Thank You Democrats/Communist -US state wants to tax TVs, video games to fight fat

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

And I'm glad to see you know nothing about politics! Welcome to earth.

Really? Base this on what?

Socialism - A system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Give me any issue from economics, to health care, to education, I will show you that the Democrat Party proposals, acts, bills, legislation, or platform is a form of socialism...This tax proposal being just one example.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

Taxes are a requirement for living in this country and using its infrastructure. Taxes are just a way of paying for things you've already used. The real trick is to make sure that people are accurately taxed according to the amount of public resources used. CEO's of huge corporations make their fortune by using about 500x the amount of public infrastructure than I do, but are they taxed at a rate 500x greater than I am? Nope. Thats what isn't fair.

500x's? Of course there is no way you can verify such a claim, can you?

Let me ask you a question:

How much do you think the CEO's make on the average?

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

You're absolutely right here, and this is why so many former government functions have been moved to the private sector. However, I strongly believe that many if not all industries need a strict balance between "free" market operation and government regulation.

So, Dems are not socialists?

Originally Posted by Ntruder

The Libertarian perspective would simply put everything in the hands of private corporations. But don't be fooled. The money to use this stuff has to come from somewhere. Some Libertarians think that without the IRS, you'd suddenly make all kinds of extra money. Nope. You'd still pay for the same stuff your taxes pay for, and now you'd probably be paying MORE. Why more? Because private corporations operate FOR profit, government does not. This is why private health care costs our country SOOOOOO much more than any other country that has a government funded program. Remove the profits from the equation, and you drop the total costs

Disagree. Open up profits even more by reduce regulation (such as what has been done with auto insurance), increasing competition, and getting the bureaucracy out of health care, the the private insurance and private health care will drastically improve in quality and efficiency

The above paragraph doesn't even TOUCH all the ways that private, unregulated corporations will infringe on our Democracy... That is a whole other can of worms

So, Dems are not socialists?

[Pistol Pete]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

Really? Base this on what?

Socialism - A system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Give me any issue from economics, to health care, to education, I will show you that the Democrat Party proposals, acts, bills, legislation, or platform is a form of socialism...This tax proposal being just one example.

One who supports social problems could be called a socialist. That is not equivalent to a communist or fascist.

There are many examples of social programs already such as social security for the aged and infirmed and welfare for the poor and needy.

I am sure you will blast welfare as a program for the lazy and worthless in our society so I won't bother to go there with you. BTW, you would be wrong in your assessment.

However, if you are getting grey, I am sure you would like your share of the social security package.

Medicare and Medi-Cal are also social programs and one can go on with naming other social programs.

Like anything in life and business, you will find abuses and corruption. Bet you forgot about Abramoff and his friends huh? Or did that not bother you?

However, for the most part, social programs are done for the public good.

Don't think for one second the government does not have an interest in the health and safety of it's citizens. It does.

It needs to play a role and shoule play a role.

Unfortunately, many citizens seem to think the have nots are not entitled to anything. Let them rot or a line from Marie Antoinette, let them eat cake.

A civilized society does not abandon it's own. Many social ills like crime, children out of wedlock, abortion, poverty can be solved with education, help, opportunity and hope.

Some like to say a helping hand and not a hand out.

I don't think we do enough. You, it appears think we do too much.

That's ok. That's what living in America is all about. There is room enough for both of us and the rest of us who share both views.

I also think we can find a lot of common ground to achieve the goals we wish to achieve which is a great country where everyone has a chance to succeed and people respect each other.

Pipe dream? Maybe. However, if we do nothing, nothing will happen.

If we think big, work with a good plan in hand and follow through, there is nothing to stop us from achieving greatness.

I for one will never spit on a man when down.
I will never judge one by the color of their skin, ethnicity, social status or sexual orientation.
I will strive to help those in need and strive to do good every day of my life.

I will ask my government and it's citizens to help me by taking a little of their own to achieve those goals.

If you wish to call me a socialist, go ahead.

I will take it as a compliment for the opposite of what I just said is a mean spirited, selfish person who is more interested in self than others.

[junehhan]

Originally Posted by Ntruder

You're absolutely right here, and this is why so many former government functions have been moved to the private sector. However, I strongly believe that many if not all industries need a strict balance between "free" market operation and government regulation.

If you're familiar with laissez-faire economics, the whole idea behind free markets is that an unregulated free market can work better, and more efficiently, and they will naturally work in the best interest of the consumer. (See Adam Smith's "invisible hand" from Wealth of Nations) But there is one key point that people forget: In order for a free market to operate in the best interest of the consumers, there needs to be (near) perfect information. We do not have perfect information. Our media channels are utterly fucked. They are owned by huge conglomerates and they control what information is delivered to consumers. Just look at talk radio for example. Our country right now is increasingly moving left of center. Yet, talk radio is dominated by conservative talk. Like 10:1 dominated. And our country is certainly not 10:1 conservative vs liberal. Probably more like 5:5 or 4:6 with more moderates leaning left. Another example would be the news. Notice how during these presidential campaigns, the candidates who've raised the most money were the ones who got 95% of the media coverage? Rudy Guliani was always the #1 Republican candidate in all media coverage, and the bum placed 6th in just about every state. Now he's done. Why? Because he raised a ton of money: money that would be spent on advertisements with these media companies.

Point is, without perfect information being delivered to consumers, large corporations are allowed to exploit consumers. According to laissez-faire economics, if a corporation operates against the interests of the consumer, consumers will not buy their products. But that certainly isn't the case in America right now, is it?



I see where you're going here, and I think you have a good point. At first, I got the impression that you were just bitching because you don't like paying tax. I haven't quite comprised a perfect solution to this huge economic crisis that our nation has been heading to since about 1980. At first I leaned toward new deal style economics, but the sad truth is that the nature of the corporation has changed. CEO's used to be corporate statesmen. Industries worked in oligopolistic fashion and had the security of knowing they wouldn't be affected by undercutting competition, but that hampered innovation. I don't know if its possible to return to that style of market from the position we are in now.

To answer your other question: From an outsiders perspective, I am 100% against this tax rebate deal. Its completely pointless, and will do absolutely nothing to help our economy long term. Handing money to consumers helps people short term (like for a couple months), but where is that money going to go? Abroad most likely. But on the other hand, its very difficult to NOT be happy about getting a $600 check, even if you know its completely pointless and won't help anything.

I think the underlying problem in this country is that corporations are allowed to operate at too high of a profit margin. Everything is about bottom line, and nothing is about our country anymore. If a corporation has to pay their employees another dollar per hour, or has to pay a slightly higher corporate income tax, they'd rather relocate abroad than pay it, and that is just wrong, in my opinion.

The Corporate statesmen are gone....

I'd like to address your other points, but I just don't have time right now as i'm backed up with work and school work like you wouldn't believe, but I will say that I disagree about corporate tax being too low. What is interesting is that many other countries are now trying to go the other way and lower corporate tax to help stimulate their economies. Germany is a good example as they just recently lowered their corporate tax significantly. Other EU countries with high corporate taxes are now trying to do what Germany did. They are doing this because they probably recognize that high taxes do harm economies and can hamper the development of industries. I wish I had the time, but arguing this would probably take me 2 pages or so to explain the theory behind why I would disagree with your point. For now, i've got to spend this precious hour I have available to catch up on the gossip in the other parts of the HDF forums........

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

Really? Base this on what?

Socialism - A system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Give me any issue from economics, to health care, to education, I will show you that the Democrat Party proposals, acts, bills, legislation, or platform is a form of socialism...This tax proposal being just one example.

To call Democrats socialist is like calling Republicans fascists. Neither one is true, but each of us could make a case for why one is like another.

So instead, lets just cut the bullshit and admit that both Democrats and Republicans are both somewhere in between fascism and socialism.

If you want to play word games, I can play that too. Current in-office republicans are made up of a bunch of complete fascist swine who won't be happy until all the wealth and power is in the hands of a small, white, minority. That statement is the equivalent of you calling Democrats socialists.

[Ntruder]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

So, Dems are not socialists?

Disagree. Open up profits even more by reduce regulation (such as what has been done with auto insurance), increasing competition, and getting the bureaucracy out of health care, the the private insurance and private health care will drastically improve in quality and efficiency


So, Dems are not socialists?

What has reduced regulation done for this country? Would you please look at some trends since Ronald Regan took office? Its been nothing but deregulation, and our country is for shit, after an almost 40 year period of prosperity, thanks to Roosevelt's New Deal policies. Even in the last 7 years, unemployment is up several points, our debt has nearly doubled, we've gone from a 200+ billion/year surplus to a 200+billion/year deficit. The housing market crashed, sub prime is shot thanks to unregulated lenders, gas prices have more than doubled. US companies are now in Mexico and China thanks to your "deregulation" and "getting bureaucracy out of" industries. There are no import tarrifs to even the playing field and reduce the effects of overseas slave labor, and there are no more unions to fight for American's wages. OPEN YOUR EYES. CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICIES DON'T WORK!

[DodgerKing]

Why does the word, socialism, bother you so much? Socialists are not bad or evil. Socialism is just one form of economics (being a student of economics, you should realize that). I just don't agree with it, as I am a supply sider.

Originally Posted by Ntruder

To call Democrats socialist is like calling Republicans fascists. Neither one is true, but each of us could make a case for why one is like another.

Calling Dems Communists is like calling the Reps Fascists and neither is true. Socialists they are.

So instead, lets just cut the bullshit and admit that both Democrats and Republicans are both somewhere in between fascism and socialism.

I agree with you here

If you want to play word games, I can play that too. Current in-office republicans are made up of a bunch of complete fascist swine who won't be happy until all the wealth and power is in the hands of a small, white, minority. That statement is the equivalent of you calling Democrats socialists.

I think fascists swine is a bit more extreme than socialists. In fact, even the Reps have becomes somewhat socialists, just not to the same extent.

A more comparable analogy would be calling Reps, fascists swine, and calling Dems, Marxists dictators. (neither of which is true).

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Pistol Pete

One who supports social problems could be called a socialist. That is not equivalent to a communist or fascist.

Never said it did. In fact I have made it clear in every post on this thread that they are not equivalent.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

500x's? Of course there is no way you can verify such a claim, can you?

Let me ask you a question:

How much do you think the CEO's make on the average?

Bump....

This is the issue in which a discussion or debate can take place.

[Allin4greeN]

Originally Posted by DodgerKing

Bump....

This is the issue in which a discussion or debate can take place.

I just feel like keeping this thread around because I like the discussion...

Still, I don't really see much debate surrounding the quote you chose, Dodger. It's fairly obvious that the "500x" number was an arbitrary one, intended to suggest the discrepancy between an "average joe's" salary and that of an "average CEO". Here's a source for some consideration. Although, given that it's the AFL-CIO, I certainly acknowledge the criticisms that could result... Having said that, the data is most likely accurate, within the given limitations of the study (S&P 500 corps.).

The semantic argument over what constitutes an accurate "partisan slur" is a bit pedantic, IMO. What concerns me most is not what makes the two parties in our bicameral system different but, what makes them the same. To me, the reality is that despite any one representative's rhetoric, all of their tactics and processes are currently fundamentally similar, and flawed. That is, on any given issue who's interests take priority? IMO, a politician will side with the lobbyist offering the most financial or political capital. In too many instances, this does not translate into what's best for those who are supposedly being represented...

Here's another PA specific example of what I'm talking about... in addition to transportation infrastructure issues, Pennsylvanians have been clamoring for property tax reform. This has been "on the agenda" of our legislators for a couple of years now, and still there's been no response in the form of legislation. Since I maintain two residencies in two different districts, I have contact with two different state representatives. Here are their responses to the most recent session results, Rep 1 and Rep 2. If you bothered to read those, you'll note that two RP rep's provided the same information in two very different ways. I can tell you that this is directly related to the electorate in their respective districts and their relative seniority in the state House. I can say this with confidence because I know one of the rep's personally and my father knows the other personally.

My point here is that even though the result is the same, the method in communicating that result is vastly different, even though both rep's are from the same party. If I called these rep's Democrats, Socialists, or Communists, instead of Republicans, Conservatives, or Fascists, the results would still be the same and only the rhetoric would change. Although I don't have links to Democratic reps' responses on this particular issue, my guess is that they would vary similarly, by "party line", and in relation to the respective district's electorate/rep's seniority.

Machiavellian observations aside, I look forward to the day when "fringe candidates" like Ron Paul or John Edwards represent more than rhetorical counterpoints in a broken political process...

[BamaPanda]

Ntruder
Defender of Sanity ..

I like that.
I wish we were sane in this country. Under the spell of materialism and trapped by our own - out of control - selfishness - we find ourselves slaves.

We also find ourselves insane. Why else would we continue to do the same thing over and over politically expecting different results.

God help us. He is probably the only one who can.

[DodgerKing]

Originally Posted by Allin4greeN

I just feel like keeping this thread around because I like the discussion...

Still, I don't really see much debate surrounding the quote you chose, Dodger. It's fairly obvious that the "500x" number was an arbitrary one, intended to suggest the discrepancy between an "average joe's" salary and that of an "average CEO". Here's a source for some consideration. Although, given that it's the AFL-CIO, I certainly acknowledge the criticisms that could result... Having said that, the data is most likely accurate, within the given limitations of the study (S&P 500 corps.).

I realize 500 was an arbitrary number intended to demonstrate discrepancy. Using such an exaggerated values also demonstrates the bias or even the lack of knowledge about the reality of economic understanding of the poster. Part of the reason why I was challenging him on this exaggeration was to determine how knowledgeable he really is with issues of economics. Or if he is simply regurgitating the same hyperbole he hears from his college professors (We all know colleges are politically balanced ).

Looking at what how much of the infrastructure is actually used and how much the user contributes is almost impossible to do on an individual bases. We can look at the contributions of portions of the tax paying population based on income:

CEO's are represented in the top 1% of the tax paying population. They do make a large portion of the wealth (16% of all of the income is made by this top 1%). This may seem like they take a lot and contribute very little. Even though 1% of all income makers make 16% of the nations income, they pay even more of tax burden, over 33%. Over 1/3 of all the tax revenue collected by the IRS comes from less than 1% of the population. They pay a larger share of what they make to the government than any other income group.

Lets compare that to the bottom 50% of the income earners (1/2 of all of those that work). They make 13% of all of the income and yet only contribute 3% of all the tax revenue. Even though CEO's may use a much larger percentage of the infrastructure (nowhere close to 500x though ), they contribute much more of the money to pay for and maintain the infrastructure (in fact, more so than 1/2 of all income earners).

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/341.html
__________________

Thanks for posting this article. It is this exact issue I wish to address by analyzing the actual numbers as well as effectiveness of probable solutions (I will do so in my following post. I want to avoid discussing too many topics at one time).

The semantic argument over what constitutes an accurate "partisan slur" is a bit pedantic, IMO. What concerns me most is not what makes the two parties in our bicameral system different but, what makes them the same. To me, the reality is that despite any one representative's rhetoric, all of their tactics and processes are currently fundamentally similar, and flawed. That is, on any given issue who's interests take priority? IMO, a politician will side with the lobbyist offering the most financial or political capital. In too many instances, this does not translate into what's best for those who are supposedly being represented...

agree with you hear.

Here's another PA specific example of what I'm talking about... in addition to transportation infrastructure issues, Pennsylvanians have been clamoring for property tax reform. This has been "on the agenda" of our legislators for a couple of years now, and still there's been no response in the form of legislation. Since I maintain two residencies in two different districts, I have contact with two different state representatives. Here are their responses to the most recent session results, Rep 1 and Rep 2. If you bothered to read those, you'll note that two RP rep's provided the same information in two very different ways. I can tell you that this is directly related to the electorate in their respective districts and their relative seniority in the state House. I can say this with confidence because I know one of the rep's personally and my father knows the other personally.

I'll just have to take your word on this, as I know very little of what goes on in PA. Plus, I want to avoid breaking this thread into too many tangents. It becomes too cumbersome to follow when a thread is broken up into too many issues or topics of discussion.

My point here is that even though the result is the same, the method in communicating that result is vastly different, even though both rep's are from the same party. If I called these rep's Democrats, Socialists, or Communists, instead of Republicans, Conservatives, or Fascists, the results would still be the same and only the rhetoric would change. Although I don't have links to Democratic reps' responses on this particular issue, my guess is that they would vary similarly, by "party line", and in relation to the respective district's electorate/rep's seniority.

Machiavellian observations aside, I look forward to the day when "fringe candidates" like Ron Paul or John Edwards represent more than rhetorical counterpoints in a broken political process...

Agreed

[DodgerKing]

This is the article linked by Allin4greeN

2006 Trends in CEO Pay

In 2006, the average CEO of a Standard & Poor's 500 company received $15.06 million in total compensation, according to a report by The Corporate Library. This represents an 11.5 percent increase in CEO pay over 2005.[1]

A reasonable and fair compensation system for executives and workers is fundamental to the creation of long-term corporate value. However, the past two decades have seen an unprecedented growth in compensation for top executives and a dramatic increase in the ratio between the compensation of executives and their employees.

Boards of directors are responsible for setting CEO pay. Too often, directors award compensation packages that go well beyond what is required to attract and retain executives and reward even poorly performing CEOs. These executive pay excesses come at the expense of shareholders as well as the company and its employees.

Excessive CEO pay takes dollars out of the pockets of shareholders—including the retirement savings of America’s working families. Moreover, a poorly designed executive compensation package can reward decisions that are not in the long-term interests of a company, its shareholders and employees.

Some CEOs may have far greater control over their pay than anybody previously suspected. The past year has witnessed a stock options backdating scandal that has resulted in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigations at as many as 160 companies[2] and the departure of many CEOs, such as William McGuire of UnitedHealth Group.

Also in 2006, departing CEOs Henry McKinnell of Pfizer and Robert Nardelli of Home Depot both received exit packages of more than $200 million.[3] Both companies underperformed during their tenures, although their excessive pay was an issue in itself.

In some cases, CEOs were entitled to receive generous exit packages, despite their involvement in the stock options backdating scandal. Former CEO Bruce Karatz departed because of options backdating at KB Home, but because he retired and was not fired for cause, the terms of his employment agreement entitled him to an exit package worth as much as $175 million.[4]

Karatz’s compensation is frozen until an agreement is reached between him and KB Home on how much he will actually receive.[5] Investors have urged the company not to pay Karatz. However, because of the legally binding employment agreement, KB Home has a weakened case if it decides not to pay him

Excessive CEO pay is fundamentally a corporate governance problem. The board of directors is supposed to protect shareholder interests and ensure that CEO pay reflects performance. However, at approximately two-thirds of companies, the CEO also chairs the board. When a single person serves as both chair and CEO, it is impossible to objectively monitor and evaluate his or her own performance.

CEOs also dominate the election of directors. The vast majority of directors are hand picked by incumbent management. Because of the proxy rules, it is prohibitively expensive for long-term shareholders to run their own director candidates. Moreover, even if a majority of shareholders withhold support from directors, they still are elected to the board at many companies.

Ultimately, shareholders have to be able to trust their boards of directors to set responsible CEO pay packages. For this reason, CEO pay will be reformed only when corporate boards become more accountable. Until then, CEOs will continue to influence the size and form of their own compensation, and CEO pay will continue to rise.

The good news is that investors may finally get the tools needed to make boards of directors more accountable. Last year, a historic court decision at American International Group ruled that shareholders have the right to reform the way that directors are nominated for election.

The business community has been pushing the SEC to undo this decision through regulatory action. Hopefully the SEC will resist this pressure and ensure the protection and expansion of long-term shareholders’ rights to participate in corporate board elections.

[DodgerKing]

In the above article. Assuming everything is accurate. I see one major problem. CEO's take more than they need for themselves, thus taking more from or reducing the amount of increase in value/income going to the shareholders, the company itself, and the employees.

What is the worst case scenario of this trend?

What should be done to stop this if anything at all?