume (products you make), the more in taxes your customers pay.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

Think of the fair tax, or the progressive fair tax, as a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more in taxes you pay.

From a business point of view, the more you consume (products you make), the more in taxes your customers pay.

Your response ignores the primary point I made: the system of exploitation is the problem, and all solutions that do not fundamentally eliminate the system that is based on exploitation are pipe dreams. Nevertheless, I will address the points you do make.

All consumption taxes shift the burden of taxation to the poor. Even with the rebate of which you wrote earlier accounted for, thus making it hypothetically a "progressive" tax on consumption, you fail to see how it would be regressive. It is simple arithmetic that consumption falls as a percentage of income as the income level increases. Thus, high-income people would have a lower tax burden under the consumption tax.

Further, consider how the system of exploitation figures into this in one straightforward example. In the Boston suburb where I live, good-quality produce -- healthy, clean, etc. -- is readily available at any number of grocery stores near my home. In the poor neighborhoods of the city, crappy produce is sometimes available at convenience stores; there are very few actual grocery stores. The good produce at my area stores is less expensive than the crap that poor folks can buy near their homes. I have a car; many of them rely on inadequate public transportation.

So, I can buy a clean, organically grown head of lettuce for $2.99 at Whole Foods. They can buy a plastic-wrapped, shitty looking head of iceberg lettuce for $3.50 at the corner "market," or travel on the bus for a half hour to a grocery store that has a slightly better head of lettuce for $2.99 (not as good as the one near me). Add the $1.25 bus fare each way, and that lettuce cost $5.49. On top of this, you would have that person pay a 30% tax.

Progressive? Give me a break.

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by smc

Your response ignores the primary point I made: the system of exploitation is the problem, and all solutions that do not fundamentally eliminate the system that is based on exploitation are pipe dreams. Nevertheless, I will address the points you do make.

All consumption taxes shift the burden of taxation to the poor. Even with the rebate of which you wrote earlier accounted for, thus making it hypothetically a "progressive" tax on consumption, you fail to see how it would be regressive. It is simple arithmetic that consumption falls as a percentage of income as the income level increases. Thus, high-income people would have a lower tax burden under the consumption tax.

Further, consider how the system of exploitation figures into this in one straightforward example. In the Boston suburb where I live, good-quality produce -- healthy, clean, etc. -- is readily available at any number of grocery stores near my home. In the poor neighborhoods of the city, crappy produce is sometimes available at convenience stores; there are very few actual grocery stores. The good produce at my area stores is less expensive than the crap that poor folks can buy near their homes. I have a car; many of them rely on inadequate public transportation.

So, I can buy a clean, organically grown head of lettuce for $2.99 at Whole Foods. They can buy a plastic-wrapped, shitty looking head of iceberg lettuce for $3.50 at the corner "market," or travel on the bus for a half hour to a grocery store that has a slightly better head of lettuce for $2.99 (not as good as the one near me). Add the $1.25 bus fare each way, and that lettuce cost $5.49. On top of this, you would have that person pay a 30% tax.

Progressive? Give me a break.

I'm not necessary disagreeing with you, but what is your solution? I'm guessing your solution is to have the rich pay more income tax and to close tax loopholes and end corporate subsidies right?

I just don't think that is going to happen. Companies lobby congress to get special deductions and loopholes, and then those companies hire the people from the IRS who know the tax code inside and out so those companies don't end up paying tax anyways.

If they can't figure out how to lower their taxes more, they'll just funnel their money to the Caymen Islands and hide it there.

You talk about the fair tax hurting the poor, because they pay a higher % of their money to taxes, well that is the way it is now. Warren Buffet's tax % is less than his secretary's due to capital gains. Then add on gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, social security (which is a regressive tax), and the poor pay a way more disproportionate % of their wages to taxes.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

I'm not necessary disagreeing with you, but what is your solution? I'm guessing your solution is to have the rich pay more income tax and to close tax loopholes and end corporate subsidies right?

I just don't think that is going to happen. Companies lobby congress to get special deductions and loopholes, and then those companies hire the people from the IRS who know the tax code inside and out so those companies don't end up paying tax anyways.

If they can't figure out how to lower their taxes more, they'll just funnel their money to the Caymen Islands and hide it there.

You talk about the fair tax hurting the poor, because they pay a higher % of their money to taxes, well that is the way it is now. Warren Buffet's tax % is less than his secretary's due to capital gains. Then add on gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, social security (which is a regressive tax), and the poor pay a way more disproportionate % of their wages to taxes.

I gave my solution earlier. The problem in the United States is that everyone ends us saying what you wrote: "I just don't think that is going to happen." How about we make something happen?

[franalexes]

From Emerson?s quarterly earnings conference call August 2, 2011:

Emerson (NYSE: EMR) is a diversified global manufacturing and technology company. Emerson is widely recognized for its engineering capabilities and management excellence. Emerson has approximately 135,000 employees (over 34,000 in the United States) and 240 manufacturing locations worldwide. Sales are estimated to exceed $7.5 billion in 2011. Capital expenditures are estimated to be around $740 million in 2012, (about 2.7% of revenues) as announced by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in Emerson?s quarterly conference call today. He inferred that none of that will be invested in the United States In answering a question from and analyst he went on to passionately criticize the Obama Administration and the ?flood of regulations and taxes?.

Cap-ex plans for 2012

??in the US, they are not really addressing the ?gut? issues. There is a flood of regulations coming at us from the US. The incentive to invest in the US is negative. And from my perspective I have all the clarity I need. They?re spending. They?re taxing. Our tax rate in the US will be over 36% in the US this year. We pay actually pay the US government over $500 million in this year, and they say they want to raise it even more. I run a company. I have a lot of money to invest, but I?m not going to invest it here. And then when you have a company like Boeing, an iconic American company, gets sued by the Federal Government, if that doesn?t get your attention, nothing will. They get sued for investing $2 billion in South Carolina. Last time I saw South Carolina was part of the United States of America, and you get sued for that? I tell you what, as a CEO of a company, you got my attention. And so, from my perspective, people are very nervous about regulation. They have no idea how much healthcare cost is going to get thrown at us. And all I see is things coming at me. The new whistleblower rule, or the new commodity rule, or take a look at everything that is coming at us. You sit there and say how much can you burden companies that want to invest and create jobs? And the answer is, ?I guess it?s never ending,? because they think that we?re going to sit around and take it all. The environment [in the United States] is not very good and I think Washington does not understand how to create jobs. You know they are talking about raising taxes, getting rid of corporate planes, I mean it?s amazing, or doubling the CAF? standards, that?s going to create a lot of jobs. That?s my opinion. And we happen to control a lot of money to invest. We have over 135,000 employees and over 35,000 in the United States.?

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

From Emerson?s quarterly earnings conference call August 2, 2011:

Emerson (NYSE: EMR) is a diversified global manufacturing and technology company. Emerson is widely recognized for its engineering capabilities and management excellence. Emerson has approximately 135,000 employees (over 34,000 in the United States) and 240 manufacturing locations worldwide. Sales are estimated to exceed $7.5 billion in 2011. Capital expenditures are estimated to be around $740 million in 2012, (about 2.7% of revenues) as announced by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in Emerson?s quarterly conference call today. He inferred that none of that will be invested in the United States In answering a question from and analyst he went on to passionately criticize the Obama Administration and the ?flood of regulations and taxes?.

Cap-ex plans for 2012

??in the US, they are not really addressing the ?gut? issues. There is a flood of regulations coming at us from the US. The incentive to invest in the US is negative. And from my perspective I have all the clarity I need. They?re spending. They?re taxing. Our tax rate in the US will be over 36% in the US this year. We pay actually pay the US government over $500 million in this year, and they say they want to raise it even more. I run a company. I have a lot of money to invest, but I?m not going to invest it here. And then when you have a company like Boeing, an iconic American company, gets sued by the Federal Government, if that doesn?t get your attention, nothing will. They get sued for investing $2 billion in South Carolina. Last time I saw South Carolina was part of the United States of America, and you get sued for that? I tell you what, as a CEO of a company, you got my attention. And so, from my perspective, people are very nervous about regulation. They have no idea how much healthcare cost is going to get thrown at us. And all I see is things coming at me. The new whistleblower rule, or the new commodity rule, or take a look at everything that is coming at us. You sit there and say how much can you burden companies that want to invest and create jobs? And the answer is, ?I guess it?s never ending,? because they think that we?re going to sit around and take it all. The environment [in the United States] is not very good and I think Washington does not understand how to create jobs. You know they are talking about raising taxes, getting rid of corporate planes, I mean it?s amazing, or doubling the CAF? standards, that?s going to create a lot of jobs. That?s my opinion. And we happen to control a lot of money to invest. We have over 135,000 employees and over 35,000 in the United States.?

Corporations exist to maximize profits to SHAREHOLDERS. If they could do that without making a single thing, or employing anybody who does anything that has any social value whatsoever, they would do so (look at Wall Street).

When the corporate bosses cry that they are overtaxed and overregulated, and then they get special breaks and subsidies from U.S. taxpayers, they're quick to up and leave and take jobs with them the minute they find a place where they can maximize profits for their shareholders.

Maybe we should get rid of all the regulation that hurts the poor corporations. Let's not have any standards to prevent toxic foodstuffs from being sold to retail supermarkets by agribusiness conglomerates. Let's not have a minimum wage. Let's not have requirements for safe manufacturing facilities. Let's not have any limits on what corporations can spew into the air or dump into lakes and rivers. After all, the corporations are people, too -- so says the ridiculous Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court -- and since they have much more money than other people, why shouldn't they get all the breaks.

And if regular working people don't like it, they can move overseas just like the big corporations, right?

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by smc

Corporations exist to maximize profits to SHAREHOLDERS. If they could do that without making a single thing, or employing anybody who does anything that has any social value whatsoever, they would do so (look at Wall Street).

When the corporate bosses cry that they are overtaxed and overregulated, and then they get special breaks and subsidies from U.S. taxpayers, they're quick to up and leave and take jobs with them the minute they find a place where they can maximize profits for their shareholders.

Maybe we should get rid of all the regulation that hurts the poor corporations. Let's not have any standards to prevent toxic foodstuffs from being sold to retail supermarkets by agribusiness conglomerates. Let's not have a minimum wage. Let's not have requirements for safe manufacturing facilities. Let's not have any limits on what corporations can spew into the air or dump into lakes and rivers. After all, the corporations are people, too -- so says the ridiculous Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court -- and since they have much more money than other people, why shouldn't they get all the breaks.

And if regular working people don't like it, they can move overseas just like the big corporations, right?

We'll never have a free market, or eliminate tax subsidies and loopholes until we overturn Citizen's United.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

Maybe we should get rid of all the regulation that hurts the poor corporations. Let's not have any standards ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

(Do you have a serious response?)
You're talking to the wrong person.
Your arguement is with the CEO of Emerson.

How many of those 35,000 U.S. jobs will still be here in another year?