A Country of takers not makers

[Magox]

So provide incentives to manufacturing here and selling here as opposed to providing disincentives to manufacturing elsewhere and selling here. Seems like either could provide the same result, but that's picking nits (maybe).

 

So what incentives would you propose that would actually make a difference? If the goal is to avoid mandating disincentives...

It's not picking nit's, and it would seem as if that they are almost one in the same. But they're not, for the aforementioned I provided earlier which is that a company can decide to pack it in and move his home base to another country if they find the restrictions to be too much of an obstacle for them to want to overcome.

 

In regards to what incentives could possibly make a difference. Well, I am a strong believer of innovation and it's positive effects on the economy. So I would focus on creating an enviroment for corporations to innovate. How do you achieve this? simple...

 

If you are company X and your company were to have a net profit of $10Million then you would have a certain amount of capital to help you innovate. If your company the following year had $20Million of net profit then the likelyhood of your company being able to innovate more so than the previous year would be higher or lower? Of course we know the answer to this.

 

My point is that allowing corporations to have higher profits (as ghastly as that may seem to some) is usually a good thing for everyone. Higher profits, usually means more innovation, more jobs, benefits etc.

 

So adjusting the corporate tax rate I believe is central to keeping us more competitive in the global markets.

 

The other thing we can do is improve our trade relations with the countries that offer the most growth to buy our stuff. If I were advising the OBama administration I'd be damn sure I'd have trade envoys over there every single day of his presidency striking deals, allowing concessions etc in order to improve accessibility to their markets.

[3rdnlng]

It's not picking nit's, and it would seem as if that they are almost one in the same. But they're not, for the aforementioned I provided earlier which is that a company can decide to pack it in and move his home base to another country if they find the restrictions to be too much of an obstacle for them to want to overcome.

 

In regards to what incentives could possibly make a difference. Well, I am a strong believer of innovation and it's positive effects on the economy. So I would focus on creating an enviroment for corporations to innovate. How do you achieve this? simple...

 

If you are company X and your company were to have a net profit of $10Million then you would have a certain amount of capital to help you innovate. If your company the following year had $20Million of net profit then the likelyhood of your company being able to innovate more so than the previous year would be higher or lower? Of course we know the answer to this.

 

My point is that allowing corporations to have higher profits (as ghastly as that may seem to some) is usually a good thing for everyone. Higher profits, usually means more innovation, more jobs, benefits etc.

 

So adjusting the corporate tax rate I believe is central to keeping us more competitive in the global markets.

 

The other thing we can do is improve our trade relations with the countries that offer the most growth to buy our stuff. If I were advising the OBama administration I'd be damn sure I'd have trade envoys over there every single day of his presidency striking deals, allowing concessions etc in order to improve accessibility to their markets.

 

I likey.

 

What do you think would happen if the tax rate for corporations would go to 0%? My guess would be that they would do just what you have stated above. If they didn't there would be a lot of earnings to pass on to their stockholders. Those earnings are going to get taxed anyway.

 

We need to make us the most business friendly country in the world. Before that gets twisted we also must be good stewards of the environment.

[Gene Frenkle]

http://www.idairelan...hy-ireland/tax/

 

Maybe go to the top of that list?

Please expand on that - I'm not sure what I'm looking at exactly.

[3rdnlng]

Please expand on that - I'm not sure what I'm looking at exactly.

 

Specifically a list of corporate tax rates in different countries. You didn't get that?

[pBills]

It's like the fella says, if you're not a lib at 20 you have no heart. If you're still a lib at 40 you have no brain. I wonder how old p is.

 

 

Dumb ass it's all about the Republicans and their leaders the Tea Party Far Right Loons wanting to cut to much to fast. Everyone wants to get the budget under control, but we have to do it responsibly. Not simply cutting for the sake of cutting. It's all about cutting programs the directly relate to the middle-class and people around poverty level. Do they offer plans that alter a way of life for the wealthiest Americans? No. Because that would be to much right? Those people are top talent and deserve better than everyone else right? Laughable.

 

And if you and or any other moron on this board believe that cutting Collective Bargaining is only because they want to use it to address budget issues... you are truly a bigger moron that I expected. It is nothing more than a direct hit against the democrats biggest backers. Another thing I find funny, it's bad for unions to donate and back democrats. Yet, it's ok for Republicans to receive backing from people like the Koch Brothers. Hypocrites.

 

All in all, a big thank you should be said. The overreaching actions by Republicans and Far Right Tea Party Loons have given a HUGE boost to the unions and Democratic backers. They have really shown who they really care about and it's not the middle-class. I'm also glad that these actions have also pushed the normally conservative unions (police and fireman) to want to vote against the Right.

[Taro T]

Dumb ass it's all about the Republicans and their leaders the Tea Party Far Right Loons wanting to cut to much to fast. Everyone wants to get the budget under control, but we have to do it responsibly. Not simply cutting for the sake of cutting. It's all about cutting programs the directly relate to the middle-class and people around poverty level. Do they offer plans that alter a way of life for the wealthiest Americans? No. Because that would be to much right? Those people are top talent and deserve better than everyone else right? Laughable.

 

And if you and or any other moron on this board believe that cutting Collective Bargaining is only because they want to use it to address budget issues... you are truly a bigger moron that I expected. It is nothing more than a direct hit against the democrats biggest backers. Another thing I find funny, it's bad for unions to donate and back democrats. Yet, it's ok for Republicans to receive backing from people like the Koch Brothers. Hypocrites.

 

All in all, a big thank you should be said. The overreaching actions by Republicans and Far Right Tea Party Loons have given a HUGE boost to the unions and Democratic backers. They have really shown who they really care about and it's not the middle-class. I'm also glad that these actions have also pushed the normally conservative unions (police and fireman) to want to vote against the Right.

1st off, they aren't cutting out collective bargaining. They're limiting its scope to salary and not to perks. The unions can still collectively bargain, they just don't get to negotiate clauses such as an individual's state pension will be based on the actual salary collected in the last 3 years of employment regardless of how much overtime, sick time, and vacation is included in that baseline.

 

And I haven't heard many (any?) people complain about Soros backing Dems. Am I to assume you are opposed to that because he's rich like the Koch Brothers or are you in favor of it because he gives to leftist causes?

 

And the bolded items in your last paragraph are about the only things I've seen you post that I'd agree with. Glad to see you finally got one right.

[Rob's House]

Dumb ass it's all about the Republicans and their leaders the Tea Party Far Right Loons wanting to cut to much to fast. Everyone wants to get the budget under control, but we have to do it responsibly. Not simply cutting for the sake of cutting. It's all about cutting programs the directly relate to the middle-class and people around poverty level. Do they offer plans that alter a way of life for the wealthiest Americans? No. Because that would be to much right? Those people are top talent and deserve better than everyone else right? Laughable.

 

And if you and or any other moron on this board believe that cutting Collective Bargaining is only because they want to use it to address budget issues... you are truly a bigger moron that I expected. It is nothing more than a direct hit against the democrats biggest backers. Another thing I find funny, it's bad for unions to donate and back democrats. Yet, it's ok for Republicans to receive backing from people like the Koch Brothers. Hypocrites.

 

All in all, a big thank you should be said. The overreaching actions by Republicans and Far Right Tea Party Loons have given a HUGE boost to the unions and Democratic backers. They have really shown who they really care about and it's not the middle-class. I'm also glad that these actions have also pushed the normally conservative unions (police and fireman) to want to vote against the Right.

Awww, did poor little p get his panties in a bunch? I'm guessing > 40. Sad.

I could just call you an idiot, but I'll do you the courtesy of explaining why. You can't see past the rich v poor prism you have constructed in your mind. In the mind of p the fiscally responsible thing to do is cut taxes for those who don't pay taxes, and cut entitlements for those who aren't receiving them. Brilliant

 

I don't think you'd find too much push back from fiscal conservatives if means testing for future ss benes, medicare, prescriptions, etc. was proposed. It's not a matter of top talent "deserving" more. I'm not so pompous as to annoint myself the arbiter of that which is deserved. That's what you guys do. It's a matter of maintaining a system that produces the most prosperity for the most people (see: utilitarianism/John Stuart Mill) and throughout the history of human civilization (outside of liberal fantasy land) the system that achieves that necessarily results in uneven distribution of wealth. Before you whine like a child about it, come up with an alternative that doesn't have a consistent track record of failure.

[pBills]

1st off, they aren't cutting out collective bargaining. They're limiting its scope to salary and not to perks. The unions can still collectively bargain, they just don't get to negotiate clauses such as an individual's state pension will be based on the actual salary collected in the last 3 years of employment regardless of how much overtime, sick time, and vacation is included in that baseline.

 

And I haven't heard many (any?) people complain about Soros backing Dems. Am I to assume you are opposed to that because he's rich like the Koch Brothers or are you in favor of it because he gives to leftist causes?

 

And the bolded items in your last paragraph are about the only things I've seen you post that I'd agree with. Glad to see you finally got one right.

 

 

They are restricting Collective Bargaining and union rights. So you haven't heard about Soros... ok but it is true about Republicans using this as their strategy. Nothing more. I support people who don't try to break the backs of the workers so that they can become even more wealthy. I support people who value their workers as well.

 

I have to laugh when you bold sections so that they say ridiculous things like "the unions They have really shown who they really care about and it's not the middle-class". Keep on believing in the Right and the Tea Party... they will support you and your family. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Rob's House]

They are restricting Collective Bargaining and union rights. So you haven't heard about Soros... ok but it is true about Republicans using this as their strategy. Nothing more. I support people who don't try to break the backs of the workers so that they can become even more wealthy. I support people who value their workers as well.

 

I have to laugh when you bold sections so that they say ridiculous things like "the unions They have really shown who they really care about and it's not the middle-class". Keep on believing in the Right and the Tea Party... they will support you and your family. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I'll support my own family if you guys will get out of the way.

[pBills]

Awww, did poor little p get his panties in a bunch? I'm guessing > 40. Sad.

I could just call you an idiot, but I'll do you the courtesy of explaining why. You can't see past the rich v poor prism you have constructed in your mind. In the mind of p the fiscally responsible thing to do is cut taxes for those who don't pay taxes, and cut entitlements for those who aren't receiving them. Brilliant

 

I don't think you'd find too much push back from fiscal conservatives if means testing for future ss benes, medicare, prescriptions, etc. was proposed. It's not a matter of top talent "deserving" more. I'm not so pompous as to annoint myself the arbiter of that which is deserved. That's what you guys do. It's a matter of maintaining a system that produces the most prosperity for the most people (see: utilitarianism/John Stuart Mill) and throughout the history of human civilization (outside of liberal fantasy land) the system that achieves that necessarily results in uneven distribution of wealth. Before you whine like a child about it, come up with an alternative that doesn't have a consistent track record of failure.

 

 

Panties in a bunch? Really are you 14? By the way, I am 39. Sorry but I guess you forgot people also lose their minds as they get older.

 

I can completely see past the rich vs. poor. Sorry but it's pretty damn clear that when the average middle-class person is lucky to receive a 2% raise or keep their job if they give up benefits, etc. they should be thankful. When the wealthy receive a 27% increase it's ok and they deserve it. Great philosophy to follow.

 

 

The fiscally responsible this to do is here... Read this:

 

 

The only thing failing here is that on our current track we'll have two classes of people. Lower Income and Wealthy. If you look through history, you will also see that when there is vibrant / healthy middle-class this country is in great shape.

 

I'll support my own family if you guys will get out of the way.

 

 

Only thing in your way is you and the party you believe in

[Taro T]

They are restricting Collective Bargaining and union rights. So you haven't heard about Soros... ok but it is true about Republicans using this as their strategy. Nothing more. I support people who don't try to break the backs of the workers so that they can become even more wealthy. I support people who value their workers as well.

 

I have to laugh when you bold sections so that they say ridiculous things like "the unions They have really shown who they really care about and it's not the middle-class". Keep on believing in the Right and the Tea Party... they will support you and your family. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Restricting is MUCH different than eliminating. Considering there is noone on either side of the table looking out for the taxpayer during negotiations, I am just disappointed that it took this long for this correction to occur. I am also disappointed that it isn't happening in NY as well.

 

There has to be a rationalization to the way benes are provided moving forward. Let the public workers get fair salaries up front (which they still get to do under the WI law) but don't let them hide huge costs under the table. Workers currently getting pensions should continue getting them, but public workers that are younger should be on 403b's. And to keep public salaries 'fair' with what their output is worth, perhaps they should get big raises to account for some of the lost value of their future benes.

 

And give the workers the RIGHT to choose whether to pay union dues or not. If the union leadership is truly working for them and providing a value to them, they'd be fools not to pay the dues, right? My guess is though, when the dues become optional, a lot of workers won't see the value they supposedly are receiving.

[Rob's House]

Panties in a bunch? Really are you 14? By the way, I am 39. Sorry but I guess you forgot people also lose their minds as they get older.

That's cool, so you've got another year to get your head straight.

 

 

I can completely see past the rich vs. poor. Sorry but it's pretty damn clear that when the average middle-class person is lucky to receive a 2% raise or keep their job if they give up benefits, etc. they should be thankful. When the wealthy receive a 27% increase it's ok and they deserve it. Great philosophy to follow.

This is where you fall off. You arbitrarily attribute this situation to freedom and without a coherent logical reason assign government as the logical savior, despite government's inherrent corruption and inefficiency.

[Gene Frenkle]

Specifically a list of corporate tax rates in different countries. You didn't get that?

It would be more interesting to see how effective the application of those rates are in luring businesses to those respective countries. Also, forgive my ignorance, but it seems to me that corporate tax rate cannot tell the whole story. You'd have to include the cost of labor at the very least to get a decent picture of what's going on.

 

I love Ireland, but it's not exactly the center of the business world.

[Magox]

It would be more interesting to see how effective the application of those rates are in luring businesses to those respective countries. Also, forgive my ignorance, but it seems to me that corporate tax rate cannot tell the whole story. You'd have to include the cost of labor at the very least to get a decent picture of what's going on.

 

I love Ireland, but it's not exactly the center of the business world.

Of course there are alot of factors. But lowering the corporate tax rate is one tool to lure businesses into your country.. Singapore is now quickly becoming the financial capital in the world, everyone wants to set up shop there oh and btw, Ireland is a very appealing place for businesses to operate from and yes they have been attracting lots of corporations to do business there. There financial meltdown they had has absolutely nothing to do with their corporate tax code. Ireland has a bright future.

[Gene Frenkle]

Of course there are alot of factors. But lowering the corporate tax rate is one tool to lure businesses into your country.. Singapore is now quickly becoming the financial capital in the world, everyone wants to set up shop there oh and btw, Ireland is a very appealing place for businesses to operate from and yes they have been attracting lots of corporations to do business there. There financial meltdown they had has absolutely nothing to do with their corporate tax code. Ireland has a bright future.

That's cool. Seems like Singapore probably has some cheap labor as well. Glad to see Ireland doing well.

[Magox]

That's cool. Seems like Singapore probably has some cheap labor as well. Glad to see Ireland doing well.

Well, I wouldnt say they are doing well now, but I believe they will be.

[finknottle]

I love this board. The usual people complaining about workers, the middle-class and others. The only group of people that is hard working and deserves anything is the wealthy right? HAHA!!

 

Here's something for you all to bash and say how wrong it is:

 

http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/cgi-bin/facts.php

 

I clicked a graph at random, coming up with a comparison of average worker salary to that of the 100 top CEO's over time. Shocking disparity.

 

But anybody with a brain knows immediately that that isn't a fair comparison. A fair comparison is average CEO compensation to average worker compensation. And the vast majority of CEO's are not getting millions.

 

An the other hand, suppose we flipped things. What if you compared the average CEO compensation over time to the compensation of the 100 top-paid unionized employees - I'm guessing they would mostly be drawn from the NBA, MLB, and NFL. I'm also guessing that the charts would look pretty much the same, with the roles reversed.

 

Absolutely shocking. Something must be done.

[/dev/null]

I love Ireland

 

Me too. It's land of my forefathers. (Well actually my father's mother's father)

[Magox]

They are restricting Collective Bargaining and union rights. So you haven't heard about Soros... ok but it is true about Republicans using this as their strategy. Nothing more. I support people who don't try to break the backs of the workers so that they can become even more wealthy. I support people who value their workers as well.

 

I have to laugh when you bold sections so that they say ridiculous things like "the unions They have really shown who they really care about and it's not the middle-class". Keep on believing in the Right and the Tea Party... they will support you and your family. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I'm serious, I honestly don't believe you have ever brought an original thought into our discussions in PPP ever.

 

I clicked a graph at random, coming up with a comparison of average worker salary to that of the 100 top CEO's over time. Shocking disparity.

 

But anybody with a brain knows immediately that that isn't a fair comparison. A fair comparison is average CEO compensation to average worker compensation. And the vast majority of CEO's are not getting millions.

 

An the other hand, suppose we flipped things. What if you compared the average CEO compensation over time to the compensation of the 100 top-paid unionized employees - I'm guessing they would mostly be drawn from the NBA, MLB, and NFL. I'm also guessing that the charts would look pretty much the same, with the roles reversed.

 

Absolutely shocking. Something must be done.

Those poor abused athletes, yup they need union represenatives to make sure that they get "fairly" compensated.

[....lybob]

I clicked a graph at random, coming up with a comparison of average worker salary to that of the 100 top CEO's over time. Shocking disparity.

 

But anybody with a brain knows immediately that that isn't a fair comparison. A fair comparison is average CEO compensation to average worker compensation. And the vast majority of CEO's are not getting millions.

 

An the other hand, suppose we flipped things. What if you compared the average CEO compensation over time to the compensation of the 100 top-paid unionized employees - I'm guessing they would mostly be drawn from the NBA, MLB, and NFL. I'm also guessing that the charts would look pretty much the same, with the roles reversed.

 

Absolutely shocking. Something must be done.

Maybe this quantifies it better.

link