Korporate America

If people hurt enough eventually they'll wake up.

The fact is coporation's only objective in the end is maximum profit. That's why they use their tax breaks to hire cheap labor oversees. That's why they make large contributions to politians to keep their taxes low and monopolies intact. And that is also why they're sitting on mountains of cash while goverments and people are driven further into debt.

The root of our economic problems lie in 30 years of supply outpacing demand. Creating more debt is an easy way to artificially raise demand. That's why we see average Americans saving 0% of what they make when they used to save 10%. That's why we see the fed lowering interest rates to encourage people to take out even more debt by buying new houses. It's also why our government is now 14 trillion dollars in debt. It's a fool hardy attempt to correct the delinking of supply and demand which is all a symptom of supply side ecconomics aka tricklism.

A good place to start to correct this problem would be to raise the minimum wage which would in turn raise demand. Right now it sits at a pitiful $5.15/hr. In 1968 it was at $8.00 and has been going down ever since. Ofcourse this would hurt the profits of the cooporations so it probably won't happen just yet.

 

In the end it is everyones objective to maximize their return on their efforts, be it profits, wages, or something else.

Tax breaks for business as well as individuals allow for more of the profits or wages to remain with and be used by the business or individual who earned it.

Cheap labor overseas spreads wealth to the poor overseas which results in bringing affordable products to market for the less affluent in the so called rich countries where labor costs are high and government regulations costly.

Money is spent most wisely when it results in something beneficial to the one spending it. Competition is reduced when government regulations make it too costly for all but the established and profitable businesses, which leads to government assisted or created monopolies.

Cash, or the paper that government mandates we accept as money, is of no value if its use does not produce something of equal or greater value in return. Debt occurs ONLY when you live outside of your means.

When supply exceeds demand, most often it results in a reduction in price making a product or service available to a greater number of people. The problem is that too many people let their desires to have exceed their ability to afford, and make purchases which result in accumulating a debt which at some point becomes greater than their ability to repay.

Creating debt is an easy way to acquire something you should not have acquired. Demand exists, but easy credit is what allows for debt to be achieved.

It makes no sense to save money if what you save plus the interest results in less purchasing power in the future.

While the Fed is keeping interest rates low, the banks are finding that few people are looking to borrow money. When people are losing jobs are uncertain if they will continue to have a job they are less likely to go out and buy a new house. If government would allow the bubble to deflate naturally, prices would drop much more, and more rapidly to a point at which a real recovery would quickly become obvious and jobs begin to grow. Government spends too much on trying to keep the GDP increasing, if not naturally then artificially, which benefits government but not necessarily the consumer.

The government is currently $14,662,615,044,724.34 in debt, because of living outside of its means, and appears to have no desire at all to stop. Society is made up of those who produce/consume and those who consume. Ideally, all who consume should also produce, and by allowing government to become the largest consumer, by redistributing the production and more of those who do produce, it has created a debt which at some point will be what destroys the country, and is the means by which those who would like to change the form of government will have achieved their ends.

Raising the minimum wage would likely move even more jobs overseas, creating even higher unemployment, and greater government borrowing and spending. I was unaware that the minimum wage in 1968 was $8, and I was only getting $4.25 an hour at that time under a union contract.

 

True, but a large portion is transferred to the stock holders if it's a large coporation and the profits are accumulated. Right now we have the largest wealth concentrations at the top since the great depression and it's no suprise that our economy is similar to what it was back then.

True, but I think the American people would rather have a job than slightly cheaper products. Outsourcing to poorer nations will only lower our standard of living.

Monopolies are created when the government fails to enforce the anti-trust laws and allows megamergers. The oil companies and drug companies are good examples. Oil has risen 236% even though supply has increased along with demand. It can also be seen in drug prices which are 40% more here than in Canada.

Demand exists, but since real wages have stagnated or gone down over the past 30 years there is no way to purchase the product except through taking out more debt which transfers more money to corporate profits.

They aren't buying new houses because Americans on average have run out of money. They literaly save 0% of what they earn and their living stardard continue to decrease.

We tried that before. It resulted in the Great Depression.

Rising GDP should ideally raise the living standards for most Americans as long as wages(demand) and productivity are kept in balance.

The GDP growth we've seen over the past 30 years has mainly benefited the producers while driving Americans and our governent into ever increasing debt.

What led to government debt is it's inability to tax the people who have the money. The only reason they don't is because the politicians are corrupt. In 2000 the government gave a 1.4 trillion tax cut to the top 1% in the name of trickle down growth. What has it done except to create more bubbles and economic chaos. During the 1950's-1960's the income tax on the top 1% was 70-90% and the GDP averaged over 4% during that period.

$8 is the real wage which is adjusted for inflation. It's interesting that when the real minimum wage was $8.00 the unemployment was only 3.5%.

 

That would include workers who invest in their 401K's or other retirement plans. Things are quite different today as all you can get from a bank is paper currency which has no value other than what is printed on it, and prices are adjusted relative to the amount of it in existence, which can easily be increased.

Some might, but many labor intensive products would be much more costly considering the wage differences. In Asia, where I am currently living, labor costs me $6 or less per day, and because of that most materials are also much cheaper.

I don't believe that oil companies or drug companies are actually monopolies. They compete with one another and there are many factors that contribute to the price. Drug prices here, in Asia, are even much cheaper than in Canada, which adds to the price in the U.S. which has to offset the costs of research and FDA approval in bringing a new drug to market.

Or defer purchasing a product you cannot afford and avoid taking on debt.

And what effect should we expect the increase of the Money base from around $800+billion to the current slightly less than $3trillion to bring forth in the near future?

Wages and demand are not synonymous.

Think about it, what does the letter "P" in GDP stand for?

Irrational spending is what has driven Americans (not all), and government (nearly all) into ever increasing debt.

Why should those who have more money be expected to get less in return for their tax dollars than those who pay none at all?

Are you basing that on a $1.25 minimum wage? I've worked for $.75 an hour also, back in 1963.
Wages increase, prices increase and when the money supply increases the value of the currency decreases, and along with all that the gap between the rich and the poor increases. It's simply cause and effect, and like I said benefits government which has become addicted to spending.

 

The top 5 oil companies produce 60% of our gasoline and 48% of the oil. Oil is up 256% over the past 10 years dispite there being no shortage of suppy. They made 256 billion in profits in one year. There is really no explanation for this other than they have the market cornered. Natural gas companies have high competition within their market and it's no surprise natural gas is 40% cheaper than oil.

Most people make money to spend though wages.

First off people with more money aren't producing that much more. The average CEO make 177 times what the average American makes. Is that CEO producing 177 times as much?

This isn't about what seems fair. If large concentrations of wealth form at the very top it leads to bubbles, economic chaos and class warfare. All of those we are seeing now. Before the great depression the top 1% earned 38% of income. Right now it's at 38% again and similar things are happening.

$1.25 would be about right and $8.00 is after it's adjusted for inflation.

It's government policy that leads to wealth disparity. In 1981 Reagan lowered taxes on the top income bracket from 80-90% down to 28%. He also raised taxes on the self-employed from 9% to 15%. Within 6 years wealth concentrations formed leading to the 1987 stock market crash and large increases in government debt.

 

Of the worlds 20 largest gas and oil companies, Exxon, the only U.S. company on the list is number 14. U.S. prices for gas and oil remain quite low compared to most of other countries. The last trip I made to buy gas for my motorcycle, regular cost the equivalent of $5.32 a gallon.
But based on your reasoning, in a competitive market, the top profit makers comprise a monopoly? If they reduced their prices, and profits, would that make them less of a monopoly and increase their competition? Natural gas is much cheaper because it doesn't require refineries and energy to produce the salable product.

And to save. Just earning more money does not increase ones demand to spend, but it may have effect on ones ability to pay.

The wise person puts their money to work as it only diminishes in value if not put to use. That CEO probably has much more than 177 times the amount of money invested in bringing the company to life and employing persons than what the average American has invested in it.

Wealth is one thing and income is something else. Look at the billionaires that exist, none of them have ever produced an income approaching a billion dollars in a single year, which would be taxable. My wealth grows in value each day, while my income diminishes in value. It's how money is put to use that creates real wealth, not just the accumulation of money itself.

Reagan lowered the top marginal tax rate, which very few, if anyone, was paying. That promoted spending money which otherwise was being held back due to the fact that any profit it produced would be only 10 to 20 cents on the dollar, making the risks greater than the possible rewards.
Being just an average middle class worker in the 80's, the Reagan years and the 1987 market crash were the most lucrative of my life. I try not to look at things as Republican vs Democrat, but instead just myself vs government in order to arrive at the best perspective that benefits me, and since I gain no benefit from government greater than I can acquire on my own, government as Reagan once stated "is the problem, not the solution", but too many people today have been brought to depend upon government. I think it has a lot to do with how and where you were schooled, along with family values acquired when young.

 

Aponymous - when you say "America's monthly SS bill is $59 Billion", are you referring to Social Security Retirement Payments, or are you referring to "SSDI" (Social Security Disability Income), and/or "SSI" (Supplemental Security Income); or do you mean Social Services expenditures? I'm not challenging you, I just want to clearly understand what you are encompassing by using the descripter "SS".

StarchildStrider
______________________________________________________

"The illusion of freedom in America will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater." ....... Frank Zappa

_____________________________________________________

 

Joker Man - You raise a valid point regarding America being full of people looking for handouts - I mean no offense for what I'm about to say, but once the word got back to all their amigos that if they came to America, they'd be able to tap into our welfare system and county hospital systems quite easily and get one heck of a free ride just by moving here, our country was inundated by hoards of people from south of the border. And, there are organizations here that give them preferential treatment and more free benefits than they'll give our own citizens! WTF??!! In California, they are so prevalent in the society; and because the state chose to award them all with welfare benefits, that state is now broke; so now there's an ongoing drastic cutback or elimination of social services for the elderly American citizens who really need help! They have been very instrumental in draining our county hospital systems dry; and I've even heard them talking and joking amongst each other about how they've "gotten over" the system here! Many of them don't even demonstrate enough respect for the country that welcomed them with open arms to learn our English language - and they're catered to by companies writing instructions in Spanish! That said, what motivates them to learn English? If not themselves, nothing! I understand that America is a land of people from all over, but people that purposely come here to take advantage because they see it from a perspective of an easy free ride; and not to be participatory in helping to build our country up again instead of being a drain, are not people I would be inclined to embrace as a fellow citizen.

StarchildStrider
_________________________________________________

"Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country."



....... Theodore Roosevelt
______________________________________________________

 

Unfortunately, those who “see it from a perspective of an easy free ride; and not to be participatory in helping to build our country up again instead of being a drain” are not just from “south of the border” but from other, if not all, regions of the globe.

Immigration may be the biggest and most difficult problem we, as a country, must face and eventually deal with. Many European countries face the same issue, albeit mostly to a lesser degree – none seem to have found a real solution although those having enacted more restrictive immigration laws appear to be faring better in that respect.

 

:iagree:


Posts based on facts and sound reasoning, if rare, are always nice to see.

________________________________


Don't spread my wealth; spread my work ethic.

 

Most of the world's larger oil companies on that list are nationalized. Also, I'm not only talking about ExxonMobil. There are five including Connoco-Phillips, Chevron-Texaco, BP-Amaco-Arco, and Royal Dutch-Shell. Every one was created through a mega-merger not long before oil prices began their accent.

Oil prices in other countries have always been higher mainly because of higher taxes. It's not a competetive market that's why it's a monopoly.There really isn't any other explanation for the incredible rise in oil prices. Many blame it on new demand from China and India, but supply on the open market has been rising along with this new demand. The worst thing about letting these monopolized companies to exist is that the bubble prices mainly hurt the poor by raising food prices.

This is true for higher incomes, but people at lower levels who are barely scraping by tend to spend whatever they earn because a high percentage is spent on neccesities vs. wants.

The way the system is set up once you have a larger amount of money whether inherited or worked for, it becomes very easy to accumulate more through compounding interest or speculation. But what does this shuffling of money actually produce? In my mind a person should be paid for what they produce whether that's a service or product. Warren Buffet is taxed at 15% while his workers are taxed at 35%. Why should he be taxed less?

So did the hedge fund managers who made billions of dollars by betting against the housing market create real wealth? The system is set up to encourage idle speculation in markets instead of honest work.

I think you're smart by looking at how you can use the system to best benefit yourself. I don't look to the government to solve all our problems either. I think the government's place should be providing rules to ensure a level playing field for all people no matter what their status.

 

What would you say if you got laid off from work because your company said they were going to pay social security instead of you?

 

I still remain unconvinced these 5 companies comprise a monopoly, and are capable of forcing the much larger nationalized companies to raise their prices. And believe me, China especially, and India also are preparing for the energy needs of their rapidly expanding industrial revolution. I've been looking at China for over a decade now to become the world economic leader.

Most have become accustomed to living the way government would like us all to live, and that is "live today and let tomorrow take care of itself". Governments require constant economic growth in order to produce greater revenues which allow for constantly increasing spending. Raising taxes as an alternative to economic growth can result in revenue losses as people with money tend to look for ways to shelter their money from taxes, and that can be easily accomplished by investing it in non job producing investments which are not taxable. Government can also increase the money supply, which devalues the existing money, causing prices to rise, wages to increase, and wealth disparity to expand even greater. That also makes the existing debt and increasing deficit look to be less of a problem. As a result the poorest are hit the hardest, and the wealthiest, even if they have no income at all, benefit the most. After all, income is what you are earning, while wealth is the value of what you have. Most people, even those who earn high wages, don't spend their earnings too wisely, and most all spending is done on things with limited time value.

I was taught at a young age that you should pay yourself something from every pay check received, meaning you should not spend all your earnings, but put aside something, no matter how small. I call that saving for the future, and what it has produced for me is security and self reliance. What we call money today is little more than a tool of little value if it is not put to use.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of Buffett's employees receive larger paychecks than does Buffett himself. The tax laws change constantly, and rather than demand they be made simpler we seem to want our politicians to just add more complexities. I really like the "Fair Tax" bill which continues to be ignored, and would greatly increase the taxes paid by those such as Buffett compared to those paid by his employees.

I'm sure they are wealthier, and anyone can invest or speculate in the markets and make or lose money if they wish.

But what is a level playing field? I think many expect government to produce rules which eliminate there being any losers, which is not a level playing field. Rules which apply equally to all, while not eliminating losers, is the fairest in my opinion, and society directly and not through government agencies should be the source of aid provided the losers. Assisting those in need should not be a paid job, but an act of compassion which brings members of society closer together as opposed to divided by government.

 

The U.S. is the world's largest consumer of oil therefore the New York Mercantile Exchange dominated by the big 5 and their hedge fund proxies set the price. It is true that China and other emerging markets have increased demand, but world oil inventories have remained stable. This shows that there is enough supply to meet this new demand. What other explanation is left except the existance of monopolistic conditions? You can see it at the gas pump. Recently oil dropped from $110 down to $80 yet gas prices barely budged.

I think China will be the world's new economic leader sometime in this decade. Their government has much more power to take actions in terms of economic planning.

Our society looks up to the wealthy and want to emulate them even if that means going into debt to do it.

When discussing taxes it helps to define who is being taxed. During the 1950's-60's taxes on the top income bracket was 70-90% and GDP growth was over 4%. Over the past 10 years the tax on this group has been 35% and GDP growth is much lower.

I've read a little about the "Fair Tax", but not in depth. It does seem to encourage people to save more and I wonder how that would effect the economy.

I agree with you about self reliance and planning for the future. However, it becomes more and more difficult for people to save when their living wage keep stagnating or going down. Over the past ten years income for the bottom 20% of workers has decreased by 9.3% while the average pay of CEOs has gone up 277%. This increasing wage gap can be seen in other classes of our society as well. It's also interesting to note that overall productivity has increased during this period so it's not like the bottom 20% are being lazy.

True, but it's bad for the tax system to encourage speculation imo.

You can think of the economy as a highway with big semi-trucks (multinational corporations), SUVs, cars, motorcycles and bicycles (poor entrapanuers). Without any rules the semi-trucks have the power to push everyone else off the road. Did you know that 97% of the gas refining businesses that went out of business in the last decade were very small? There were also 2600 oil company mergers in the 1990's. Having rules to control this bullying and encouraging competivive markets is a good thing.

I think it's unethical for the government to ignore people in real need and corrupt for it to do favors for people or entities because they have power/wealth.

 

To be honest, I've not really payed much attention to oil and gasoline prices for quite a while as I only consume about 3 liters a week of gasoline. A deep drop in demand would likely result in a reduction in price, but it makes business sense to maintain, or even increase, price when demand remains constant. Government, currently in power, has made it clear that it would like to push everyone toward green energy, and with that as an agenda and the fact that green energy while perhaps cleaner, would be much more costly. If the "price" of fossil energy was to greatly exceed the cost of other cleaner but more "costly" forms of energy, they would become more acceptable to the public in general.

Don't forget the lack of tens or hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations which are only increased in the U.S. annually.
All it takes for me or my wife to begin a business is to put a table outside with something to sell, and no licenses or taxes to worry about. Don't have to worry about my kids being arrested for selling lemonade or tea either. It would appear that the "free market" system is much more free in the less free countries of the world.

That's true in most all societies. I've seen many people go out and purchase a pickup truck and later have to sell it by allowing someone else to just take over the payments, losing all they put into it. I live simply, and am often asked why I don't buy this or that as it's known that I can afford it. But I only spend on what my needs are, and I seldom travel any great distance so I use public transportation to and from the airport which costs me a few dollars a year, and much less expensive than maintaining an automobile. If I really need something important, I then look for high quality and spend more than what most would, and could if they didn't throw money away needlessly.

While the top "marginal" rate was very high, I've never found any data to show that anyone ever paid the rate. Even today, when tax rates are higher than what one would like to pay, there are often ways to avoid them.

In My opinion, anything that reduces dependency on government and the size of government results in improving the lives of all.

I think that increasing the money base contributes greatly to the disparity in wages, but depending on how wages are put to use a low wage earner can accumulate much more wealth than a high wage earner over time.

I don't think speculation is caused by the tax system, but more so by a desire to acquire riches more quickly. I had a simple method of investing in the stock market which resulted in quite nice annual returns, and a couple of friends at work asked me to share my secret with them. I did so and later gave them a tip which earned each of us a hefty return over a weekend, which even I had not expected. That turned out to become their downfall, as they then looked to gain quick rewards ignoring my original advice completely, and even trying to get me involved in more speculative investments, which I refused explaining the risks. After losing everything they began with plus more, I lost two friends who blamed me for their losses. I told them they lost all because of their greed, while I remained content to just reap small, but safe and reliable gains.

What kind of controls would be fair? And in some cases getting bought up by a large corporation is just what the initial investors would like to occur, while maybe not the employees who may be let go.

I think societies are made stronger when it is the people who directly see and provide the needs for those who are in need. Government assistance tends to divide us as it has to take in order to give, while charity is simply the act of giving. Socialism is not bad at all when it is a function of the community rather than of the government, and in that way corruption is less able to flourish, being more quickly and easily discovered.

 

I've thought about this. That would be the one bright spot about higher energy prices.

Small businesses need less regulation. More regualation is need for the largest businesses who ship jobs oversees, bully smaller businesses, price gouge, make overly risky speculations and then need to be bailed out by the public when those speculations go bad.

That's true. I better way to reform the tax code might be to eliminate the line item deductions. Mainly the top third of tax payers use them.

A weak decentralized government allows the alfluent to accumulate more wealth. To me the government does serve a purpose.

I think inflation definitely contributes to disparity. Especially if wages dont keep up. For example, inflation has risen 30% while the minimum wage has remained the same at $5.15.

Everyone is different, but when regressive taxes lead to large concentrations of wealth the individuals reaping that wealth more often than not get greedy and look to make even more and quicker. This has contributed to many of the bubbles in assests we've seen lately.

Being taken over benefits the CEO's of the companies, but not the worker or the unemployed. I just read in the new paper that 25% of the larges U.S. corporations actually pain more to their CEOs than in taxes to the government.

I think that societies are stronger when everyone benefits from overall productivity and new technologies not just a sliver at the top.

 

So good and bad or right and wrong become difficult to define in absolute terms, acceptable to all as a result of the perspective from which they are viewed.

As opposed to treating all individuals and business equally? Should fairness be redefined as equality in outcome? Why is it bad for businesses to move jobs and manufacturing overseas? Businesses are not created with the sole intent of creating jobs, but instead to create a product that can be sold at a profit, and if it can be created at a lower cost it can be made available to a greater number of consumers at an affordable price. Price gouging makes it easier for competition to enter the market, if government regulations are not made an offsetting factor. Bailing out those who make bad decisions results in more and more bad decisions being made.

The tax code is something that deserves much attention, and should be simplified greatly, not made more complicated. I'm still waiting to see if Congress will ever bring up the "Fair Tax" bill for discussion.

But a strong centralized government allows the same to occur. If a new currency was created to replace the existing currency allowing exchange of the old to be made at a 1 new dollar for every 10 old dollars, with wages, salaries, debts and prices reduced at the same rate, the gap between the rich and the poor would be decreased 10 fold. Those with nothing would lose nothing in the process, but gain as a result.

While increasing the minimum wage benefits those earning it, it increases the cost of providing for those who earn nothing. I've often wondered if people were paid in gold, would they spend it more wisely?

Is the solution to eliminate individuality, or reward the envious? I think a hard look at the changes brought about by the creation of the Federal Reserve banking system, our currency, the 16th amendment and the income tax, along with many other government programs that greatly increased the dependency of many citizens on government will eventually be recognized as the root of nearly all the problems of today as they only worsen in the coming future. The EU and its problems which took much less than 100 years to surpass our own should be seen as a signal. Government has become like a Casino, where you take risks gambling, and are allowed to keep your winnings but your losses are returned as you leave, and if you enter broke they will provide you with a sum to play with which is also returned if lost, when you leave.

Takeovers can sometimes also benefit the workers, and even employ more as a result, so its a case by case examination that provides the true facts.
I seldom pay much attention to the figures I see printed in the newspapers without knowing the full context of their sources.

That's true when all are contributing in some form. What about the products that greatly exceed the means of most all of society, such as expensive sports cars, designer clothing, etc.? Who but the wealthiest buy them? And think of the jobs that are created in order to produce such expensive products, which depend on there being enough consumers to purchase them for those businesses to begin and stay in business. What would home computers cost if they had to be completely produced in the U.S. by U.S. workers receiving U.S. wages?

 

Yes. A corporation is not the same as a individual so it shouldn't be treated as one.

I would agree with that. A healthy balanced economy benefits all. Fairness is subjective. Suppy side economic policies that have been in place since 1980 have caused imbalances between supply and demand. In a healthy economy supply = demand. Right now we have supply = demand + government spending. If government spending is cut without changing polices the economy will re-enter recession.

It raises unemployment, reduces wages, reduces standard of living for most Americans, decreases demand and raises government/individual debt. I'm not in favor of banning out-sourcing just having polices that discourage it.

Even if we just close loop holes it would make a big difference. Many european nations already have a consumption (fair tax) called the value added tax VAT.

Money has to be created to keep up with rising productivity. More money is needed to buy more products. The fed prints more money so businesses can project accurate profit forcasts and make good investments. Inflation will always happen, the solution is to keep wages in step with it to maintain demand.

The minimum wage has been raised 17 times in the last 60-70 years. Every time it has resulted in lower unemployment within 12-16 months.

Did you know that the income tax was introduced as a substitution for tarrifs in 1913 to enable free trade?

Sweden is one of the most stable and least indebt(48%GDP) nations in europe right now. They have universal healthcare, more vacation time, low unemployment, paid education, low wealth disparity and one of the highest living standards in the world. Their government is not small.

Sweden comes closer to democratic capitalism where the workers have a voice and some ownership in the corporations they work for. I think the U.S. mainly has monopolistic capitalism where corporations have power over their workers. My brother-in-law used to work for Washington Mutual and his job was shipped oversees to India. Before he lost his job they made him train the person that was taking his job. That's what I mean about workers being powerless. Washington Mutual was one of the biggest banks to fail in 2009 and doesn't exist anymore.

Mergers can provide synergies with increase efficiency, but megamergers that decrease competition can lower effeciences and raise product prices. There's a balance.

True, and products for the wealthy are doing better than ever. Roll Royce for example have doubled their production, but it doesn't seem to be making a big impact on unemployment. Helping the bottom 80% to earn more would solve the demand/debt problem. The rich getting richer over the past 10-30 years has not.

They would probably be more, but the people buying them would also have much more. If you asked person whether they would want a quality high paying job or a cheap computer. I think they would choose a quality job.

 

But neither is each individual the same as every other individual.
Corporations are already treated much differently than live individuals, and exist to produce products and/or services for a profit, which result in providing employment and income for many persons while also reducing costs allowing their products to be priced at levels which then become affordable to a greater proportion of society than they would otherwise. Prices are reduced even further through competition which allows the consumer freedom to choose from whom they wish to do business and spend their money.

I tend to view fairness of rules objectively rather than subjectively. If it is wrong for the rich to steal, then it is wrong for the poor to steal, and therefor it should also be wrong for government to steal. Rules should be defined clearly and concisely, so that all can understand them without need of lawyers and/or judges to interpret them. Growing up I often heard it said that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", and today we even hear lawmakers state that they have no idea of what the laws they produce are without using a team of lawyers to explain them.
Supply and demand is the primary basis of a healthy economy. When supply fails to meet demand, it allows for competition to enter the market or existing businesses to hire more workers to raise productivity and meet the demand. When demand drops, competition stiffens, and businesses either make the necessary adjustments, cutting costs, bringing new products to market, or fail as they should. Nothing should be too big to fail, and instead of allowing bubbles to grow enormously before bursting, they are deflated slightly with only an occasional one actually bursting with much less devastating effect.

As long as trade with other countries is acceptable, without government imposing tariffs, taxes, or duties raising their prices to equal or exceed those of the same domestic produced products, this is a trend that will continue. This is no different, other than at a larger scale, of you going to the market to purchase a product and finding multiple choices of the same item with an extremely large price difference. Most persons would then make a choice based on a combination of price and quality, and if quality was identical across the range of items, it's very unlikely that the most expensive would be chosen.

The "Fair Tax" bill is not an additional tax, but a replacement for all the current forms of tax, eliminating entirely the income tax. There's a book out that provides the details quite clearly.

It's not money that is being produced, but debt, What we are calling money has no value at all, other than what it is perceived to have on a given day. If all the money (not wealth) was confiscated today it would not put a dent in paying down the debt owed. When more fiat currency is produced, it reduces the value of all that fiat currency in existence. Prices rise to reflect that and wage demands increase to offset the price increases, with government assistance programs requiring greater funding, creating a demand for higher taxes or other means of increasing revenues.

Has it really? I've seen many studies claiming the opposite, but what appears to be the real incentive to employing someone is the cost versus the profit increase gained by doing so. Jobs are not created because a business must pay employees more.

And in 1913 the top tax rate was 6%.
While I agree that a Nation must use some form of taxation in order to fund its government, it has become an exorbitant amount as we have allowed a centralized government to assume oversight over nearly every aspect of our lives.
Sweden is comparing apples and oranges, Sweden, relatively small in size, has a population of just over 9,000,000, while the U.S. currently has 14,000,000 unemployed, and if the Federal government was confined to only what is enumerated in the Constitution, it's quite likely there would be a great number of States doing much better than they are today. By centralized government trying to guarantee the outcome of all equally, it lessens the amount of success achievable while increasing the effects of failure on all, leaving no one except government able to help, which comes only at great cost.

A friend from Sweden provided me this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENDE8ve35f0&feature=player_embedded#!

Is that what really happens?

But all people are not the same, some have great talent, while some have none at all. People most often earn what they are worth, and if not they seek employment where they will. Sadly, population does not grow with talent equally distributed or increased. Education and ones own abilities require the efforts of the individual, and some require much greater effort than others. Also you need to recognize the fact that the percentages are just numbers, and not always individual people. Someone may be a member of the bottom 10% and over time become a member of the upper 10%. Much of what government does in an attempt to produce some form of economic equality results in limiting upward mobility, and even eliminating for some the motivation that produces the effort to improve their own lives. Many people today who are rich, were not rich a few decades or less ago, and there are also many who were and today are not.

And how would those at the bottom be faring? Might it also make it profitable to smuggle in products made elsewhere? Risk and reward creates opportunities for both legal as well as illegal activities.

I don't see businesses and corporations to be creating anything near as large a problem as the banking system under the Federal Reserve system is creating.

 

I agree with you, but there is also a demand side to the equation. We can't rely on only the companies to create jobs for the workers. The workers also support the businesses by providing production and the demand for their products. It's a symbiotic relationship.

I think we should enact policies to make bubbles more rare. Bubbles have become the new norm and they are enormously destructive. The are a symptom of the economic distortions created by supply side economics.

It's not free trade in the case of China. They set their currency at 8 yuan to every dollar to ensure their products are cheaper to encourage exports.

I know. I just thought it was interesting that most developed nations already have atleast a partial fair or consumption tax.

The reason the dollar has maintained it's value is because it is still in demand from other countries such a Japan and China. Japan's economy has insufficient demand from a shrinking population and China's demand it still much less than it's productivity. Therefore, their economies depend on exporting products to the U.S.. More dollars are in circulation outside the U.S. than inside.

Yes, when the minimum wage was at it's height in purchasing power (1968) unemployment was near it's lowest at 3.5%. A higher minimum wage raises all wages leading to increasing demand for products. Companies respond by hiring more people to increase productivity.

Here's a history of the top marginal tax rate. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213 In 1917 the top income tax was raised to 67% and then it went down to 25% in 1925. This resulted in a bubble, the stock market crash and the great depression. When Rosevelt got into office he immediately raised it to 63%. For the last 30 years it has been decreasing as a way to generate growth. The only problem is this growth relies on the government going into debt. The government basically borrows money and gives it to the weathy in the form of tax cuts. The richest 400 people in the U.S. own the same as the bottom 150 million. In this day and age wealth=power. Therefore, the people with the wealth are in control of pretty much everything including the government.

I watched that same Swedish video last night. I'm not convinced that they are completely different and that their policies would never work here.

It sounds like you believe the the government is the source of our economic problems. I think polices that encourage our society to resemble medieval feudalism is the root of the problem.

Yes, with less competition there is less motivation to increase effieciency to survive. Having the ability to raise prices on products that people need such as oil is a much easier way to generate profits than having to outperform rivals.

There will always be people with more or less talent at differnent things. Upward mobility overall has decreased over the last 30 years as wages have fallen. When the majority of workers make less, then it becomes harder for them to save and get ahead.

The Fed is controlled by the wealthy. Many of the most influential economists were taught at Harvard, Yale and Stanford. Bernanke comes from Stanford. Harvard has a 25 billion dollar trust fund, Yale 15 billion, and Stanford 10 billion. Where do you think this money comes from?