US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1306

On September 21 2014 23:21 coverpunch wrote:

But he'd have the leverage to leave and take his tax revenue to a government willing to give him a break, which is precisely the argument people use now to lobby against higher taxes, regulations, or more importantly, enforcement of tax or regulatory requirements, to a disagreeable degree of success, which is why we are having this discussion in the first place.

See how that all works together? I suppose I could just conclude by wishing you good luck in getting a 90% tax on the wealthy because it will never happen outside of a war scenario and one in which the choice is victory or total annihilation, which is what they used to say in the 50s and 60s.

On September 22 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:



Yeah....No, leaving an entire country (particularly when you are a resident and the company was founded in that country) because it is 'unpalatable' to pay more of your profits back to the people of that community, is a world away from leaving a municipality because you don't favor their approach on education.

I know there is a lot of talk about the burden of taxes, but has any business ever went out of business and attributed it to their tax burden? Or companies that suggest that they went belly up because of regulations?

On September 22 2014 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
For example, if a business scrimps on R&D or new equipment investment to make room for taxes, a few years down the road they could find themselves at a disadvantage to competitors in a lower tax jurisdiction. Separating the various blame factors there would be messy, but it's fair to say that the higher taxes didn't help the situation.

On September 22 2014 03:35 Millitron wrote:

Its simple math. Any business that has failed due to losses lower than their taxes would have not failed had their taxes been lower.

Lets say I own a business. I'm losing a net $1000 a month. Taxes cost me $1500 a month. If my taxes were under $500 a month, I would be breaking even.

It's never JUST taxes that drive a business to failure, but to suggest that businesses are somehow immune to the burden of taxes is just silly.

On September 22 2014 03:13 GreenHorizons wrote:



Yeah....No, leaving an entire country (particularly when you are a resident and the company was founded in that country) because it is 'unpalatable' to pay more of your profits back to the people of that community, is a world away from leaving a municipality because you don't favor their approach on education.

I know there is a lot of talk about the burden of taxes, but has any business ever went out of business and attributed it to their tax burden? Or companies that suggest that they went belly up because of regulations?

On September 22 2014 03:45 Nyxisto wrote:

Why would you scrimp investment 'to make room for taxes?'. Investments are tax deductible anyway and reduce your profit, so higher taxes would probably lead to increased investment because it makes less sense to take money out of the company which would then be needed to be taxed.

On September 22 2014 04:40 Wolfstan wrote:


Oh right, sorry I forgot, the difference is a rich person leaving with what the lazy feel entitled to and the other is a lazy person leaving becaise socialist policies aren't giving him enough. The optics and inconsistent stances are why many people are losing the game. Wonder what would happen if a capitalist jurisdiction was right beside a socialist paradise with freedom of mobility between them?

NEW YORK -- More than 300,000 people turned out for the People's Climate March in New York City on Sunday, just days before many of the world's leaders are expected to debate environmental action at the United Nations climate summit.

Early reports from event organizers are hailing the turnout as the largest climate march in history, far bigger than the Forward on Climate rally held in Washington, D.C., last year. High-profile environmentalists including Bill McKibben, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jane Goodall and Vandana Shiva marched alongside policymakers such as Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former Vice President Al Gore were also there, and more than 550 buses carried in people from around the country.

The rally comes at an opportune time as 120 world leaders, including President Barack Obama, are expected to convene Tuesday at the United Nations in New York to discuss ways to tackle the growing threat of carbon pollution.

The White House has pledged to "show the world that the U.S. is leading on climate change, and to call on other leaders to step up to the plate," John Podesta, who serves as a counselor to the president, told reporters on Thursday. However, a recent study found that the world spewed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere last year than ever before, primarily driven by China, India and the United States. And the top leaders of China and India announced earlier this month that they won't be attending Tuesday's summit.

The march began around 11:30 a.m., at New York City's Columbus Circle just off Central Park. At times, it stretched more than 4 miles as marchers carried banners, signs and entire contraptions depicting everything from Mother Earth herself to the dinosaurs that now make up fossil fuels.

On September 22 2014 04:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

That's not how the maths work. Higher taxes make investments less profitable, which makes them less likely to happen.

Tens-of-thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of New York City Sunday to demand political leaders take action on climate change.

While the protest remained peaceful, much of the “People’s Climate March” appeared to be made up of fringe elements of the political left.

Dozens of signs denouncing capitalism were spotted at the demonstration, often held by self-proclaimed socialists. “Capitalism is destroying the planet,” a sticker on one woman’s shirt read, “We need revolution, nothing less.”

In one instance, activists shouted “f**k the police,” demanding justice for the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

The secretary of Florida's prison system has fired nearly three dozen guards in the wake of the recent scrutiny given to inmate deaths across the state over the past few years, the Miami Herald newspaper reported.

Florida Department of Corrections Secretary Michael Crews dismissed 32 guards on Friday, according to the newspaper. All of them had been accused of criminal misconduct or wrongdoing stemming from inmate deaths at four different prisons, the report said.

Florida's prison system has drawn increasing attention after the circumstances of the 2012 death of mentally ill prisoner Darren Rainey came to light.

In June, the American Civil Liberties Union penned a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder calling for a federal investigation into Rainey's death, alleging that the state had attempted to "cover it up."

The letter said Rainey was blasted with scalding hot water in a locked closet-sized shower as a punishment at the state's Dade Correctional Institution in Miami.

After two hours, Rainey was found dead with his skin separated from his body, the letter said. The water temperature was later measured at 180 degrees, according to court records.

The Florida Department of Corrections was not immediately available for comment.

On September 22 2014 09:44 Simberto wrote:
What the fuck. That is utterly disgusting.

The more one knows about american prisons the less one wants to know. Torture and rape should have no place in a civilised society. Even criminals are still humans and should be treated with decency, not as an object that guards can do whatever they please with, while some sort of law of the jungle rules between prisoners themselves where the strong take whatever they want from the weak while the guards don't care because they are all criminals anyways.

On September 22 2014 09:44 Simberto wrote:
What the fuck. That is utterly disgusting.

The more one knows about american prisons the less one wants to know. Torture and rape should have no place in a civilised society. Even criminals are still humans and should be treated with decency, not as an object that guards can do whatever they please with, while some sort of law of the jungle rules between prisoners themselves where the strong take whatever they want from the weak while the guards don't care because they are all criminals anyways.

In 1862 , in the midst of the Civil War, Republican Justin Smith Morrill stood in Congress to defend his party’s invention: an income tax . The government had the right to demand 99 percent of a man’s property, the Vermont representative thundered. If the nation needs it, “the property of the people . . . belongs to the government .” The Republican Congress passed the income tax — as well as a spate of other taxes — and went on to create a strong national government. By the time the war ended, the GOP had invented national banking , currency and taxation ; had provided schools and homes for poor Americans; and had freed the country’s 4 million slaves.

A half-century later, when corporations dominated the economy and their owners threw their weight into political contests, Theodore Roosevelt fulminated against that “small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power.” Insisting that America must return to “an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him,” the Republican president called for government to regulate business, prohibit corporate funding of political campaigns, and impose income and inheritance taxes.

In the mid-20th century, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower recoiled from using American resources to build weapons alone, warning, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” He called for government funding for schools, power plants, roads and hospitals.

At these crucial moments, Republican leaders argued that economic opportunity is central to the American ideal and that government must enable all to rise. But each time the party has taken this stand, it has sparked a backlash from within, prompting the GOP to throw its support behind America’s wealthiest people and to blame those who fall behind for their own poverty.

How did the progressive Republican Party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower become the reactionary party of Ronald Reagan, the tea party and Paul Ryan?

There is nothing random about these ideological shifts. They reflect the party’s — and the nation’s — central unresolved problem: the tension between equality of opportunity and protection of private property.

This tension has driven American politics since the nation’s earliest days. The Declaration of Independence promised citizens equal access to economic opportunity. This was the powerful principle for which men were willing to fight the American Revolution, but it was never codified in law. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they assumed that the country’s vast resources would ensure equality of opportunity. Worried instead about stability, they enshrined in the Constitution another principle: that property rights must be protected.

Somehow, Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty has become a conversation piece among well-read people. Its graphic red-and-ivory cover is inescapable. Early in its launch, it hit No 1 on Amazon’s bestseller list and the paper version – a doorstop in punishing, heavy hardcover – sold out in major bookstores.

Piketty’s main argument is this: that invested capital – in the stock market, in real estate – will grow faster than income.

The implications of that are deep: to have invested capital, you must have money already. If you rely on income, as most people do, you will likely never catch up to the wealth of people who are already rich. The 1% and the 99% enshrined by Occupy are not an anomaly of our time, Piketty’s research suggests. It’s a structural feature of capitalism. Piketty’s work – which has been in progress for over a decade – is a natural pairing with the Occupy movement, which also questions the premises of capitalism.