Well... His legs don't work, that's kinda... Whatever it's called, gas!
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Meh! I skimmed and thought they were striking down gerrymandering. That's what I get for reading while trying to cook dinner.
I was going to post about that in the "made a mistake" thread but figured it was a bit much.
--Patrick
Since they held up the last 2, I really don't think so. Especially since they were 8 to 1. Even Thomas found his spine.
If you're right, that'd be a great thing for the country. I'm not so optimistic.
Well, they might consider supporting strong candidates that actually live within the districts they are trying to represent (speaking of the Georgia rep).
The way they went about this, threw tens of millions of dollars away and still lost must be heartbreaking. There are a lot of lessons to be learned, though, lessons which it seems the democratic party is determined never to understand.
/but that's none of my business
edit: strikethrough after blotsfan's correction below
The way they went about this
/but that's none of my business
edit: strikethrough after blotsfan's correction below
Last edited:
Various articles suggest the numbers may differ based on what exactly you're counting. Campaign funding is only one small part of the total cost of the election, which some are valuing at over 50 million now.
I'm not investigating further, though, so I've struck out the bit in my post so as not to mislead with information I haven't verified myself (ie, I'm just parroting others with that claim), but it would be interesting to see a more complete picture of total spending on that race, whether from campaigns or special interest groups.
I was under the impression that the tax burden was most felt by small and medium businesses, which may not have access to all the loopholes. This graphic seems to lump together a 2-person LLC and Apple.Presented without comment... at least not from me. I'm just going to sit back and.
You think the person who made it cares?
"Why are businesses demanding tax reform?"
-> Duurrrrr. Because they can. Why wouldn't you lobby for your own benefit?
Yes, there are very rich people in favor of taxing the rich, and all that, but it's a minority. Corporations don't have ethics, they only have a bottom line. Caring about the ethical and socially valuable stuff is politics, not economy. Unions (in Belgium) are advocating for shorter work weeks and more free time. The work week has never been shorter and we've never had more free time, but that doesn't stop them from defending the working man's interests as they perceive them, either. In both cases, the actual best thing might *not* be to get their wish (5 hour work weeks for full pay -> all companies go abroad or fold -> no more income; no more corporate taxes -> higher personal taxes -> either too poor consumers or not enough infrastructure to work in), but they're bound to "pull" that way with other forces working as a counterbalance.
Other than that, the difference between the statutory rate and what's actually paid exists everywhere, not just in the USA. Statutory rate in Belgium is 25%, but small corporations pay on average around 18% and multinationals around 11%, with some of thge really big ones paying less than 5%.
-> Duurrrrr. Because they can. Why wouldn't you lobby for your own benefit?
Yes, there are very rich people in favor of taxing the rich, and all that, but it's a minority. Corporations don't have ethics, they only have a bottom line. Caring about the ethical and socially valuable stuff is politics, not economy. Unions (in Belgium) are advocating for shorter work weeks and more free time. The work week has never been shorter and we've never had more free time, but that doesn't stop them from defending the working man's interests as they perceive them, either. In both cases, the actual best thing might *not* be to get their wish (5 hour work weeks for full pay -> all companies go abroad or fold -> no more income; no more corporate taxes -> higher personal taxes -> either too poor consumers or not enough infrastructure to work in), but they're bound to "pull" that way with other forces working as a counterbalance.
Other than that, the difference between the statutory rate and what's actually paid exists everywhere, not just in the USA. Statutory rate in Belgium is 25%, but small corporations pay on average around 18% and multinationals around 11%, with some of thge really big ones paying less than 5%.
Also, how is the average done? If you have 5 2-person LLCs and Apple, and the 2-person ones are paying 5% each, and Apple is paying 10% (it's more likely the other way, but go with it), is the "average" tax rate 5.8% or is it virtually 10% since apple is paying FAR more tax because of their higher income?
It's a quick chart that tells almost nothing.
Now can there be severe problems with corporations in general, as well as taxation? Hell yes! But these series of charts are just terrible.
It's a quick chart that tells almost nothing.
Now can there be severe problems with corporations in general, as well as taxation? Hell yes! But these series of charts are just terrible.
The chart seems to be a %-of-GDP chart, so the latter.
Would be good to have some insight into federal vs local taxes as well. Many corporations get tax cuts in order to convince them to relocate to an area where the economic benefit (workers, local industry, etc) is determined to more than replace the corporate tax cut.
In such a case the local community benefits more by the company receiving a lower tax rate, without which that community government would have an overall lower tax base, lower taxes per person, and thus lower ability to meet their constituent's needs.
Further, a lot of corporations receive tax cuts based on donations of time, money, or other resources to the community and non profit foundations. These can be abused, of course, as most things can, but the benefits are designed to outweigh the tax reduction in terms of improving the community.
Consider Bill Gate's anti-malaria foundation - can anyone with certainty say that the US government would put that money to better use than his foundation has?
It's far too complex to sum up in a single infographic, and increasing corporate taxes may not actually improve lives.
In such a case the local community benefits more by the company receiving a lower tax rate, without which that community government would have an overall lower tax base, lower taxes per person, and thus lower ability to meet their constituent's needs.
Further, a lot of corporations receive tax cuts based on donations of time, money, or other resources to the community and non profit foundations. These can be abused, of course, as most things can, but the benefits are designed to outweigh the tax reduction in terms of improving the community.
Consider Bill Gate's anti-malaria foundation - can anyone with certainty say that the US government would put that money to better use than his foundation has?
It's far too complex to sum up in a single infographic, and increasing corporate taxes may not actually improve lives.
So what do you think is the solution? The corporate profits have skyrocketed while the taxes charged to corporations has gone down, at the same time the tax burden has shifted to individual people. What do you propose to help balance this out?
This reminds me of the preroll YouTube video I can't seem to get away from right now, the one about Transparency. The video leans hard on how it would be a "violation of personal privacy" but completely fails to mention or even hint at the interaction with Citizens United, i.e., Transparency also tells you whether you are opposed by a million people or by two corporations.Presented without comment... at least not from me. I'm just going to sit back and
--Patrick
Balance what out? You're asking leading questions, assuming there's a problem. Take, for example, that the individual is still paying less taxes than we were decades ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html
The taxes only need to go up if we decide to have the government provide more services.
In an ideal situation, over time, the government would become more and more efficient at delivering the same services, and would then expand services without increasing taxes, just as most companies do - you don't raise the price of product due to inflation, you figure out how to deliver better products at a lower cost and keep the price the same.
Why this insistence that the government needs more money? Why this insistence that the corporations must provide it?
I don't buy your assertion that the federal tax burden has been shifted to the public, but I suppose if it has it's largely due to programs like the ACA which specifically target the individual, given that overall the individual tax burden has fallen.
GasBandit
Staff member
Whoa whoa whoa... such LANGUAGE in the political thread! Maybe it's best you take a step back and cool off, mister. I can't remember the last time I've read words laced with such venom! What would the versions of us of 10 or 12 years ago have thought?!
Your ideas are bad and you're a bad person for having them.
GasBandit
Staff member
I would just like to go on record as being 100% in favor of finding some way of encouraging the government to embrace the concept of "thrift."
--Patrick
While that idea is good in a vacuum, the reality is that we, as a society, have accepted that we want the government to spend money employing people just for the sake of increasing employment. It used to be that the government paid competitive wages for work that couldn't be done any more cheaply, and thus provided employment, but now there are pork barrel projects where congress passes out money for programs to be implemented in states that could be done cheaply and quickly by computer, but are specifically earmarked to create jobs. My brother worked for one such facility where employees were paid to print data from one database, pass it to another worker who would then type it in by hand into another database. He indicated to his supervisor that he could write a script that would do the transfer in minutes that it takes a week for the entire floor of data entry specialists to do by hand, and was told very sternly that the point wasn't to transfer the data, it was to employ people, and they'd fire him before they fired any of the workers if he took his idea any further up the chain. I'm sure the company running the operation made bank, though, and at a huge taxpayer cost (not to mention it took forever to process government data that others in the economy are waiting for), but who's going to fire 60+ workers who really have few other options to support themselves and their families?
I don't think there's a good answer for that problem any more than there's a good answer for the tax balance question Krisken raised, nor the problems raised by the ACA. It's often a zero sum game, and if one group wins it appears the other must lose, and there's no real win-win situation.
I suspect the above pork barrel problem can only be solved with a basic universal income that recognizes that some members of society can't support themselves in our current societal configuration. I'm not a big fan of that, though, because I'm a believer that people need something to do, to "fight for" and usually that's supporting themselves. Without that, and with their basic needs taken care of, some will find other things to struggle for, and those things may have a negative impact on others. The struggle isn't just real, it's developmentally important.
But I'm no psychologist, I could be completely off the rails. Hard work is something I've been raised with, and perhaps humanity can rise above it.
This reminded me of this story: The Indexer
It's actually quite a depressing read. How many people like this exist out there, but at least are employed?
I will never be able to see that as anything other than Sigourney Weaver playing the part of Jane Fonda playing the part of Gwen DeMarco.
As far as "giving money to the government" goes, I am supposedly giving my money to the government under the assumption that the government is going to put it to better use than I would as an individual. It doesn't really matter whether I agree with the government or not, what matters is that the pooled resource drawn from many is supposed to effect advancement of the Greater Good better than what I could do on my own, otherwise what purpose is there having a government in the first place? (Yes, Gas, we know. Calm down.) Hence my above statement on wanting whomever (be they individual OR organization) is in charge of my donations (be they voluntary OR forced) to prioritize maximizing the benefit derived from my (our) contributions.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
I think it would be better if the porkbarrel work was at least productive, even if not necessary.
I mean, rather than moving data around, they ought to be moving dirt. We'd get such lovely public parks!
Lewis Black has already spoken to that.
...you probably shouldn't listen to it while at work.
--Patrick