Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
|
Ah but see you stop short on my view.
Government helps Bob, Bob has more money, Bob goes to Joe and is able to buy more of Joe's products.
As for Joe helping Bob..... look at school funding, look at loans for college, look at the state colleges raising their tuitions (such as where I am attending U of Akron right around 10% a year for the past 3-4 years, that's more than inflation.) Look at the school levies that don't get passed because the people refuse to want to pay.
As for Bob helping himself, how? As aid decreases, tuitions increase plus books and wages aren't high enough to pay, I just don't see how Bob is going to help himself. Or what if Bob wants to open a restaurant but can't find private investors and needs that small business loan to make sure he can run the place until he starts getting money coming in?
I just don't see how you can justify Joe's taxes not helping Bob, but rather going to Merck, IBM, Motorola, and so on, to pay for their CEO's 3 houses and multimillion dollar salary, as they layoff 1000's of workers. Makes no sense whatsoever.
You might want to read the highlighted ATP section of my previous post and tell me how that is ok, but small business loans and education apparently are not worthy of our tax dollars.