You chase after the market (any market, not just the ONE i used, let go of that narrowly focused view for a minute) by making the US a more profitable place to do business (ie: lower taxes) not making it less profitable to do so.
It's really that simple. I know there are many that want to complicate the formula by plugging in thier bias but none of it is relevant.
Society invariably has economic winners and losers. That's as it should be. Otherwise we'd be sheep. It's the job of good governance to mitigate the tendency of this reality so that the gap isn't absurdly great. A libertarian would say that anything done to this end is inherently unfair to the individual whose resources are infringed on and a counter-incentive to achieve. A socialist would say that all people are entitled to a big enough slice of the pie so that they can live with a good measure of safety and comfort regardless of their circumstances. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle of those positions.
I think that what's going on right now, and is the source of a great deal of anger and resentment on all sides of the economic spectrum is that the wealthy are getting extraordinarily good at promoting the furtherance of this condition. There are parallels in the early industrial revolution where the Carnegies and Duponts of the world lived in an altogether different universe than the middle class. Look at the last recession. The banks got bailed out because they had overextended themselves because the laws created by other wealthy people allowed, even encouraged them to do so. The banks knew that they were driving over a cliff, but they also knew that their asses would be covered. Whereas the working class shmoes who overextended themselves and gorged on the easy credit had no such safety net (In fairness, some did get significant help in loan restructuring and such, but most did not). That's our age in a nutshell. I remember reading that for the amount spent bailing out the banks, the government could have bought out every residential mortgage in the country - causing an easier life for many millions for generations to come. But that's not the way that it works. The banks require our financial indenture for the furtherance of their economic vitality. So they got the money and we didn't. Such is life, and why class warfare is seeing a resurgence.
So I have no sympathy for the Finn in question. He was given a proportional penalty, which really burns him, because disproportionality is a fundamental building block of wealth.
Agreed that a balance is needed. Flat-tax anyone?
ebonyandivory wrote: You chase after the market (any market, not just the ONE i used, let go of that narrowly focused view for a minute) by making the US a more profitable place to do business (ie: lower taxes) not making it less profitable to do so. It's really that simple. I know there are many that want to complicate the formula by plugging in thier bias but none of it is relevant.
Is the fact that there's no relationship between low taxes and economic success relevant? Businesses aren't fleeing the US, UK and Canada for Luxembourg, Ireland and Somalia (outside the capital) in droves. They use tax shelters in such places but they don't move there. The US was very successful when they had New Deal-era policies in place.
I think it's because that there are places where it's nice to live and work and businesses want to set up there...until they starve the government of taxes for their own profits, then the place turns into a 3rd-world hellhole and they move on to some other place that's nice because they had higher taxes.
B. Choate wrote: Look at the last recession. The banks got bailed out because they had overextended themselves because the laws created by other wealthy people allowed, even encouraged them to do so. The banks knew that they were driving over a cliff, but they also knew that their asses would be covered. Whereas the working class shmoes who overextended themselves and gorged on the easy credit had no such safety net (In fairness, some did get significant help in loan restructuring and such, but most did not). That's our age in a nutshell. I remember reading that for the amount spent bailing out the banks, the government could have bought out every residential mortgage in the country - causing an easier life for many millions for generations to come.
There was much more to it than that. While subprime and crap mortgages were part of what was causing the banks to have issues, the fact that the banks were going to go under would have caused a much larger problem than just mortgage holders. The banks supply credit for businesses big and small and wihtout that, a HUGE number of busiesses woudl ahve failed, causing vastly more issues than a relatively small percentage of homeowners getting foreclosed upon. Originally the government wanted to let a few banks fail or go bankrupt, but that would have caused more problems than it solved. As a Libertarian, it pains me to see that was necessary, but it was.
ebonyandivory wrote: Agreed that a balance is needed. Flat-tax anyone?
Hahaha no, a flat tax is inherently regressive. Nice that it's so simple, but it amounts to a regressive tax - I'm sure you've seen this problem laid out before if you've researched the topic so I won't bore you with the details.
I've seen some attempts to correct this by combining it with a reverse-income tax, which would result in a simpler system with a tax curve similar to what we have today - and as I said before, I don't think letting the money collect in Swiss bank accounts and trying to eke out a living in the luxury goods market is working.
It'd be nice to continue but I don't see anyone getting swayed by the others arguments so it's a stalemate I suppose.
(Gotta got see if I can park my Ferarri on the deck of my yacht! Kidding, I'm a nurse employed by the state of Ma., definitely not rich!)
Nice debating you Gameboy, take care! (Seriously).
ebonyandivory wrote: Yacht production moved off-shore and we lost all those jobs and corporations and small businesses due to people's obsession with using taxes as punishment. Yes, the rich will buy thier luxury items no matter where they're built but that's the point, allow them, entice the companies to BUILD THEM HERE, by Americans.
My point is that there are two things going on here. There is ideology and there is reality. The reality is that everyone will act primarily in their own self-interest. Since wealth is self-generating, unrestrained capitalism results in a land of nobles and peasants. Conversely, unrestrained socialism (communism) results in Tyranny as well. It's the job of good governance to try and find the best balance between the two extremes.
The reason that I tend to sympathize with the lower classes (other than the fact that I fit that category) is the fact I mentioned above - that our period of time features an imbalance that benefits the rich. The biggest reason for this imbalance: globalism. Because people like the Finn are allowed to up and take their balls to a different field, they hold the upper hand in any negotiations. I don't have an answer. The cat's out of the bag. That's just the way it is.
edit: So what do you suppose that we do to entice the work back? Tax cuts? Roll back OSHA regulations? Direct subsidies? We can't compete on price alone with the Asians. It simply won't happen. So we have to do it better. Better technology. Better productivity. Better design.... But that requires a more educated workforce - which, ironically is best to be found in ostensibly socialist countries like Germany and...Finland. Funny how that plays out!
Some of the viewpoints on here severely disappoint me. 
Chances are, I'm with tuna/GPS/datsun on this one.
ebonyandivory wrote: Then you say jobs are created by "demand" while at the same time decrying the rich for creating the demand.
As a whole, the more money people make, the less of it they spend (contribute to the economy) as a percentage of their income. In other words, the less total demand they create...And thus the less total jobs required to meet said demand. Take 1000 people making 25k per year, 100 people making 250k per year, 10 people making 2.5M per year, and 1 person making 25M per year. That listing is simultaneously in increasing order of dollars contributed to the economy per person, AND decreasing order of total combined dollars contributed to the economy through demand for goods and services. While there are outlier exceptions to the rule, given enough time most peoples spending vs saving habits will tend to eventually self-correct their location in that list.
The contributions of high income individuals and corporations to the economy from employing others is also not directly related to their income or profits. The hiring and paying of employees is simply a necessary overhead cost of running the business. If they could make sufficient additional profit/income by firing everybody and becoming 100% automated, and they had enough working capital to do so, they would. Their hiring is not the result of any benevolence on their part to provide jobs for the economy, such that if they make more money they'll simply hire more people to do the same amount of total work. Rather they are inherently going to hire the fewest number of people to meet the demand for their good/service in order to maximize the profitability of the company. They'll only hire more people if they actually perceive the need to, as the result of demand growth.
Correspondingly, the taxation of high income individuals and corporations is also not directly related to hiring and firing. Again, any long-term successful business hires and fires primarily based on demand for their service/product and their ability to meet it profitably. If their profitability is sagging due to weak demand, lowering taxation will not promote hiring employees that they believe will not contribute to their profitability. They will however still generally find a way to hire employees that they believe will contribute to their profitability. If their profitability is booming due to strong demand, higher taxation will not inhibit hiring employees that they believe will contribute to their profitability. They will however still generally avoid hiring employees that they believe will not contribute to their profitability. Sometimes they will shift their practices too far one way or the other for a period of time, creating temporary exceptions to this general rule (primarily during the peaks of the booms and busts)...But this too inevitably self-corrects over time.
Even with a well designed (not ours) progressive tax structure, earning that next pre tax dollar will still always net an increased post tax income. There would never be a reason not to earn more.
This has nothing to do with good/bad, right/wrong, fair/unfair, or rewarding/penalizing...Just fundamental economic truths.
GameboyRMH wrote:ebonyandivory wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: You're again taking my one (fantastic) example and making it appear to be the ONLY one. My example is just a drop in the bucket compared to the to what has happened nationwide and you know that. Yet you try to deflate my argument by incorrectly applying the term cottage industry as if to assume this isn't an ENORMOUS problem.You're correct that they're going to buy their luxury items somewhere, and losing luxury goods manufacture could be a big problem. But why do you think it's so important to chase after the luxury goods market rather than fix the system so that there are way more jobs available than making shinies for the rich?
All those people the work on the "Shinies" for the luxury market have money to spend and put into the economy.
So while those cottage industries don't have a major impact on their own, keeping the workers employed has more positive effect on the economy than eliminating the industry and leaving workers unemployed with no income to put back into the economy.
As for the income based fine supporters, you seem to be in good company
:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." -Karl Marx
Karl Marx was right about a lot of things that are wrong with capitalism, even if he was wrong about the solution. Besides, an income-based fine is different from an ability-based fine.
GameboyRMH wrote: Besides, an income-based fine is different from an ability-based fine.
Really?
Isn't an income based fine related to the individuals ability to pay?
jstand wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: Besides, an income-based fine is different from an ability-based fine.Really? Isn't an income based fine related to the individuals ability to pay?
Yes, but that's not what Marx meant by "ability." Are you trying to make this idea look Marxist or not? 
yamaha wrote: Some of the viewpoints on here severely disappoint me.
You're disappointed that people have irreconcilably differing points of view from your own? With a two party system that naturally pushes BOTH sides to polarized extremism, creating two equal and opposite sides of the same coin minted from pure uncastrated male cattle manure, be prepared for a lifetime of disappointment...Unfortunately it's the majority of rational adults, who actually know they still have more common ground than not with each other, that are forcibly trapped in the crap between.
On the other hand, the fact that we can even have such wildly differing opinions and debate them with each other, is something that we should all take a moment to appreciate...Rather than trying to turn it into something derogatory. Life gets easier when we learn (and remind ourselves from time to time) how to embrace the fact that there can be no singular answer to any question of opinion.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
stepping back into this (scaling fines to income level)... if enforcement got to the point that I was just opening my wallet... I'd sell Surreptitious, and buy a Googlecar... and an 1/4 scale R/C Tiger tank and play with that
Driven5 wrote:yamaha wrote: Some of the viewpoints on here severely disappoint me.You're disappointed that people have irreconcilably differing points of view from your own? With a two party system that naturally pushes BOTH sides to polarized extremism, creating two equal and opposite sides of the same coin minted from pure uncastrated male cattle manure, be prepared for a lifetime of disappointment...Unfortunately it's the majority of rational adults, who actually know they still have more common ground than not with each other, that are forcibly trapped in the crap between. On the other hand, the fact that we can even have such wildly differing opinions and debate them with each other, is something that we should all take a moment to appreciate...Rather than trying to turn it into something derogatory. Life gets easier when we learn (and remind ourselves from time to time) how to embrace the fact that there can be no singular answer to any question of opinion. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Oh no, I agree with the right to say things I don't agree with....just as I have the right to say I disagree with them. It could just be some people are naive to what they think something is, but sometimes I'm not so sure if that is the case.
The thing that irks me, Socialism failed....period. The problem is that it is unsustainable without constant influx of new populace to siphon off of. A perfect example for this is this country's grand socialist experiment known as Social Security. Adding into that is what incentive is there for someone to do more than the person next to you? The greater good? HA! It stifles innovation and advancement. It is an idea that needs to be eliminated from consideration.
And I do identify with the "rational adults forcibly trapped between the crap" you mention. The sides are just highly vocal extremist minorities that drown out those who know better.
WOW! What a difference a morning makes...and I'm out.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: You guys are retarded. Traffic fines based on income? Really?
Technically speaking, you wouldn't get a ticket if you weren't breaking the law. Just sayin'
yamaha wrote: The thing that irks me, Socialism failed....period.
^I think you're using the American definition of socialism, which means liberal things you don't like - liberal things that have been working well for a long time in other countries.
yamaha wrote: Adding into that is what incentive is there for someone to do more than the person next to you? The greater good? HA! It stifles innovation and advancement. It is an idea that needs to be eliminated from consideration.
People compete all the time when their livelihood isn't at stake. In fact nobody's livelihood is at stake in the most productive and most spectacular competitions. How many great scientists or inventors were worried about putting food on the table when they made great breakthroughs? Pretty much none of them, because they would have been too busy just trying to survive - they need to be sitting idle in a cushy job at the Swiss patent office, or something along those lines.
B. Choate wrote: We can't compete on price alone with the Asians. It simply won't happen. So we have to do it better. Better technology. Better productivity. Better design.... But that requires a more educated workforce - which, ironically is best to be found in ostensibly socialist countries like Germany and...Finland. Funny how that plays out!
Bingo! We can't compete with cheap labor. We need innovation and ideas. Unfortunately we don't have the education for this so IMO it's not looking too good for the future.
Raise revenue, cut spending....I don't care. Just put money in education and the environment(off topic)...they are the two classes that can't fight for themselves. Screw the rest of the handouts .
As long as everyone has a fair chance at educating themselves they can figure it out from there....no need for government to do the decision making for them.
tuna55 wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: The guy in this story was making over $7m per year. That's 3-7 median American lifetime incomes...*per year.* To put this in perspective, if you make $50k per year that's like a $400 fine. A good bit but not going to kill you (even though you spend at least 1/3 of that money on basic survival stuff, rather than it being virtually all disposable income as it would be if you made $7m.) On the other hand, let's say he got a $1k fine and makes $7m per year. That's the equivalent of a $7 fine to the guy who makes $50k. That could easily go unnoticed. That's not a slap on the wrist, that's a fly landing on the wrist.I don't care. Not at all.
Agreed. So a dead family is worth $100 if a poor person kills them, and $100,000 if a rich person kills them? That makes no sense.
Sliding-scale fines aren't the solution to the problem of a system that lets somebody with 42 moving violations continue to hold a license, no matter what the income level. This was said above, but completely glossed over, because ranting against evil rich guys is way more satisfying to some people.
yamaha wrote: The thing that irks me, Socialism failed....period.
Do you actually believe that it is as black-and-white as this statement comes across? There are both successful and unsuccessful aspects of socialism, just as there are both successful and unsuccessful aspects of capitalism. Much of it comes down to the specific implementation, which logic would seem to dictate means attempting to incorporate the best aspects and practices of each into our less than ideal world. Rather than just blindly buying into the fundamentalist ideologies of any one system, even pure unregulated capitalism. Every system seems like it should work great on paper...But none yet have worked out nearly as well in reality.
As much as BOTH "sides" hypocritically try paint the other as extremists and put exaggerated words in their mouths that were never actually said, nor intended...In general and in this thread...A productive debate would simply be about what this looks like to each individual, and looking for common ground to start working from together. The politicians on both sides work together to do one thing well...Keep us divided and viewing our fellow countrymen as being our adversaries, instead of our brothers in arms.
Duke wrote: Agreed. So a dead family is worth $100 if a poor person kills them, and $100,000 if a rich person kills them? *That* makes no sense.
Precisely, not to mention that implementing a sliding scale could be seen as discriminatory towards those with more income.
In reply to Driven5:
Yes, it is that black and white to me. Socialism mixed with something else is no longer socialism, just something different. How Marx ever gained notoriety still baffles me.
In reply to Enyar:
Most of those higher education issues can be solved by curtailing excessive spending at public institutions instead of "socializing" them.
In reply to Driven5:
What do you think you will accomplish by trying to be reasonable?
This topic calls for pure, unadulterated opinions. Any rational argument will be ignored
Next thing someone will post is that we should enforce existing laws regardless of income before trying to create new laws that will also be ignored.
You'll need to log in to post.
