The war on poverty was a failure.

I get it. He did name a specific, and you just pretended he hadn't. As I knew you would.

 

Finally one is named. OK so do you think if a company is based in say England ( such as BP) that they should pay taxes on profits made here if it claims these profits in England and pays the taxes there?

 

"It has to be replaced with a better system.


Taxcutter says:
No it doesn't. The Republic got by just fine for nearly two centuries without it.

 

Lots have been named. And you know it.

I actually don't believe that profits should be taxed at all; but given that they are, yes, it should pay tax locally on its locally made profits. Otherwise, international companies will just shop for a low-tax jurisdiction in which to have their profits taxed. Which is exactly what they do.

 

That is a naive reading of history, and a blinkered notion of economics. For its first century, the republic had slavery; but for the non-slaves, competition from slave labor was tempered by the availability of lots of good land taken from the aboriginal inhabitants. Once the good land was all appropriated as private property -- by late in the 19th century -- poverty very quickly became an explosive issue. Similar processes have been repeated in many places where good land was initially abundant, but was then all taken as private property: the USA, Canada, Australia, Iceland, South Africa, Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia), Argentina, etc. Once the good land is all private property, the landless are quickly forced into abject poverty. A government that does not rescue them from the effects of landowning is courting revolution -- which has also happened many times.

 

So you are advocating we require taxes paid by foreign entities that realize their profit outside this country? Yes?

 

Sure. When I have time.

 

Then when you see that the best times for the middle class also saw the wealth gap increase will you get over your "there is a fixed pie and it has to be distributed. Income is not earned, it is divvied up among te population." Stuff? Or at least in the free market? I agree stimulus, like those the left loves, does take from people and is divided among te rich and powerful. That I can agree on.

 

You attribute things to me I have not said or meant.

I never said the pie is 'fixed.' I just observe different distribution characteristics at different times.

The graphs I posted are all about the pie NOT being fixed, but growing. They say that the growth, the new increment of pie, used to be distributed widely, but in recent times the greatest number of people have been shut out, and the greatest part of the increase has gone to a very small segment. I question whether this is sustainable; I think it contributes to a weak consumer sector and lackluster economic performance.

You speak of income being earned, not distributed. So you believe CEOs earn their high incomes? Then why are CEOs paid, relative to median income, so much more than they used to be? Are CEOs today 1000% or so more productive than CEO's were 60 years ago?

Basically, capitalistic ideology is into doublethink on pay. You think both that people EARN just what they get, and that whatever they get is right, because wages are set by the MARKET. So which is it? Those are not the same thing.

I say there's a third answer: the top "earners" have indeed acquired the ability to 'distribute' a much bigger share to themselves.

 

A welfare State merely needs to solve for a natural rate of unemployment engendered by capitalism with sufficient socialism to correct for that market inefficiency.

 

No, I am just informing you of the facts that prove your claims are false. You made a factually false claim. I am identifying the facts that prove your claim is objectively false. You said there was no such thing as corporate welfare. I am identifying the facts that prove there is.

CAPISCI?

What part of, "it should pay tax locally on its locally made profits" are you having trouble understanding?

 

You do realize your thoughts on the matter will discourage foreign investment and encourage US investment to pull out.

 

No, you are wrong in two different ways in one sentence: 1) those aren't my thoughts, those are the facts that identify one corporate welfare tax break, which you erroneously denied existed; and 2) investment depends on opportunity, not just taxes. The tax deferral has not been notably effective in encouraging foreign investment, nor in discouraging capital flight.

 

What if, corporate taxes paid for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis for those labor market participants who may not be efficient enough to command an efficiency wage in our market for labor.

 

What if people just had their freakin' rights to liberty restored?

 

They are in many ways. Global market size, company revenue, total market share.
Why do you think CEos get paid what they do? Buffet says because you don't want to be penny foolish with multi billion dollar operations. Take the wal mart CEO. Spread his salary among the 2.3 million employees and they get $10 ea. not even a days taxes. Now who takes more from workers and slows their ability to save and invest - the true wealth creator - something g that would be easier to do if the govt didn't take so much.

Also, saying they took most new income is also the same pie thing I was talking about before. Lastly these are different people as time goes by, older people make more and we have a baby boomer generation in their prime and an aging population. Assume some upward skewing. Plus the obama stimulus that took from workers and have to the rich and powerful.

 

More relevantly, why do American CEOs get paid so much more than European or Asian CEOs, when they are clearly no better? Why are American CEOs able to take billions from companies they have managed into bankruptcy?

Are the Europeans penny foolish? The Japanese? Buffett's claim would be more persuasive if there were any relationship between CEO compensation and corporate performance. But there isn't.

Again, there is no evidence that his pay actually buys commensurately better performance. In fact, a small but significant INVERSE relationship has been found between CEO pay and company performance. This should not be surprising: monumental greed is not a personality trait that lends itself to good business decisions.

No, it's not.

 

Since a bad one can ruin you most people go for the best CEOs they can get.

Most of the super high paid ones are paid in stock options that is tied to performance. Buffet and other big private investors that have power to hire and fire CEOs because they own enough pay their CEOs more on average then publicly traded ones. How is they got o be so rich if they were losing a fortune with their CEO?
If greed is how they get their pay why doesn't everyone become richer simply by becoming as greedy as some of the leftists here? Why are t they making billions?

Then open a competing business and offer lower prices through savings or deliver better service with better employees.

 

Double tax foreign investment and watch foreign investors leave the country. Take away US companies opportunity to shift their money around and they will simply allocate a portion of their capital outside the country all together. Obama thinks like you and does stuff as you would like more than you know. Why do you think the economy is so sour for so long. Democrat policies kill the economy.

 

Where did you get this daffy line?

 

The law, in its magnificent equality, allows rich men and poor men to invest millions in business startups.

 

CEO pay has nothing to do with the fact that LBJ's "War on Poverty" has failed and will never do anything but fail.

 

$1.3B year is your great subsidy. How is the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board a subsidy? The government controls enriched uranium it is their responsibility.

And the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund is to clean up the government sites which produce enriched uraninum for nuclear weapons and then for sell to the power generation industry. It is funded both by government and industry so what is the subsidy?

"Overview:
Managed by the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (OEM), the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund supports the cleanup of some of the nation’s most contaminated areas. The polluted sites are all former production facilities used during the Cold War to supply enriched uranium for nuclear warheads and commercial nuclear reactors. Located in Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio, the plants encompass more than 30 million square feet of floor space, miles of interconnecting pipes and thousands of acres of land that are contaminated with radioactive and hazardous materials. Cleanup of the sites isn’t expected to be completed until 2040 and cost upwards of $20 billion.


more
History:
The nation’s uranium enrichment program was created in the 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project, the top secret program that produced the world’s first atomic weapons. Enriched uranium was a key component of the weapons, but the material did not exist naturally in the quantities needed. So the federal government built special gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) that could chemically alter uranium into an enriched form. These plants featured gigantic complexes of inter-connected facilities and pipes, making them some of the largest buildings ever constructed in the United States.


The first GDP opened in 1945 at a secret facility 10 miles west of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, known as East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), located on a 5000-acre tract of land adjacent to the Clinch River. By the mid-1950s, five large uranium enrichment buildings covering 114 acres were in operation. ETTP also included four electrical switchyards and eight cooling towers that served the enrichment buildings.

Following the end of World War II, the government built two more gas diffusion plants. The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, built between 1951 and 1955, is located in western Kentucky, approximately three miles south of the Ohio River and approximately 10 miles west of the city of Paducah. The site originally was known as the Kentucky Ordnance Works, a World War II munitions plant. Encompassing 3,556 acres, the Paducah GDP is situated near the West Kentucky Wildlife Management Area.

The third plant, the Portsmouth GDP in Ohio, began operation in 1956. The 3,714-acre site is located in south-central Ohio in rural Pike County, approximately 22 miles north of Portsmouth.

All three plants were used primarily to produce enriched uranium for the nation’s nuclear weapons complex until 1964 when Congress authorized the private ownership of enriched uranium for commercial uses. After this time, the amount of enriched material delivered to the commercial sector grew rapidly, and beginning in 1968, the production capacity of the three plants was increased in response to demand from the commercial nuclear power sector.

By the late 1980s, with the Cold War coming to an end and the nuclear power industry losing steam in the wake of accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, demand for enriched uranium began to decline. In response, ETTP in Oak Ridge was shut down in 1987, leaving Paducah and Portsmouth still operating. Recognizing the time had come to begin addressing decommissioning and clean up of these highly polluted facilities, the federal government established the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund (D&D Fund) as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct).

Congress also decided to restructure the government-owned uranium enrichment enterprise, which was under the management of the Department of Energy, by creating the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) in 1993. The corporation was established as a wholly owned government corporation that is an agency and instrumentality of the United States. USEC is structured as a self-financing entity “to operate as a business enterprise on a profitable and efficient basis” to “help maintain a reliable and economical domestic source of uranium enrichment services.”

With ETTP shutdown, uranium enrichment continued at the two remaining GDP facilities until Portsmouth was closed in 2001. Since then Paducah has been the sole domestic producer of enriched uranium, although it is slated for closure in 2012. Altogether, the three GDPs comprise a massive amount of contaminated materials that need to be disposed of, as well as thousands of acres that require decontamination.

Originally, just as the D&D Fund was being established, federal officials estimated it would cost $21 billion and take more than 40 years to accomplish cleanup of the GDPs. However, the EPAct authorized annual contributions of only $480 million (from both government and industry) through 2007, for a total of $7.2 billion, leaving the project short by $13.8 billion.

In October 2007, legislation was introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to reauthorize the D&D Fund for another 10 years. That legislation is still pending in the Senate.

Affordable Cleanup? Opportunities for cost reduction in the decontamination and decommissioning of the nation's uranium enrichment facilities (National Academy Press)
5th Triennial Report (PDF)
Senate Energy Committee Holds Hearing On Brown Legislation To Clean Up Piketon Uranium Enrichment Plant

(Sherrod Brown Website)


more
What it Does:
Established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund (D&D Fund) was created for a 15-year period to help dismantle and cleanup the nation’s three gaseous diffusion plants located in Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio. The task of completing decontamination and decommissioning of these facilities falls under the auspices of the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management, which manages the D&D Fund."
http://www.allgov.com/departments/d...nation-and-decommissioning-fund?agencyid=7425

And government R&D is now a subsidy? Are you for shutting down all government R&D because it is a subsidy to business?

Then tell me are you for ending all government subsidies to business?

 

...and nuclear energy policy has WHAT to do with the fact that LBJ's "War on Poverty" is a half-century of failure?

 

Why, the profits are made by business units that do not operate in the US and are taxed in the countries in which they do operate, it is not a write off.