Hi Blue Fin
A response to a couple of your points-
It is very disturbing to see politicians who are dishonest either from ignorance or by design and do not inform their supporters that corporations never pay a tax that they don't first collect from consumers and that they are in fact tax collectors for government not tax payors.
Whole heartedly agreed.
We have a senate and congress that have brought our country to our knees as a result of their uncontrolled spending and taxation then they use class warfare to try to increase tax revenues so they can add new entitlements,it is never ending and so far there is no one in the congress that will address the real problems of overspending.
If our country is on it's knees,as you assert, it's probably not because of corporate taxes. From the 1980s thru the early 2000s, our economy has morphed into a consumer and services economy. Our present troubles are the result of the fact that consumers have been overspending, and funding their purchases first through the dot com bubble, and then, after interest rates dropped so low, by accessing their home equity to buy cars and big screen TVs. We are now mortgaged to the hilt, even after signing variable rate mortgages, etc., and no one can squeeze an ounce more out of their properties. Many people are stuck in homes that are much bigger than they need, with mortgages that are skyrocketing. They've stopped most of their discretionary spending, which has cooled the economy.
The class warfare that you speak of has gone both ways, to the detriment of both sides, but in reality the problem of government spending is not so easily solved as turning off the spigot of your sink. The entitlements of which you speak carry money back into the economy, which is then taxed again by the government as it changes hands. While I agree that our government can't spend on just anything, it also can't just turn it's back on every problem while pulling out it's pocket linings and showing only lint.
Take for example the healthcare insurance proposals offered by the Democrats. While you may see them as entitlements that will only cause our debt to skyrocket, there is more to them than that. The government may spend some money on them, but, if the result is to lessen the burden of expensive healthcare for 10% of our population, that 10% may have more discretionary income that they spend, which will stimulate the economy, and result in more tax gains for our government.
The more problematic spending that occurs is of the type that is going into the pockets of Halliburton and Kellog-Brown and Root for their "contracting" work in Iraq. The "Cost-Plus" system that they bill the government under is scandalous. That government money doesn't circulate as the healthcare money would, and provides less benefit.
In reality, this is an old argument that began as soon as industrialization began changing social and geographic living patterns in England. It is the debate of Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo on one side, and Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill on the other. I favor the utilitarian side of this, believing that the best laws do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Thus, a government should consider the interests of it's populace before that of the corporations.
Corporations themselves can be agents of good or evil. They do provide benefits through employment and investment opportunities, and there is little that is fiscally impossible to produce, due to the massive financial resources corporations can amass. They lower prices through economies of scale, and can innovate to improve upon their products.
That said, there is much to dislike in corporations, as well. For example, at 370 billion dollars in revenues, must Walmart be so tight with it's employees? Must Enron cook their books to puff up their stock? Did that help our economy? We would have been better off if the government had taxed them out of existence...
Must Halliburton charge the Defense Department $44 for a six pack of Coke in Iraq? Or Nike operate sweatshops in Indonesia, paying on average 8 cents in labor costs for each shirt produced? I mean, really, how much is enough?
Corporate freedom is not the answer to our problems. It will take a mixture of selective government spending cuts, and probably some increases, as well-while maintaining a business environment that allows corporations to succeed and compete in the world economy.
One last thing-if corporate taxation is the problem, as you suggest, how is it that with a Republican Congress and President, our economy went downhill? Aren't the Republicans the friends of corporations? Surely they didn't raise corporate taxes, and probably quietly gave many tax breaks. So, how are we not in better shape than at the beginning of the Bush administration?
Our problems are rarely as simple as politicians portray. The solutions even less so.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
