Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

aceventura3 · 02-01-2006, 04:18 PM

Pan,

I try not to get lost in the detail you provide, I don't ignore it.

However, corporations are taxed and then shareholders are taxed on the same income. Not fair in my opinion.

The Fortune 500 is not fixed. With some exceptions the companies appearing today will not be on the list in 10 years. Companies on the decline will pay less in taxes or no taxes as profitability suffers or they start loosing money. New growing, highly profitable companies (i.e. GOOGLE) will pay higher taxes because of growth. Kinda like the cycle of life.

I agree some companies have received benefits from government. However, my point is that government does not create wealth.

For the government to give it has to take.
For the government to give it has to take.
For the government to give it has to take.

In your view it is o.k. for the government to take from 'Joe' and give to 'Bob', in my view it is not. Bob certainly benefited, but Joe got hurt. There is no net change in wealth. Odds are there is a net loss in wealth to cover government overhead.

Certainly you can argue that the government can give Bob money to invest in Bob's education to make him more productive thereby making Bob wealthier. But what happened to Joe? Now he has less to invest in his own productivity. It is always more efficient for Bob to invest in his own productivity or receive an investment direct form Joe.

You don't think Joe would help Bob unless forced. I disagree.
You don't think Bob would help himself unless given a benefit from government. I disagree.

02-01-2006, 04:18 PM	#56 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Pan, I try not to get lost in the detail you provide, I don't ignore it. However, corporations are taxed and then shareholders are taxed on the same income. Not fair in my opinion. The Fortune 500 is not fixed. With some exceptions the companies appearing today will not be on the list in 10 years. Companies on the decline will pay less in taxes or no taxes as profitability suffers or they start loosing money. New growing, highly profitable companies (i.e. GOOGLE) will pay higher taxes because of growth. Kinda like the cycle of life. I agree some companies have received benefits from government. However, my point is that government does not create wealth. For the government to give it has to take. For the government to give it has to take. For the government to give it has to take. In your view it is o.k. for the government to take from 'Joe' and give to 'Bob', in my view it is not. Bob certainly benefited, but Joe got hurt. There is no net change in wealth. Odds are there is a net loss in wealth to cover government overhead. Certainly you can argue that the government can give Bob money to invest in Bob's education to make him more productive thereby making Bob wealthier. But what happened to Joe? Now he has less to invest in his own productivity. It is always more efficient for Bob to invest in his own productivity or receive an investment direct form Joe. You don't think Joe would help Bob unless forced. I disagree. You don't think Bob would help himself unless given a benefit from government. I disagree. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."