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

Here are a few musings -

In my opinion a good start would be to close down tax and company havens

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14125850/

(I believe places like Liechtenstein have more registered companies than they do citizens)

I also think global corporations need to be taxed globally that it wouldn’t matter where they were based they would be taxed on a set percentage of global profits.

And I’d also like to see international agreements with the intention of harmonising global, company, labour, welfare and environmental laws and regulations.

 

Why should it be up to me or any other one person to decide how the world should be run? My intent is to show people what's wrong, and then once myself and others have brought enough people into knowledge, it's up to humanity to come together as enlightened beings to decide what should be done.

I have stated this before, but apparently my answer was not what you wanted to hear.

If I was to dictate how I think the world should be, I would be no better than those I condemn. I am very much turned off by ideologues.

The thing is, when people look to "solutions," they resort to matrix-given labels like "capitalist," "communist," "anarchist," etc. Most people cannot envision a world outside of the labels they were given to parrot as their own.

 

But we're already seeing this push with superstates such as the EU, as well as NAFTA (the precursor to the North American Union) and GATT. This is all being promoted by the global corporate elite, or what you refer to as the neoliberals. So why would these people be promoting something that would be good for the people but bad for them? Does that make any sense to you? What you're calling for is a consolidation of corporate-government power. You're feeding into their agenda and you don't even know it. That is how misinformed you are.

You say that I favor "policies" that would be in favor of the global elite, when you are openly pushing for an agenda the Rockefeller and Rothschild families have been promoting for well over a century.

 

I fail to see anything wrong with assigning labels or describing "isms". Your favourite one that you use all the time lately is "fascism", Matt.

 

You forgot Anti-Dialectism (I just made that word up)

 

LOL

What an incredibly dishonest reply, Rat you excel yourself.

“My intent is to show people what's wrong”

No, you tell them what’s wrong and will accept no dissent.

It’s a matter of being with you or against you, time after time, people who criticise your viewpoint have been labelled gullible morons, misinformed idiots or brainwashed sheep and if they continue they are accused of being part of ‘the conspiracy’ to be dismissed out of hand.

And you will not discuss the ideas you raise in anything like an open or honest way, just as you are not now.

**

“and then once myself and others have brought enough people into knowledge, it's up to humanity to come together as enlightened beings to decide what should be done”

Oh yes of cause, so once people understand things the way you they will do as you do and think as you think, once you have followers that do not dissent, then these ‘enlightened beings’ will keep to the ideological and dogmatic path.

Your not spreading political awareness if you were you’d be able and willing to discuss you ideas not run away from any examination of them.

**

“I have stated this before, but apparently my answer was not what you wanted to hear.”

And I’ve set out plainly why I think this claim of unbiased impartiality on your part is very deeply dishonest, and so far you haven’t even address my accusations let alone refuted them.

Just saying something doesn’t make it true especially when all the evidence seems to point toward it being false.

**

“If I was to dictate how I think the world should be, I would be no better than those I condemn. I am very much turned off by ideologues.”

But yours is an ideological stance and worse it seems to be an ideological stance you will not discuss openly or honestly and have tried on many occasions to actually hide.

**

“The thing is, when people look to "solutions," they resort to matrix-given labels like "capitalist," "communist," "anarchist," etc. Most people cannot envision a world outside of the labels they were given to parrot as their own.”

But your stance is of the far right wing, and I’ve pointed this out on a number of occasions and explained it at some length, you have told me I’m wrong (loudly) but you’ve never seem able to actually explain why your views are not right wing or why they wouldn’t actually increase the power of wealth.

 

Rat

But we're already seeing this push with superstates such as the EU, as well as NAFTA (the precursor to the North American Union) and GATT. This is all being promoted by the global corporate elite, or what you refer to as the neoliberals.

But all the things you mention are on the whole economic entities

North American Free Trade Agreement

The EU was set up as and still is mainly an economic union the old EEC, (European Economic Community).

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Yes many types of neo-liberals promote such trade agreements but they very much oppose the things I’ve talked about (upgraded international labour and welfare laws, the regulation of global corporations, tougher international environmental laws etc) and definitely don’t want any democratic international institutions as I’ve suggested.

For example the main opposition to the EU in the UK comes from the right, they like the ideas of a trading block but oppose what they term ‘interference’ such as environmental regulations or social and welfare directives (on which the UK government has an opt out). That is the same stance taken by Rupert Murdock’s media in the UK.

In other words wealth often seems to like’s international trade agreements but fears international regulation.

**

However there are right wing wingers who oppose such trading blocks because they see them as ‘government’ interference in ‘true’ free trade or on nationalistic grounds. (There are even right wing ‘national libertarians’ who claim to be are nationalistically protectionist but also follow many of the tenants of libertarianism - Why do the national libertarians keep reminding me of the Nazis?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=104835 )

**

For another view
From NAFTA to the SPP
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0108sciacchitano.html

 

Oh surprise, surprise – Rat ran away, again.


**

 

No, Balbus, I didn't run away.

First, I need to correct you on several things.

Yes, the EU was planned decades ago and even well before you were born. It started with several treaties. First, we have the Shuman Declaration of 1950, which was a plan to pool French and German coal and steel production. Then, in 1951, there was the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, or ECSC. This was a group of six countries -- Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Out of this, in 1957, came the Treaty of Rome, giving birth to the European Economic Community (EEC).

From this point forward, a series of incremental steps were taken to move the European common market into a regional government of European countries. After economic unity was established, political unity followed.

In 1957, there was the formation of the European Atomic Energy Commission, which was created by a second treaty of Rome that was signed the same day the EEC was created. Later on that same year, a European Court of Justice was established to settle regional trade disputes.

In 1960, there was the formation of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and in 1965 the already established European communities, such as the EEC, ECSC and the EAEC, all merged under the EEC name.

In 1968, the European Customs Union was formed, which established a uniform system of taxing imports among EEC countries while removing duties at internal borders.

In 1978, the European Council met to establish a European currency unit and exchange rate mechanism. In 1986, the Single European Act modified the Treaty of Rome and established a framework for a unified European market.

In 1992, the Treaty of Maastricht was signed, officially giving birth to the EU.

So, as you can see, this was implemented incrementally. That is how these elites work. What started off as a union of coal and steel production, evolved into an economic union, which has since evolved into a political union. Now, 70-80% of all laws passed in Europe are simply rubber stamped regulations already written up by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. The once high courts of the European countries was subverted to the high court of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

This is called totalitarianism.

A united Europe was a dream of elites going far back. It was Hitler's dream, too, and he even wrote about it in his aptly titled book, The World Order. But why would the consolidation of power not be a tyrant's dream?

You talk about there being no international institutions, but what about the United Nations? The UN plays a major role in the evisceration of national sovereignty and the push for a world government (which you have stated numerous times you endorse). Also, are you aware that there is a World Court located in the Hague? What exactly do you mean by "democratic" international institutions? You mean international institutions devoted to the destruction of sovereignty and the establishment of a one world government?

You talk about global environmental regulations, but what about international treaties such as Kyoto? One of the biggest lobbying influences behind Kyoto was the now defunct Enron. Surprise surpirse.

So yeah, I find it funny how you endlessly talk about regulations and such, yet you never address the fact that these regulations are most enthusiastically supported by corporate interests themselves. Why is this, Balbus? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why this is?

 

Oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeese Rat!

You claim to have not run away – but you have, you have run away from the one thing being asked of you - to address the charges levelled at you that you promote policies that would assist wealth.

What you’ve given us is yet another rant, a supposed ‘correction’, for things never said, again this is misdirection to try and veil your lack of any real answers to the criticism levelled against you.

**

As to Hitler's book, do you mean, Zweites Buch “suggesting that around 1980, a final struggle would take place for world domination between the United States and the combined forces of Greater Germany and the British Empire.” wiki
That is, after force of arms had give the domination of Europe over to Germany and Britain.

I can’t seem to find any book by Hitler called ‘The World Order’ please give a link to it?

So Hitler who you have claimed to be part of ‘the conspiracy’ wanted fast wars and suddenly implantation backed by military force but you claim that the conspiracy of the elite prefers to implement its plans incrementally over many years by negotiated treaty?

Which is it?

Again this is just a piece of misdirect to try and hide the fact you’re still not addressing the questions levelled at you.

**

You talk about there being no international institutions, but what about the United Nations?

I’ve talked of their being no democratically elected international institutions and you know I have - again yet more misdirection.

**

The UN plays a major role in the evisceration of national sovereignty and the push for a world government (which you have stated numerous times you endorse). Also, are you aware that there is a World Court located in the Hague? What exactly do you mean by "democratic" international institutions? You mean international institutions devoted to the destruction of sovereignty and the establishment of a one world government?

I’ve stated many times that I think the global elite fear a democratically elected UN.

To quote from one of several treads on the subject –

“The fact is that the wealthy elite who have been making a great deal of money out of economic globalisation would not want a democratic global government that would very likely limit its power and be more able to tax their wealth.

As pointed out in the book ‘The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order’ by George Monbiot democratically elected global institution could go a long way to right many of the wrongs of economic globalisation by making those that are profiting from it to be accountable to the worlds people.

It suits the wealthy elite to have a disunited world while they can act globally, a united world with integrated tax, legal, social, environmental and fiscal policies would limit their power.

We are unlikely to limit economic globalisation so unless we as a people can regulate it the few will have greater power than the many. So if our goal is to limit the power of the global Establishment shouldn't we be working for a democratically elected global government not against one”

Here is lecture on the - The Age of Consent given by George Monbiot

Part One
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2775208&postcount=8
Part Two
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2775210&postcount=9


**

You talk about global environmental regulations, but what about international treaties such as Kyoto? One of the biggest lobbying influences behind Kyoto was the now defunct Enron. Surprise surpirse.

Well it isn’t much of a surprise to discover that Enron seems to have been pushing for Kyoto for purely financial gain, while supposedly trying to gag scientists warning against global warming.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3388
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/16/135018.shtml

**

So yeah, I find it funny how you endlessly talk about regulations and such, yet you never address the fact that these regulations are most enthusiastically supported by corporate interests themselves. Why is this, Balbus? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why this is?

I stop and ask myself all the time, and then I try to find out, as you can see from the Enron thing it can often be informative.

I have stated clearly my views and explained them often at length, you on the other hand rant at length but explain little or nothing even when asked repeatedly to do so.

Stop running Rat and actually address the charges levelled at you.

 

Balbus why have you hijacked my thread to attack Rat? I understand where Rat comes from, you probably do to, so why detract from the real fact that all those glorious corporate gods pay no taxes, just like the oil corporations that own all kinds of rights but drill and cap, or don't even bother to drill. But they want us to sell them and subsidize their purchases of off shore sites? This thread is about pointing out that contrary to what they say they pay no taxes.

They continue to reap outrageous profits, while we carry the load, they are protected from litigation while more and more the working man has no recourse.

 

Gardener

Then enter into the discussion or haven’t you got anything more to say?

I’ve made a few comments (post 8) and put forward a few ideas (post 21)

where are you?

 

An answer is only good when we agree with you. You asked us to explain ourselves and we have. For whatever reason, our answers don't satisfy you.

You go into how we 'create conspiracy theories', yet you mention how PR is apart of the Birch society... Isn't that a conspiracy theory? My own political understandings align with Rat's, does that mean that I am apart of the group? I honestly had no clue that group ever existed until you brought it up one day in a post. This seems to be more of a naturally occurring understanding rather than it being artificial.

Many people, from all types of backgrounds, ethnicity, and age groups are coming to the same conclusions. These conclusions seem to have an empirical way of developing.

 

Hay Gardener: The dividends Corporations pay to thier owners, the Stockholders are taxed.

What about laying a tax on huge jury awards and settlements?

I could follow the logic of the thread and state that the trial lawyer pay outs are received without any taxes deducted what so ever.
That these trial lawyers use a court house which is paid for by tax payers and judges on goverment salaries. That this constitutes a subsudy to the trial bar.

Let us tax big jury awards.

 

Def

An answer is only good when we agree with you.

A good answer to me is one that is honest, logical, rational and persuasive. If you believe you or Rat has produced one of these please link to it.

*

You asked us to explain ourselves and we have.

What have you explained and can you please link to the supposed explanation?

*

For whatever reason, our answers don't satisfy you.

Because so far few (if any) of them seem honest, logical or rational and so definitely are not very persuasive.

*

You go into how we 'create conspiracy theories', yet you mention how PR is apart of the Birch society... Isn't that a conspiracy theory?

Actually I say that many of the views and attitudes of the John Birch Society and Rats seem very similar and that’s not a ‘conspiracy theory’ it’s an observation.

So now that you are familiar with the JBS do you believe my observations are wrong, if so please explain why?

*

My own political understandings align with Rat's, does that mean that I am apart of the group?

Don’t know until you explain what they are? So can you please explain them or link to where you have explained them?

*

I honestly had no clue that group ever existed until you brought it up one day in a post.

The John Birch Society is rather famous and well known to most people interested in politics even in the UK anyone interested in the US’s history and politics that has missed all mention of them would seem to me not to have studied very hard.
Anyway they’ve been brought up in threads many times by many different people over the years I’ve been here.

Here is the right wing libertarian Ron Paul on them - “The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it’s pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it."

**

This seems to be more of a naturally occurring understanding rather than it being artificial.

What? I’m unsure what you mean.

**

Many people, from all types of backgrounds, ethnicity, and age groups are coming to the same conclusions. These conclusions seem to have an empirical way of developing.

What ‘conclusions’?

And what do you mean when you say “These conclusions seem to have an empirical way of developing”

Empirical way of developing?

So are you saying that if people think something is the way they think it is, it changes from an opinion into a concrete conclusion?

But are the things people believe ‘facts’?

Can they stand up to scrutiny?

Can the people that believe them, defend them?

Are they logically or rationally based?

I remember someone that argued that black people were ‘naturally’ less intelligent than white people. The empirical ‘evidence’ he based that view on was that more American black people were unemployed, in prison or had lower paid jobs than proportionately for American whites.

To him that clearly showed that black people couldn’t get out of poverty and that must be because they were mentally inferior to white people.

That was to him an empirically based conclusion; do you then think it a completely valid viewpoint that should not come under any type of scrutiny or be questioned in any way?

**

 

Gardener

I’m genuinely interested in knowing Rats solutions to the problem being raised are – you claim to know where Rat is coming from maybe you can explain his position?

I’d also like to know your own solutions, what would they be?

Politics is not just about pointing at things and going – ‘that’s wrong’ (especially when it’s not exactly news), isn’t there a point to then think why is it happening and what can be done?

 

I more or less agree with a lot of what you have proposed Balbus. Regulation and oversight of financial affairs is necessary to the safety and stability of the American way of life as much or more so than this so called war on terrorism. I don't buy into the argument that all regulation is bad. Our constitution was based on checks and balances, but I think those in power are now interpreting that as checks for favors and increased balances for their friends.

As to Rat's solution, I don't think he has one.

For me I do my bit by voting in each election in the most unpredictable manner. If they can't figure out how I'll vote they'll always be a little off balance. My vote is my voice it can't be bought.

 

Legal awards are taxable in many instances:

http://www.wwwebtax.com/income/legal_settlements_court_awards.htm

You've bought into the attitude that the little man should have no recourse, remember a lot of suits are brought and won by large corporations. Perhaps they pay no tax on their awards. They've figured out how to get around everything else.

One should also consider most attorneys and legal houses are corporations (many with lobbyists) that benefit from all the reduced regulation and accountability. The fact is the individual citizen still get's stuck.

As to stockholders and owners being taxed...I doubt many owners pay what they should due to tax shelters and offshore accounts. Yes small stockholders do pay tax, those with their retirement accounts invested or trying to get a little ahead. Fact is the big players pay little or no taxes. But they can buy the most influence.

 

Sure it is.

 

Oh yeah, gee, regulations are great because then in come the lobbyists, where the big corporations with lots and lots of money bribe the politicians into passing laws and regulations that are actually in favor of the corporations themselves. That's why, like I said before, the biggest supporters of these regulations are often the corporations themselves.

This idea of the need to regulate comes from people who cannot comprehend that 1) we do not live under a free market system and, 2) the big corporations have bought off all the politicians, who are not going to bite the hand that feeds them by doing anything that would hurt these corporations.

What people see as "deregulation" over the past many years is merely the control that the corporations have gained over government in this time period, to the extent that the corporations run the government and own all the politicians. Again, corporatism it's called. This comes from government intervention with the corporations, who then lobby government officials to the point that there is no real distinction between government and the corporations. The lobbyists lobby to get government contracts and the politicians then work for these corporations rather than the people.

The idea that regulations are going to solve anything shows a week grasp of how things work. Regulations only harm the small businesses that don't have the pull (and money) the large corporations do, while benefiting the large corporations who have the money to bribe politicians to regulate in their favor.

Now why would a government controlled by the corporations introduce regulations that would hurt these same corporations? Does this make sense to any of you? The only thing regulations do is give the corporations more control over the government rather than the other way around.