How is it that a rising market raises all boats when most corporations pay no taxes?

How can that be? If most corporations pay no taxes....??? Who's filling the pond with water?

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080812/NEWS07/808120358

 

The poor. The poor will always be over taxed if they are forced to pay regressive taxations.

 

Corporations pay payroll taxes, your employer pays what you pay. Quarterly.

Corporations pay real estate taxes, even if they lease its the lease payments that cover the taxes.

Corporations pay sales taxes , on everything they buy, there is no cash purchase when you are a corporation.

Corporations pay all sorts of fees to our goverments, in NYC they pay a tax on the value of thier lease. They pay vehicle taxes, license fees, utilities taxes, you name it.

Corporations do not get to vote.

Corporations do not exist to pay tax. We want corporations to provide more domestic employment. We do not want to drive them away.

If voters want conciere goverment, let them pay for it.

Our problem is not lack of revenue, it is run away spending, that is the real conversation.

 

They don't have to their high paid lobbyists accomplish a lot more than the single vote a taxpayer casts.

All those other expenses you mention, the taxpayer also pays through matching payroll deductions, lease/mortgages, realestate taxes, inflated prices on goods, and sales tax, who reaps the larger benefit?

 

Most of those are state taxes, not federal taxes. Also corporations don't need to vote - they just rig the elections or bribe the politicians.

 

The corporations control the politicians who are all bought and paid off. The corporations run the government. Of course they're not paying taxes. The only thing that surprises me is that the official number is 2/3, when I thought it would be much higher.

 

Rat

But your solution to this crazy situation is to hand even more power and influence over to the wealth based elites and corporations.

Attacking what is wrong is fair enough but how is making a bad situation far worse in anyway a help?

 

This is a common thread throughout history the powerful seek concessions be it the nobility, the patricians, the church, merchants, trade guilds and corporations all would try and gain some advantage of the powers that (supposedly) ruled over them. So a weak king or parliament might allow lords to pay less or no tax on this or that and it is how many medieval monasteries could become virtually separate states with a state.

This more often than not pushed the tax burden onto the lower classes.

Supposedly in a democracy the power of the powerful few is supposed to be balanced by the power of the many, the ability of the common people to elect governments that can challenge the interests of wealth.

Here are a few musings

Many believe that this balance is out of kilter in many places around the world because wealth has been assaulting the very idea of government, claiming it is not any good as a means of managing affairs and should be replaced with the notion of the market. So there were calls for ‘small’ (weak) governments, with few powers of regulation or oversight. At the same time in the US there has been a very successful campaign against left wing ideas and a disproportionate emphasis on ‘cultural’ problems over other issues.

At the same time the players of wealth have become global while the power of a democratic nation state’s electoral wishes remain limited to the country in which they are a voting citizen.

**

I found it strange that Chris Edwards of the Cato institute comments on it since as far as I know Cato wants to get rid of corporation tax in favour of consumption and flat taxes that would let the corporations off lightly.
But then this is a quote on Cato’s website under their ‘praise for’ section from the Gannett News Service the corporation that owns the Detroit Free Press - "The Cato Institute is one of the most effective at lobbying the media on behalf of 'traditional American principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.'”

 

Corporation don't pay any taxes at all. They just drive up the cost of their products to offset the cost of the taxes they have to pay.

 

Why do you keep repeating this as if it's true? That is not my solution, and I don't know why you are so adamant on constantly saying that it is. You think more government means less corruption? No, more government means less accountability and more corruption. Big government is simply more control by the corporations over the people, until you have a corporate-fascist state such as we have today. When you have politicians that are paid off by the private corporations, they are going to be doing whatever is best for the corporations -- not the people. Yet you think more bureaucracy is the answer?

 

Oh come on Rat, a nice line in righteous indignation but it doesn’t quite wash.

You have been given every opportunity to address the charges levelled at you but you continually refuse to do so.

All you do is say it isn’t true but why it isn’t true, when every indication it is true, you seem unwilling or unable to explain.

The last time was only a few days ago – here -

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=4575889&postcount=63

in the thread on ‘One World Government’
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=4575889#post4575889

Did you refute what I’d said?

Did you hell! You just did exactly what I said you would you ran away –

“But the thing is you’ve been promoting the same shit for years and time and again I’ve asked you to explain why you promote things that you seem unable to defend and that would only help the wealthy elites but you refuse and instead just keep promoting the pro-wealth line under the ludicrous disguise of being anti-wealth”

Yep you just go off and carry on the same pro-wealth mantras.

**


You think more government means less corruption?

Governments can come in all shapes and sizes, from absolute tyranny to participatory democracy, which one are you talking about?

Governments can be corrupt or not corrupt, I would want an incorrupt government subject to the will of the people through elections, what do you want?

**

more government means less accountability and more corruption.

More of what government are you talking about and why does it have to be less accountable? And as far as I can tell your solution seems to be to weaken the only democratic part in the system therefore increasing the power of wealth.

**

Big government is simply more control by the corporations over the people, until you have a corporate-fascist state such as we have today.

Can you please explain why weakening a democratic government’s powers so that it couldn’t in any way regulate or put a check on the power and influence of wealth, would somehow decrease the power of wealth?

I’ve asked you this many times in the last few years and you still don’t seem to know.

But you keep pushing for it like you were being paid to do so.

**

When you have politicians that are paid off by the private corporations, they are going to be doing whatever is best for the corporations -- not the people. Yet you think more bureaucracy is the answer?

Where does bureaucracy come into it?

The only reason why you seem to mention it is that it is a ‘hot’ key word recognised by right wing political pundits (are you getting advise on what wording to use?).

It was discovered that people don’t like the idea of ‘bureaucracy’ (often called red tape) until the implications are explained and then very often the exact same people want the ‘bureaucracy’ if it means they have to wait longer for some service and they even demand it if the ‘bureaucracy’ involves stopping them from becoming ill or dying.

But you see if right wing pundits want to attack decent and sensible regulations or laws they dub such things ‘bureaucracy’. We all know the kind of thing – ‘the banks shouldn’t be hampered by all these layers of bureaucracy’ or ‘US companies have to be competitive but are held back by all the red tape”.

In this case the ‘more bureaucracy’ being talked about here seems to be laws and regulations to stop the corporations and the wealthy having too much influence on politicians.

If so Yes I would want such ‘bureaucracy’, why wouldn’t you want such regulations or laws?

 

Corporations in and of themselves are not the source of the problem. Corporatism -- which is the merger of the corporation and the state -- is, because the government is simply an arm of the corporations. Why do you think so much of the people's tax money goes to propping up these multinational corporations? The reason the corporations are out of control is because they have taken over the government and the so-called "democratic process." So any talk of laws and regulations limiting corporate power (under the current power structure) is completely invalid, because corporations (acting through the government) are not going to pass laws and regulations limiting their own power. They are only going to use the government, which they control via the politicians, to increase the scope of their power. If the power of government was limited, that would greatly limit the power of the corporations over the people. This would explain why, as governments become bigger, the power of the corporations vastly increases as well. As the power the corporations have over government is increased, the more rights and freedoms are removed from the people, until you have a fascist police state. A fascist police state is precisely what we have in the US and UK.

This notion that some governments are corrupt and some are not corrupt is rather naive. In the US, every choice the public is given to vote for is provided by the establishment and are working for the same transnational corporations and big banks. (The exceptions to this simply don't get elected.) In the US we have John McCain and Barack Obama, both of which represent the same military-industrial complex and corporate/banking elites. So this idea of "voting in the right government" does not fly with me. The "democratic process" in and of itself is a complete and total farce -- not only in the US, but across much of the Western world.

All governments are inherently corrupt because with power comes corruption. The bigger government becomes -- often under the guise of laws and regulations (of course to "protect" the "common man") -- the more out of control that government becomes until the distinction between itself and the corporations are erased and the two become one and the same.

The idea that government works for the people and serves to limit the power of the corporations is rather absurd to me. The reason so many corporations have the enormous power they do is because they are subsidized by the government using the people's tax dollars. Yes, this is a form of socialism, which is what corporatism is. It is socialism by the rich, for the rich.

You can continue to be naive and talk about change and democracy until you are blue in the face. You can keep voting and believe that you have a say in the system, but nothing will change as things currently stand and people like youself ignore the control the banks and corporations have over government. You talk about limiting the power of the corporations, yet you will not address how you would limit the corporations' power over government. Why would you be so naive to think that a government controlled from the top-down by corporations would want to limit the power of these corporations?

 

Rat

I’m sure I’m not the only one that noticed you don’t address, let alone refute, the charges levelled at you – that the things you have promoted would only increase the power and influence of wealth.

Instead of answers or explanations what we get is yet another rant, repeating the very things without addressing the criticisms of them or explaining just how they wouldn’t just help the wealthy.

You seem to be some kind of blind fanatic that is totally unable to actually explain your views or an employee who’s unwilling to (or possibly a mixture of both?).

Why do you refuse to discuss your views in an open and honest way?

**

The reason the corporations are out of control is because they have taken over the government and the so-called "democratic process."

So what do you want to replace the "democratic process" with a non-democratic process?

**

So any talk of laws and regulations limiting corporate power (under the current power structure) is completely invalid, because corporations (acting through the government) are not going to pass laws and regulations limiting their own power.

So what structure do you want?

As far as I can tell you want a smaller weaker government with very limited powers to regulate or impose laws, you want even fewer laws and regulations than there are in place even now to limit the power and influence of wealth.

How would that not result in the wealth having even more influence and power?

**

If the power of government was limited, that would greatly limit the power of the corporations over the people.

But you don’t explain how? Saying over and over, might convince the gullible but why is it that when asked (and I’ve asked a thousand times or more) you are unable to give a coherent or rational reply?

**

This would explain why, as governments become bigger, the power of the corporations vastly increases as well. As the power the corporations have over government is increased, the more rights and freedoms are removed from the people, until you have a fascist police state. A fascist police state is precisely what we have in the US and UK.

As I’ve stated wealth has always tried to impose its influence it’s been the same throughout history, the peoples interests only began been taken into consideration with the increase of the voting franchise.

What is your alternative to take away the only checks on wealth and limit any opposition to their influence?

**

This notion that some governments are corrupt and some are not corrupt is rather naive.

So all governments in your opinion are corrupt, so what is your alternative, not to have government? You've already said you want government.

**

So this idea of "voting in the right government" does not fly with me. The "democratic process" in and of itself is a complete and total farce -- not only in the US, but across much of the Western world.

So you’re alternative to the “democratic process" is what?

Have no voting; no say whatsoever about what goes no?

How is that meant to limit the power and influence of wealth?

**

All governments are inherently corrupt because with power comes corruption. The bigger government becomes -- often under the guise of laws and regulations (of course to "protect" the "common man") -- the more out of control that government becomes until the distinction between itself and the corporations are erased and the two become one and the same.

So you’re alternative is what?

And as I’ve asked many times how is having a very weak government meant to limit the power of wealth?

I mean I want good government; I don’t care if it’s big or small, but you don’t seem to care if it’s good or bad just as long as it’s small and weak.

**

The idea that government works for the people and serves to limit the power of the corporations is rather absurd to me.

So in your opinion no politician does anything for the people that elect them so your alternative plan is what?

To have no politicians, no elections, no government, what? But you’ve already said at other times that you do want government so again what are you talking about?

**

The reason so many corporations have the enormous power they do is because they are subsidized by the government using the people's tax dollars.

Again this has been talked about, the influence of wealth, are you claiming that before democratic government, there was no influence of by wealth on the world and over its people?


**

Yes, this is a form of socialism, which is what corporatism is. It is socialism by the rich, for the rich.

Oh once again you have to get a dig in at socialism (is this in your contract with your employers or something).

I now this line from many right wing conspiracy theorists like the John Birch Society, but once again it’s repeated as a mantra – ‘don't support the left, don't vote for the left and so on’ – but it never gets explained in any coherent or rational way it always seems to end up with some mythical conspiracy that has to be believed rather than understood.

**

You can continue to be naive and talk about change and democracy until you are blue in the face. You can keep voting and believe that you have a say in the system, but nothing will change as things currently stand and people like youself ignore the control the banks and corporations have over government.

So you get your revolution what then?

How would you limit the power and influence of wealth?


**

You talk about limiting the power of the corporations, yet you will not address how you would limit the corporations' power over government.

Oh come on Rat, I’ve talked about it many times only recently I gave my ideas on trying to limit the power of wealth in the lobbying system.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=314393

Your contribution (as it usually is) was to try and scupper the thread and the ideas that might actually limit the influence of wealth.

As I said at the time –

“Your MO is the sowing of confusion, so whenever it seems like the power of the wealthy might be challenged by reasoned ideas you step in to muddy the water with unreasoned conspiracy theory. Why is that Rat, why do you always come to the defence of the elites?”


**

 

The thing is that the right wing ideas of neo-liberalism are the very basis of cooperate socialism and the military industrial complex, the argument was that ‘government’ was a bad provider and that the ‘free market’ can always do better so increasing amounts of public money founds it’s way into private hands.

Often (as has been seen most blatantly in Iraq) the private hiked there supposed costs to fleece the government (and the people).

But the thing is even now many Americans still believe the free market is better than ‘government’, because that is what they have been taught by right wing think tanks and media.

Another part of the neo-liberal assault on government was deregulation there was a call for the removal of laws and regulations (bureaucracy) that ‘limited’ businesses. That not only allowed corporations to grow and to dominate the economy but also allowed them to become involved in risky practices that put the economy at risk. The thing is that when economies collapse the worse hit are those at the bottom not the top. The government then have to decide to hold the economy up (by giving money to the corporations) or let it fall plunging many people into desperate hardship.

But even after the resent crisis many American still feel that regulations (bureaucracy) holds back American businesses and if only the ‘government’ got off their backs they could do a lot better. Again this is based on the propaganda pumped out by right wing pundits.

‘What is needed is less government, fewer regulations more of a free market etc’

And the other strand is attacks on the left – the left would bring in more regulations, would waste money (remember private good, public bad) would bring in ‘bigger’ government.

To me the right wing neo-liberal ideas are at fault and the wealth sponsored lobbyists and media that sold it to the American people (who then elected into power those that supported the neo-liberal agenda).

What is needed is a change in mentality but the question is how to bring that about.

 

There is a huge difference between so-called "free market" capitalism (which is non-existent today) and state capitalism (i.e. neoliberalism), which is managed capitalism (i.e. socialism) for the benefit of the corporations. Try learning the difference between free market and cartel (crony) capitalism.

Neoliberalism (i.e. crony capitalism, cartel capitalism, state capitalism, managed capitalism, monopoly capitalism) is the ideology that powers today's global economy, and it serves the state and the corporations while the average person suffers. It is not free market, as it is highly managed and regulated to the benefit of the corporations and big banks.

Duh. That's because there is a revolving door between the private and public sector. Look at the boards of directors for any of the private military contractors and they all have have deep-rooted ties to government. This all falls down on the taxpayers, who are subsidizing these corporations through government. Once again, this is called CORPORATISM.

Who says they have to? The government does it because it serves THEIR interests and the interests of the corporations. It doesn't serve the interest of the people, as this money has to come from somewhere. So the government uses taxpayer money to in turn bail out these corporations (again, socialism for the rich). Do you see the government bailing any of the people out that are losing their homes to foreclosure? No, of course not. They only help out their own while the people on the bottom are left to fend for themselves.

It would seem to me that bureaucracy seems to benefit the corporations, and I am sure you would say the same thing if you were at the top of one of these corporations being bailed out by the government. This idea of "regulations" exists only in the minds of the public. Government NEVER (and it doesn't matter if it's a Left wing or Right wing government) does anything that would act unfavorably against the corporations which pays the bills of the politicians and keeps their wallets (and stomachs) fat.

 

You think more government means less corruption?

Governments can come in all shapes and sizes, from absolute tyranny to participatory democracy, which one are you talking about?

Governments can be corrupt or not corrupt, I would want an incorrupt government subject to the will of the people through elections, what do you want?
………………………………………………………………………………………………

The larger and more encompassing the government is, the more chance of corruption arising. Corruption can be a product of power granted, and acquired. All throughout history in the states where the government was the be-all and end-all corruption thrived.

Government should be balanced by a healthy private sector.
……………………………………………………………………………………………

more government means less accountability and more corruption.

More of what government are you talking about and why does it have to be less accountable? And as far as I can tell your solution seems to be to weaken the only democratic part in the system therefore increasing the power of wealth.

The larger the governments, the less accountable it becomes, the more entrenched and entitled the bureaucats feel. Balbus how are democracy and wealth mutually exclusive?
Is that what you are saying?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Big government is simply more control by the corporations over the people, until you have a corporate-fascist state such as we have today.

Can you please explain why weakening a democratic government’s powers so that it couldn’t in any way regulate or put a check on the power and influence of wealth, would somehow decrease the power of wealth?

I’ve asked you this many times in the last few years and you still don’t seem to know.

First of all, containing government reach to within the powers envisioned by the founders is hardly weakening democratic government.
To say that the government would loose its authority to check or contain the private sector is silly. What Ratt is describing above is the Lobbyist Whore-a-thon on Washington’s Capitol Hill. Where layers and layers of staffers and burecrats keep politicians insulated from all but the most determined paid full time advocates of all of the divergent interests of a full spectrum of political ideas represented on K Street.

Ratt is also alluding to the fact that the government is paid for by the wealthy due to the steeply progressive tax tables in use now. Big Government needs this tax revenue to keep its clients funded, so it must answer somewhat to its paymasters. A flatter tax scale could check this dynamic.

…………………………………………………………………………………………….
When you have politicians that are paid off by the private corporations, they are going to be doing whatever is best for the corporations -- not the people. Yet you think more bureaucracy is the answer?

Where does bureaucracy come into it?

The word payoff is a funny way to express the concept of the payroll tax and the salaries paid to workers which then fund the government. Yet, the concept, that these drivers of economic prosperity need to be accommodated makes sense. What wealth does a government burecracy produce? Bureracy is a consumer of wealth generated by private enterprise. Of course it is silly to think that we can do without all government regulation. Nobody here is proposing that government be done away with totally, only that limits on government power be set and that government respect our freedoms and our possessions
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
If the power of government was limited, that would greatly limit the power of the corporations over the people.

But you don’t explain how? Saying over and over, might convince the gullible but why is it that when asked (and I’ve asked a thousand times or more) you are unable to give a coherent or rational reply?

Balbus, Ratt makes a vy generalized and wide statement here yet, concrete examples of what he is describing exist in today’s current events.

The Investment Banker: Bear Stearns was recently bailed out by The Federal Reserve Bank, an unprecedented move by The Fed to support a non-federally chartered, non depository institution. The Fed then enabled JP Morgan- Chase to gobble up the corpse. The support and intervention provided by The Fed has allowed these companies grow into the behemoths that they are, they are too big to fail. Government bail out of Chrysler Motors is another example. We would all decry a bankruptcy that would loose jobs for workers, the so-called cowboy capitalism.
The alternative seems to be Government entering a symbiotic relation of support, taxation and regulation of these companies. These companies become big permanent dictators to employees and consumers. With government clearing the field of competition due to regulations raising the bar to new entrants, the corporations have the market all to themselves.
……………………………………………………………………………………………

This would explain why, as governments become bigger, the power of the corporations vastly increases as well. As the power the corporations have over government is increased, the more rights and freedoms are removed from the people, until you have a fascist police state. A fascist police state is precisely what we have in the US and UK.

As I’ve stated wealth has always tried to impose its influence it’s been the same throughout history, the peoples interests only began been taken into consideration with the increase of the voting franchise.

What is your alternative to take away the only checks on wealth and limit any opposition to their influence?
……………………………………………………………………………………………

Balbus my friend the greatest check to a wealthy guild or association is another competing association. Free competition will bring benefits to workers and consumers alike and spur innovation.
Ratt’s fascist state is where corporations and governments are in bed with each other. Where Corporations endure the burdens of the regulatory state yet receive compensation at the teat of government subsidy. Competition is restricted by a Byzantine restrictive regulatory regime that leaves the field open only to the favored established pet corporations, their insurers and lenders.
……………………………………………………………………………………………

This notion that some governments are corrupt and some are not corrupt is rather naive.

So all governments in your opinion are corrupt, so what is your alternative, not to have government? You've already said you want government.

Every human organization endures some level of corruption. It would help if our beloved left wing crusading journos showed a little interest in government corruption. Kind of a check and balance.

In Ratts home State of New York, The Albany Times Union aided and abetted the grasping and dirty dealing of Governor Elliot Spitzer all the time the State fisc was collapsing and huge Medicaid rip-offs occurring. Thank God for hooker: Ashley Dupree only then did our journos get interested and drive the bum from office.

 

Rat

Oh yes, the ‘true’ free-market the ideological and dogmatic dream of the far right libertarians very like the ‘true’ communism of the ideological and dogmatic far left.

The problem with the dream of a true free market is that it is just that a dream, when I’ve actually asked how it would be achieved by it proponents all I get is blanks or the kind of policies that would give greater power and influence to the already wealthy.

Which again brings me back to the fact that you are still not addressing (let alone refuting) the claims levelled at you - that the things you have promoted would only increase the power and influence of wealth.

Instead of answers or explanations what we get (yet again) is another rant about corporatism (which I think many people on the forum could repeat blindfolded) so we once again get repeats that don’t without addressing the criticisms of the views you present or explain just how you’re ideas wouldn’t help the wealthy.

Lets try again – you get your revolution and overthrow the established order – so what then?

Are you going to bring in the ‘true’ free market if so what is it and what policies would establish it?

 

Piney

The larger and more encompassing the government is, the more chance of corruption arising. Corruption can be a product of power granted, and acquired. All throughout history in the states where the government was the be-all and end-all corruption thrived.

Government should be balanced by a healthy private sector.

Oh of course, silly me, there’s never ever has been any corruption in the private sector and there never will be.

Thing is that corruption can be anywhere, from the employee that takes home a box of paperclips to a boss that uses company money to finance a lavish life style.

The thing is about checks, balances and regulation.

My point is that many neo-liberal’s like to declare that ‘government’ is wasteful and corrupt and that the ‘healthy private sector’ should have a greater roll in ‘public service’ (government contracts), but they also want the ‘healthy private sector’ to not be accountable to the checks and balances of regulation declaring it stifling ‘bureaucracy’.

I’m not against a ‘healthy private sector’ but I want it to be ‘healthy’ that is free of corruption, exploitation and graft, which can so easily set in when it isn’t properly regulated.

**

The larger the governments, the less accountable it becomes, the more entrenched and entitled the bureaucats feel. Balbus how are democracy and wealth mutually exclusive?
Is that what you are saying?

Again you forget checks, balances and regulation.

It is easy to throw mud and declare ‘bureaucracy’ is bad, but the question I’d ask is why is the government not working as it should?

Why has government become less accountable?

Why has it become entrenched?

Then when you think you have some answers you try to think of solutions (the forum is littered with my own ideas).

My problem is that many people seem to come here to attack ‘the system’ but don’t seem to like to talk about their own views because when they do it becomes clear their ideas would make the situation worse and not better.

**

First of all, containing government reach to within the powers envisioned by the founders is hardly weakening democratic government.

By the ‘founders’ you mean the bunch of politicians that came up with the compromise that is the constitution of the US? The mainly squire class that set it up to favour the squire class so that in their time only “white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote”.

Yes hardly a weakening of democratic government that, so Piney is that what you want a return to?

To say that the government would loose its authority to check or contain the private sector is silly. What Ratt is describing above is the Lobbyist Whore-a-thon on Washington’s Capitol Hill. Where layers and layers of staffers and burecrats keep politicians insulated from all but the most determined paid full time advocates of all of the divergent interests of a full spectrum of political ideas represented on K Street.

Which I’ve covered here and given some ideas for a solution –

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=314393

What would you do?

And I ask you what would it be like in Rat’s ‘true’ free market were there were regulation was weak or none existent so wealth could use bribery even openly?

Ratt is also alluding to the fact that the government is paid for by the wealthy due to the steeply progressive tax tables in use now. Big Government needs this tax revenue to keep its clients funded, so it must answer somewhat to its paymasters. A flatter tax scale could check this dynamic.

Rat as far as I can tell is saying the wealthy don’t pay much tax but instead take the taxes from the poorer (through there control of government) and give that money to themselves?

You seem to be saying that since the wealthy pay more in tax they get to tell the government what to do?

And your answer is to spread the tax burden onto the poorer (and away from the wealthy) so that they would be paying for the government more so they could tell it what to do.

So the wealthy would become richer by paying less tax, but you seem to be claiming that the wealthy are using there spare cash to finance the lobby system (including, newspapers, television, radio and the internet) that has so much influence and if they were richer couldn’t they do more of that and therefore have even more influence?

My view is that the potential influence of wealth should be balanced.

**

The word payoff is a funny way to express the concept of the payroll tax and the salaries paid to workers which then fund the government. Yet, the concept, that these drivers of economic prosperity need to be accommodated makes sense. What wealth does a government burecracy produce? Bureracy is a consumer of wealth generated by private enterprise. Of course it is silly to think that we can do without all government regulation. Nobody here is proposing that government be done away with totally, only that limits on government power be set and that government respect our freedoms and our possessions

So what regulations do we keep and which do we lose and who decides, the wealth financed lobbyists have spent a lot of time and money trying to get rid of unwanted ‘bureaucracy’ should they decide? What about the ‘corrupted’ government officials and politicians you’ve alluded to, should they decide?

As I’ve said it seem to me that some people don’t care if the government is a good or a bad government as long as it is a weak and small government and leaves wealth unregulated.

And I wonder what their objective is?

I mean just how is a weak and bad government supposed to stand up against the interests of wealth?

**

Balbus, Ratt makes a vy generalized and wide statement here yet, concrete examples of what he is describing exist in today’s current events.

The Investment Banker: Bear Stearns was recently bailed out by The Federal Reserve Bank, an unprecedented move by The Fed to support a non-federally chartered, non depository institution. The Fed then enabled JP Morgan- Chase to gobble up the corpse. The support and intervention provided by The Fed has allowed these companies grow into the behemoths that they are, they are too big to fail. Government bail out of Chrysler Motors is another example. We would all decry a bankruptcy that would loose jobs for workers, the so-called cowboy capitalism.


The alternative seems to be Government entering a symbiotic relation of support, taxation and regulation of these companies. These companies become big permanent dictators to employees and consumers. With government clearing the field of competition due to regulations raising the bar to new entrants, the corporations have the market all to themselves.

I’m unsure what you’re getting at here?

My whole point has been that I don’t like the way that a politically factional ideology (neo-liberalism) has underpinned many of the economic policies around the world including (if not especially) in the US.

Why did Bears Stearns need bailing out? Why wasn’t it just nationalised rather than getting JP to pick it up for a song?

**

Balbus my friend the greatest check to a wealthy guild or association is another competing association. Free competition will bring benefits to workers and consumers alike and spur innovation.

The free market ideal, the problem is that it doesn’t always work that way, try The Robber Barons by Matthew Josephson.

Ratt’s fascist state is where corporations and governments are in bed with each other. Where Corporations endure the burdens of the regulatory state yet receive compensation at the teat of government subsidy. Competition is restricted by a Byzantine restrictive regulatory regime that leaves the field open only to the favored established pet corporations, their insurers and lenders.

And your solution is what, so far you seem to advocate a flat tax that would hit wealth the least, less regulation to ‘unburden business’ to do as it wishes, and a weak (and possibly bad)government that would be in no position to challenge the excesses of wealth based power and influence.

**

Every human organization endures some level of corruption. It would help if our beloved left wing crusading journos showed a little interest in government corruption. Kind of a check and balance.

The left wing crusading journalists?

It’s you that mentions the supposed corrupting influence of the Times Union which is owned by the Hearst Corporation, one of the largest media companies in the world supporting a corrupt politician.

The thing is that as I pointed out

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=314393

The wealth based lobbyists (in the media, the think tanks etc) have brought about a situation where anything ‘left wing’ is thought of as extreme communism and anyone going against the accepted ‘norm’ is attacked or ridiculed.

As I’ve said before I’d try and limit wealth’s influence (in the media as elsewhere) but from what you’ve said you seem to want to increase it?

Is that the way to deal with the situation?

**

 

You see, Balbus, I am not "advocating" a free market or any kind of market for that matter. When you see outside the dialectic, you realize that everything is set up for the benefit of the few in charge of that system. I am simply giving you the facts and telling you that the notion of a free market is a myth. It does not exist. There are many who like to use the argument about "free markets" to call for even more control and consolidation that has caused the problems to begin with.

The entire money system is a con game once you realize that a handful of people have the ability to print money out of nothing while charging interest on it to keep governments and people alike in perpetual debt. I do not advocate any monied system that is controlled by a handful of bankers -- free market or not. I am simply trying to show you how these forces have gained more power by consolidating control into their hands via control over governments and thus the people.

It was Mayer Amschel Rothschild who once stated:

"Give me control over a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws."

As much as you want to keep regurgitating the lie that I am advocating policies (like what?) that would help the "wealthy elites," you won't explain what they are or exactly how they would make these people more powerful as you claim. You simply repeat and repeat like a broken record player.

 

As much as you want to keep regurgitating the lie that I am advocating policies (like what?) that would help the "wealthy elites," you won't explain what they are or exactly how they would make these people more powerful as you claim. You simply repeat and repeat like a broken record player

Oh…Rat

LOL, pull the other one it has bells on it.

I mean come on man, I’ve been repeating my explanations over and over of just why I think the things you’ve advocated would assist wealth for many years now from the time you were openly a right wing libertarian and even back then you wouldn’t give open and honest replies just as you’re not giving them now.

We could go back to here http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=112948

But then people only really need to scroll up to post 11 in this very thread.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=4609878&postcount=11

Where there is the link
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=4575889&postcount=63


I mean other than your very loud claims that they wouldn’t, have you ever actually produced anything that refutes my claims that your ideas favour the wealthy?

The simple answer seems to be a big NO.

You can try and rant and dissemble and misdirect to cover that up but it remains glaringly obvious to anyone that wishes to look.

But I’m a man that lives in hope and I really hate political dishonestly like this so I’ll try and once again give you the opportunity to explain yourself and your views.

**

You have your revolution and overthrow the established order – so what then?

On what principles would you build your new world?

Anarchist, socialist, libertarian, communist, democratic, capitalist, oligarchy, hierarchical, egalitarian, redistributive, parliamentary, presidential, proportional representation, first past the post, direct participation and so on and so on and so on…

And in the context of this thread – how would you curb the power and influence of wealth and make them contribute fairly to society?

**