|
Because, according to republicans, it's always a good time to lower taxes:
- In good economic times --> "We currently have a federal surplus. The government should reduce taxes to allow for more market freedom".
- In bad economic times --> "The economy is in shambles. Reducing the tax rate will encourage businesses to hire more."
Or, when there's a massive deficit: "But if we raise the tax rate, that will destroy american jobs and businesses!"
Anything that raises a tax rate is automatically bad. As crazy as it sounds, Republicans still think taxes are way too high.
|
On October 27 2011 02:36 Fiel wrote:Because, according to republicans, it's always a good time to lower taxes: - In good economic times --> "We currently have a federal surplus. The government should reduce taxes to allow for more market freedom". - In bad economic times --> "The economy is in shambles. Reducing the tax rate will encourage businesses to hire more." Or, when there's a massive deficit: "But if we raise the tax rate, that will destroy american jobs and businesses!" Anything that raises a tax rate is automatically bad. As crazy as it sounds, Republicans still think taxes are way too high.
Its both the democrats as republicans who lower taxes, dont listen to their words look at their deeds, someone posted this video i wanted to share it again, its more then ever so truth. too Bad James Goldsmith is dead
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5064665078176641728
|
i don't blame you for not knowing a lot of this information because you need to be in medical school until you truly understand why a doctor does the things he does. also, until you actually conduct a medical study, you wouldn't know the specific details behind corporate research. however, please don't state conclusions you make as fact. just because it makes logical sense to you doesn't mean that it is the truth. you just aren't able to see the whole picture.
I have a good friend who is a doctor and he fully agrees with me on these points. Maybe you just need to get real hospital experience like him instead of corporate sponsored med school?
He mentioned an example of a 1 Euro injection solution vs a 100 Euro injection solution, saying "They work equally well, the only reason why the 100 Euro vial is used is because it makes more money"
|
On October 27 2011 02:36 Fiel wrote:Because, according to republicans, it's always a good time to lower taxes: - In good economic times --> "We currently have a federal surplus. The government should reduce taxes to allow for more market freedom". - In bad economic times --> "The economy is in shambles. Reducing the tax rate will encourage businesses to hire more." Or, when there's a massive deficit: "But if we raise the tax rate, that will destroy american jobs and businesses!" Anything that raises a tax rate is automatically bad. As crazy as it sounds, Republicans still think taxes are way too high.
Hey, this guy gets it. But you're missing another rationale. Excessive government spending. We spend more than we take in. Let me quote Nobel prize-winning Milton Friedman here,
I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending. The question is, "How do you hold down government spending?" Government spending now amounts to close to 40% of national income not counting indirect spending through regulation and the like. If you include that, you get up to roughly half. The real danger we face is that number will creep up and up and up. The only effective way I think to hold it down, is to hold down the amount of income the government has. The way to do that is to cut taxes.
I'm not here to turn every #OccupyWallSt loving liberal into a conservative republican. I'm arguing for increased knowledge of why we make our stands. That won't dissuade all you thinking we don't have an economist leg to stand on. But maybe you'll stop and go, "I could see why you would think that."
Just wanted to interject that for clarity. Back on discussing the big problems of unemployment, high student debt, and how rich people impact an economy.
|
On October 27 2011 02:42 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +i don't blame you for not knowing a lot of this information because you need to be in medical school until you truly understand why a doctor does the things he does. also, until you actually conduct a medical study, you wouldn't know the specific details behind corporate research. however, please don't state conclusions you make as fact. just because it makes logical sense to you doesn't mean that it is the truth. you just aren't able to see the whole picture. I have a good friend who is a doctor and he fully agrees with me on these points. Maybe you just need to get real hospital experience like him instead of corporate sponsored med school? He mentioned an example of a 1 Euro injection solution vs a 100 Euro injection solution, saying "They work equally well, the only reason why the 100 Euro vial is used is because it makes more money"
What corporations sponsor what medical schools? Sorry, but this seems like more "occupy" non-sense to me because I wasn't aware corporations actually sponsor medical schools, but if you can provide some examples I'll admit I was wrong
EDIT: to make my views clear, I do agree that corporate sponsored research is heavily biased and focused on making money. I would also like to say I'm not going to throw a hissy fit about this and hold up picket signs, because I recognize a corporation's incentive to sell a product. This occupy movement is silly and has a message that's become so muddled in rhetoric it's completely unclear what solutions these people want to propose (not that they were attempting to offer any solutions in the first place)
|
On October 27 2011 02:36 Fiel wrote:Because, according to republicans, it's always a good time to lower taxes: - In good economic times --> "We currently have a federal surplus. The government should reduce taxes to allow for more market freedom". - In bad economic times --> "The economy is in shambles. Reducing the tax rate will encourage businesses to hire more." Or, when there's a massive deficit: "But if we raise the tax rate, that will destroy american jobs and businesses!" Anything that raises a tax rate is automatically bad. As crazy as it sounds, Republicans still think taxes are way too high.
It is worth noting that, while the top marginal rate might have been 70%, the effective rate was much lower than this.
|
On October 27 2011 02:51 Tewks44 wrote:
What corporations sponsor what medical schools? Sorry, but this seems like more "occupy" non-sense to me because I wasn't aware corporations actually sponsor medical schools, but if you can provide some examples I'll admit I was wrong
Erm, this is common practice? Take a look at this table here:
Source http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4696316
They all get money from corporations. Students are even given free text books and stuff in some cases (text books which most likely recommend the products of the corporation that is donating them...)
Edit: slightly more serious and exhaustive article here: Pharmaceutical Industry Financial Support for Medical Education: Benefit, or Undue Influence?
Edit2: from the second article In a survey of 1,143 students in their third year of training (the first year in which they spend almost all of their time in hospitals or clinics) at eight U.S. medical schools, 93 percent reported being asked or required by the physician in charge to attend a drug-company sponsored lunch at which a lecture was being given.
|
On October 27 2011 03:12 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 02:51 Tewks44 wrote:
What corporations sponsor what medical schools? Sorry, but this seems like more "occupy" non-sense to me because I wasn't aware corporations actually sponsor medical schools, but if you can provide some examples I'll admit I was wrong Erm, this is common practice? Take a look at this table here: Source http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4696316They all get money from corporations. Students are even given free text books and stuff in some cases (text books which most likely recommend the products of the corporation that is donating them...) Edit: slightly more serious and exhaustive article here: Pharmaceutical Industry Financial Support for Medical Education: Benefit, or Undue Influence?Edit2: from the second article Show nested quote + In a survey of 1,143 students in their third year of training (the first year in which they spend almost all of their time in hospitals or clinics) at eight U.S. medical schools, 93 percent reported being asked or required by the physician in charge to attend a drug-company sponsored lunch at which a lecture was being given.
well I admit I was wrong, although suggesting that the corporations "sponsor" the medical schools is a tad misleading in my opinion, considering the combined funds received from corporate institutions was not higher than 16% of the total cash inflows of any medical school school. I don't know if I agree with the ethics of this practice, and I would be foolish to say that the corporations were funding these schools out of the goodness of their heart, but I think it should be legal. The corporations are essentially buying advertisements, not forcing doctors to prescribe their products. However, I wouldn't be against a law that prohibited private institutions from funding educational institutions. However, I'm sure the educational institutions would be against such a law.
|
There is also an ethical problem of lecterns who are payed to sponsor some drugs, and not disclosing that before hand.
|
Time to tax the rich 45% for every dollar earned over 2 million with no tax shielding benefits allowed.
|
Time to tax the rich 45% for every dollar earned over 2 million with no tax shielding benefits allowed.
I don't feel like backsliding living standards to the 1930s so I think I'll pass on your incredibly bad idea.
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 27 2011 07:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Time to tax the rich 45% for every dollar earned over 2 million with no tax shielding benefits allowed. I don't feel like backsliding living standards to the 1930s so I think I'll pass on your incredibly bad idea.
Care to provide some context to this claim? Tax rates were much higher then that from 1940 until 1980 and our living standards only increased.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Educate yourself a little more. Nobody paid 70%.
When tax rates were lowered, many deductions and write offs were also eliminated with it.
Massive deficit is the result of massive spending. Cut down on the entitlement programs and wars.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On October 27 2011 02:16 Saji wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 01:57 PrideNeverDie wrote:On October 27 2011 01:01 Traeon wrote:1. Capital Incentive never retards creativity.
2. Markets never punish "useful" innovation.
Would you agree with those statements? I strongly disagree with these statements. The pharma industry shows how profit gets in the way of consumer interest, and how innovation of questionable value is actually the most profitable. It's more profitable to regularly create a new and patentable drug because that allows the company to ask 10x the price of a generic drug. This new drug doesn't have to better than alternatives (and often isn't. New drugs also are always more risky than older ones because it takes decades for the full spectrum of side effects and interactions to become known). Why this works? Lots of money sunk into marketing and "education". Don't get me started on research being heavily focused on treatment rather than finding real cures (hint: lifetime treatment of patients is profitable, a quick cure isn't) So yea, privatization is failing horribly in medical research imo. actually, it isn't always more profitable to regularly create a new and patentable drug. even if the new drug has shown improvement in treatments over an old generic drug, the company has to convince doctors and insurance companies that it is worth the extra cost to the patient. this is why so much money is spent on pharm reps. those ads in tv/magazines are trying to get the patients on the side of pharma to convince their doctors to prescribe the new drugs. an example of this: a doctor treating a patient who has a very limited insurance plan or no insurance at all will not prescribe the latest psychiatric medication. the doctor's responsibility is to factor in the patient's economic situation to formulate the best treatment plan for that particular individual. the doctor would prescribe the generic. even if the doctor wanted to prescribe the latest psychiatric medication, the patient's insurance would deny the medication until it is proven that the generic medications do not work. the insurance company wants their patient to use the least expensive medication so that their costs are as little as possible. there is no elaborate conspiracy between the pharmaceutical company, health insurance, and the doctor to screw the patient out of as much money as possible. the truth is that all 3 of the parties mentioned have conflicting interests: the doctor wants the best possible treatment for his patient, the pharmaceutical company wants the patient to buy the most expensive medication to increase their profit, and the health insurance wants the patient to buy the least expensive generic to lower the amount the health insurance needs to spend. the research being heavily focused on treatment is due to the fact that it is much easier to quantify. when doing scientific studies, it is much more cost-effective to look at the symptoms than take tissue samples of the diseased organs in patients. we do not have enough knowledge and control over the human body to be able to pinpoint exact causes of pathological conditions and cure them outright. a lot of medicine is looking at a variety of general clues and putting them together like a puzzle to figure out the disease. in fact, the reason why American healthcare is so expensive is because of the demand of the patient to find out exactly what is wrong with them or they will sue. American patients get more MRIs and CTs done than any other country in the world and this is because if they didn't the doctor could possibly lose his license in a medical malpractice suit. until we can easily remove tissue samples from any part of the human body, doctors rely on looking at blurry pictures of general regions of the body to decide the disease present. also, a lot of times there isn't a short-term cure available. most patients do not approach a doctor until their condition is so severe it impedes their life. imagine the uproar caused if a patient with kidney stones came to a doctor and the doctor told him to go home and let it pass without prescribing him anything. people are always complaining about doctors overprescribing medication in order to create patient addiction, but the second they are the ones in pain the doctor can't prescribe them enough painkillers. it is a lose-lose situation for the doctor and no matter what the doctor does he or she will be badmouthed on the internet. actually privatization has improved medical research tremendously. if you search my post history, you can read my post outlining why corporate research is a lot better than government research. private corporations actually conduct much better studies than governments because it is in their best interest to have evidence that their medication works without question. i also outline the ways corporations tinker with the studies, so don't write off my post as corporation favored. i don't blame you for not knowing a lot of this information because you need to be in medical school until you truly understand why a doctor does the things he does. also, until you actually conduct a medical study, you wouldn't know the specific details behind corporate research. however, please don't state conclusions you make as fact. just because it makes logical sense to you doesn't mean that it is the truth. you just aren't able to see the whole picture. LoL Pharma Propaganda at its best.
When you don't understand the issues and the argument this is the best you can come up with?
|
On October 27 2011 00:43 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2011 12:27 Kiarip wrote:On October 25 2011 12:25 AttackZerg wrote:On October 25 2011 12:05 Dapper_Cad wrote:On October 25 2011 11:31 Kiarip wrote:On October 25 2011 10:59 Dapper_Cad wrote:On October 25 2011 04:30 Kiarip wrote:On October 25 2011 04:06 DrainX wrote:On October 25 2011 03:56 Kiarip wrote:On October 25 2011 03:50 DrainX wrote:
[quote]
And by redistributing stuff and reducing inequality, more people can have more stuff while a few at the top will have less. The problem isn't that the top 1% have more than the rest. That is true with every distribution by definition unless it is completely even which no one is advocating. The problem is the inequality.
There is enough resources to go around for everyone multiple times and still we force the people at the bottom to fight for scraps for no reason. Ok, but I guess we disagree about why the disparity occurs then, because I believe it occurs when the government is being bought by corporations to create regulations which make their competitors irrelevant, allowing them to raise the prices and lower the quality of their products without losing their customer-base. Well. If you look at Scandinavian countries that have high taxes and a big social safety net, free education and free healthcare, they are usually more equal than countries with low taxes[1]. The amount of redistribution doesn't have to correlate with the amount of corporate influence over policy. I think that capitalism in its nature creates inequality but I agree that an inefficient corrupt state which is being controlled by corporations can make it even worse. Not all regulation, not all social policy and not all forms of taxation and redistribution is bad though. If it is done the right way it can be used to soften the destructive force of capitalism instead of increasing it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index You guys have high taxes but very small amount of government interference in the market,which is good, but I'm not sure how that could be achieved in the US. I agree that capitalism creates inequality, but I also think that on a whole real capitalism uplifts the standard of living. In true free market innovators can be reworded immensely, but they are only rewarded by the customers' money, which means that the customers were willing to buy their product, so when someone creates a product that everyone wants, yes he can be come absurdly rich from it, but overall the society has become wealthier, because now the people can get this new thing that they couldn't get before, and if that thing makes some items obsolete, then the prices on them drops and more people can afford those if the new one is too expensive, so on a whole more people get access to more stuff. You're making two large assumptions which are often made by people who argue for free markets. 1. That people are only creative in order to aquire more capital. 2. That innovation is always rewarded in a capitalist system. Both of these assumptions might be correct, but they are assumptions and it would behove any armchair philosopher to recognise that. My own view is that they are over simplifications which are partially correct. Replace "only" and "always" with "sometimes" and the questions that arise are interesting. I don't think that those 2 assumptions need to be true. If you replace only, and always with sometimes, free market argument still holds. If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive? When large companies use money to stifle innovation in order to maintain a profitable situation that is harmful to the planet and hurting developing nations, Example Gas vs Green Energies. and they do this with the help of government regulation, so obviously this isn't an example of a free market being counter-productive. If the free market argument is that markets are sometimes useful and sometimes they aren't then yes. Where do you see markets being counter productive? I don't. I'm not saying that markets are only sometimes useful, I'm saying that yes: 1) People are not ONLY creative in pursuit of capital and 2) Innovation isn't ALWAYS rewarded in a capitalist society. But those two things don't take away anything from capitalism. People aren't going to all of a sudden be more innovative for the sake of things other capital, if capitalism is removed, but there will be less people that are trying to be innovative for the sake of capital, and yes not all innovation gets rewarded in a capitalist society, only the useful ones do. In addition, sometimes people can be cheated out of their reward (even without anything illegal happening,) but this is also just as likely in a non-capitalism society. So while you accept that people are creative for reasons other than capital you still believe that markets can never be counter productive. I guess that means that markets either have no effect or help creativity. For the second point you kind of side stepped, you accepted that innovation isn't always rewarded in a capitalist society but that useful innovation is always rewarded. I see that as pretty much exactly the same as "Innovation is always rewarded in a capitalist society" as "useless" innovation is... well useless. Perhaps I can make my statements a little less prone to humming and haaing. And perhaps in the process make them a little bit more representative of the free market view. 1. Capital Incentive never retards creativity. 2. Markets never punish "useful" innovation. Would you agree with those statements?
When government is kept out of it, barring people simply making gross management mistakes, I would say so.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On October 26 2011 23:48 NoobieOne wrote:
Okay hear me out. One of the complaints against the protests even here is that it is anti-capitalist. Now I want you all to think, our system of capitalism no longer works. In order for capitalism to succeed for the common worker there must be more jobs than there are people to fill them. That way whatever company pays more will get the better quality workers. With there being more workers looking for jobs than jobs itself capitalism dictates that the companies shouldn't raise wages due to the ability to keep paying their employes the same since they can't get jobs elsewhere. This means more profit for the big business and less for the common worker because prices of items are still going up with inflation.
So no, I do not want to hear this is anticapitalist as an excuse. Capitalism isn't working the way that its supposed to right now so the system MUST be changed some way. I am not saying to go to a communist or socialist system but pure capitalism is not viable inside our current economic system.
PLEASE tell me why moving away from the capitalism ideas is a bad thing because right now I feel that capitalism is the core of the problem and don't just quote something you heard on the news, think for yourself.
Capitalism has given America the greatest economic surge in the history of mankind between 1947-2000. Which other economy in the world was competing with America back then? Japan, Germany, just a handful.
Now the rest of the 3rd world countries with starving populations are catching up and fighting for the jobs that capitalism is providing. Capitalism is lifting 30 million people in India every year into the middle class.
American workers don't realize they aren't as valuable as they think they are compared to their global counterpart.
|
Care to provide some context to this claim? Tax rates were much higher then that from 1940 until 1980 and our living standards only increased.
Sure.
First of all, our standard of living increased from 1945 to approximately 1958 because of two factors:
1. The people had had a large savings rate during the war and had lots of saved-up disposable income.
2. The United States was the only industrialized country in the world that not had its industrial base substantially destroyed.
These two factors combined to make the perfect consumerist boom.
In 1958-1960 there was a recession that partly helped Kennedy win the 1960 contest (along with massive - tens of thousands of fake votes at the least - vote fraud in Texas and Illinois, but that's beside the point).
Kennedy cut taxes and the economy improved. Johnson raised taxes and entitlement spending and regulation and Nixon added more entitlements and regulation. The result? The stagflation of the mid-late 1970s that resulted in Ronald Reagan and his sensible tax-cut (the amount of taxes he "raised" from 1981-1989 doesn't even come close to how much he cut in 1981 alone), monetary and regulatory policies caused the biggest jobs boom since just after the war, 17 million jobs from 1983-1989.
High taxes retarded the economic growth of 1940 to the mid-1970s; it would have been even better without them. And government heavy-handedness culminated in the economic misery of Jimmy Carter.
Raise taxes to 45% on every dollar above 2 million in yearly income and capital would flee this country faster than almost everyone in Europe did from Attila the Hun. Capital in massive numbers would go to other countries with lower tax rates and the American economy would simply collapse.
You can't just imagine that you can take huge amounts of capital out of the market with no effect. Confiscatory tax rates have a double whammy - first what the government takes and then misallocates, and then second all the other the money that is sent to Europe or Asia or India or Africa because the governments there won't take so much.
Raising taxes on personal income to that rate would make such a small difference in the deficit anyway that the damage would far outweigh any benefits.
The only way to fix the debt at current spending rates is to raise taxes on everyone making more than the poverty level a year - middle-class and rich alike. This is an unacceptable solution, so people will continue to push the fantasy that we can fix the problem simply by soaking the rich.
It doesn't work. The rich don't have enough to be soaked, they only get soaked for a short time before they move their money to a place where the government can't get at it, and you end up fiscally and economically worse than you did before.
The State of California is a perfect example of what the soak-the-rich attitude results in when implemented as policy. Capital - and people - have been leaving California for years. The government's finances are fucked up almost beyond repair. The economy is in a shambles. The standard of living has fallen for everyone but the super-rich. The state of New York and the State of Illinois are less extreme examples.
Saying we'd go back to the 1930s was a little bit of hyperbole, but we've tried at the state level what you are suggesting we do at the national level, and it has been disastrous.
|
On October 27 2011 07:59 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 23:48 NoobieOne wrote:
Okay hear me out. One of the complaints against the protests even here is that it is anti-capitalist. Now I want you all to think, our system of capitalism no longer works. In order for capitalism to succeed for the common worker there must be more jobs than there are people to fill them. That way whatever company pays more will get the better quality workers. With there being more workers looking for jobs than jobs itself capitalism dictates that the companies shouldn't raise wages due to the ability to keep paying their employes the same since they can't get jobs elsewhere. This means more profit for the big business and less for the common worker because prices of items are still going up with inflation.
So no, I do not want to hear this is anticapitalist as an excuse. Capitalism isn't working the way that its supposed to right now so the system MUST be changed some way. I am not saying to go to a communist or socialist system but pure capitalism is not viable inside our current economic system.
PLEASE tell me why moving away from the capitalism ideas is a bad thing because right now I feel that capitalism is the core of the problem and don't just quote something you heard on the news, think for yourself. Capitalism has given America the greatest economic surge in the history of mankind between 1947-2000. Which other economy in the world was competing with America back then? Japan, Germany, just a handful. Now the rest of the 3rd world countries with starving populations are catching up and fighting for the jobs that capitalism is providing. Capitalism is lifting 30 million people in India every year into the middle class. American workers don't realize they aren't as valuable as they think they are compared to their global counterpart.
The problem is not capitalism per se. The main problem of the USA lies in the fact that they import more than they export and the worst part of it is that they're actually importing their own products because of most of the manufacturing moving abroad.
You can't have a healthy economy this way.
Edit: Bonus, some scary numbers concerning USA:
Public debt $14.72 trillion (Sep 2011) 98% of GDP
Gross external debt $14.39 trillion (30 Sept 2010)
Revenues $2.162 trillion (2010)
Expenses $3.456 trillion (2010)
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Capitalism is the reason why they were able to collect 2.1+ Trillion in taxes in the 1st place.
Entitlement programs / wars / government bureaucracy is draining America's wealth away.
|
What is with everyone saying that "the problem" is with the output (ie. that you're spending too much). Sure, that might be true. That doesn't mean there can't be a problem at the other end as well. It's by far the worst rebuttal of raising taxes one can come up with yet it's regurgitated like it's some kind of golden answer. It's a great way to avoid a debate, and to not have to formulate real arguments, but then again, what are you doing in this thread?
Edit: And as far as my personal opinion on these matters go. Taxes are awesome. I love Sweden and the Swedish system. Did I mention we're doing incredibly well? We're doing incredibly well. In pretty much all measureable areas. But you go ahead and cut spending and don't raise taxes. (You probably need to do both, I'd start by throwing the military away)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
