The only reason the US isn't as strict is that the banks have used their powerful influence to make sure that nothing gets in the way of their ability to offer vast amounts of credit (home loans, car loans, personal loans, credit cards etc) to anyone and everyone.
Right - it is in a bank's best interest to lend their money to as many people as possible, with no verification of whether or not those people will ever be able to pay it back. Because you know, when you steal the bank's money, the bank wins!
YOU made the erroneous connection between the proposal that higher CO2 in modern times is increasing global temperature
Can you show me one tyme I said higher CO2 levels in modern tymes is increasing global temperatures? This is the first tyme I even recall using "modern" in this thread. What I do recall is saying that greenhouse gases are called that because they increase temperatures in greenhouses.
Dear lord, please make it stop. I should have known you were a troll!
In fact, what I'm saying is in 100% agreement with the "more than hundreds of Atmospheric and Climate scientists who say that greenhouse gases are warming the planet". I never said that greenhouse gases aren't warming the planet. It is established scientific fact that they are. Earth would be about 33 degrees colder if not for the ill-named "greenhouse effect". The problem is YOU made the erroneous connection between the proposal that higher CO2 in modern times is increasing global temperature and the fact that horticultural greenhouses are warmer than the outside environment. That statement is patently false. There is not one of those "hundres of atmospheric and climate scientists" who would agree with your statement to that regard.
As for my field of specialty, because you asked, I have a degree in chemical engineering with a focus on environmental science, and I'm a Ph.D. student in materials science and engineering (focus nanotechnology) with about a year to go.
Of course "greenhouse gases" warm the earth's atmosphere, this is not disputed. But the reason greenhouses are warmer inside than outside is NOT because they are filled with extra CO2. Greenhouse gases are warmer because the enclosure reduces convective heat transfer. There is no dispute about this, just like there is no dispute that "greenhouse gases" warm the earth's atmosphere by a completely different mechanism.
At this point I'm just trying to educate you, since I am a scientist and it's a pet peeve of mine that so many people misunderstand basic scientific concepts. Or perhaps you're really a troll and I'm wasting my time.
Did you google "greenhouse gas misnomer"? Do you still not understand your mistake - that greenhouse gases warm the earth's atmosphere, but the term "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer because the mechanism that keeps greenhouses warmer than the outside air is completely different from the mechanism by which greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere?
I'll say it another way. The reason gardeners in Scandinavia can grow tomatoes in greenhouses is NOT because they pump extra CO2 into their greenhouses and this causes them to trap heat. It is because, regardless of the CO2 content inside the greenhouses, the greenhouse enclosure allows radiative heat transfer in, but prevents convective heat transfer out. Do you understand the difference between radiative and convective heat transfer?
I'll go into even further detail. Sunlight shines into greenhouses, warming everything inside - the ground, the plants, the air inside, and so-on. Without the greenhouse enclosure, the heat transfer process called convection would occur, transferring heat from inside the greenhouse to outside, and the temperature in the greenhouse would cool until it is the same as the outside world. The enclosure prevents this convection from taking place, and therefore the heat that enters the greenhouse through radiative heat transfer is trapped inside, and the greenhouse stays warm.
As I said, at this point I'm just trying to help, and in fact this conversation is making me worry about how pervasive this misconception about greenhouses/greenhouse-gases is in the general public.
You seriously think that growers fill their greenhouses with a higher concentration of CO2 to keep their plants warmer - and you think that's why CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas"? Well uh, that's not only wrong, it's just plain silly.
Yes, growers do pump greenhouse gases into greenhouses to warm them. And it's not silly or wrong, you are wrong and ignorant or trolling.
You just unwittingly proved my point while displaying your own ignorance. CO2 is pumped into greenhouses because it is an essential plant nutrient, and higher CO2 levels assist plant growth. It has nothing at all to do with making greenhouses warmer. Greenhouses stay warm because the enclosure reduces convective heat transfer.
It is very, very well-known in the science community that the term "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer. It's also much-lamented that the term has stuck (I don't know who first used it), because many in the public misconstrue it to imply that the mechanism involved in the climate "greenhouse effect" is the same as that which keeps greenhouses warm.
Seriously, just google "greenhouse misnomer" and you'll find many hits that explain it further. I will now accept your apology.
"Global Warming theory is based on computer climate models"
Forgive me for my obvious bias but I take the work of Fourier and Farady over the opinion of a random slashdotter.
Don't be silly. You know very well that computer climate models take into account the physics of infrared radiation absorption by gases. I presume that's the "work of Fourier and Farady (sic)" that you're talking about. The question the climate models try to answer is whether the heat-trapping effect of a trace gas is significant compared to the many other drivers of climate change, and if so what the consequences of that effect will be.
there was NO period in which the CO2 has increased without an increase of global temperature. In other words, every time there was an increase of CO2, there was also an increase of global temperatures, but the inverse is not true.
Here's the research proving my point (oh and I was wrong, CO2 change lags temperature change by 1000 years, not 200,000):
As for your assertion that CO2 has never increased without an increase in global temperature, firstly as I mentioned before you have the causal relationship backwards: it's been shown that temperature increases first, then CO2 increases 1000 years later (same for decreases of both).
There is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO2 has ever caused a change in temperature in the history of the planet.
You're wrong. Have you ever thought about why greenhouse gases are called that? It's because it's a known fact that a greenhouse rich in these gases will be warmer than the prevailing temperature around the greenhouse. Growers in cooler climates use that to grow plants that are not tolerant to cooler temperatures.
You seriously think that growers fill their greenhouses with a higher concentration of CO2 to keep their plants warmer - and you think that's why CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas"? Well uh, that's not only wrong, it's just plain silly.
most of the science points to a rapid change in CO2 being the causal agent for climate change.
Wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO2 has ever caused a change in temperature in the history of the planet. In fact, the only causal relationship ever found is the inverse: it's been shown that changes in temperature have caused equivalent changes in CO2 concentration, with the change in CO2 lagging the change in temperature by about 200,000 years.
Global Warming theory is based on computer climate models, not on historical evidence.
I'll tell you what I'd like. Linux Desktop, just as it is, except suspend/resume actually work, and my laptop battery lasts as long as it does with Windows. Developers should focus on making Linux function properly on the diverse hardware of its users. Trust me on this one: way more people would prefer that to some cool new interface, file system, or eye-candy.
Your argument would work, except for the fact that (aside from the current issue of tax evasion) corporate taxes affect all companies in a given market fairly uniformly. This provides a mechanism for all prices to creep up, and the market actually does bear a higher price when there is no alternative, to a point. This absolutely does happen. And the reverse is true as well: if the corporate tax were set to zero, many companies would lower the price of their products overnight, and the rest would be forced to follow, or lose business.
Of course as other posters have pointed out, the tax is not paid totally by the consumer, but rather by a combination of consumer and investor. It doesn't change the fact that no matter how you figure it, corporate taxes end up being paid by individuals, whether consumers or investors. And this doesn't even consider the enormous cost and burden of complying with a tax code that's as complex as ours (67,000 pages and counting!).
My point is that it's silly to argue for higher corporate taxes, because however you figure it, it increases the tax burden on individuals, except it's hidden so they don't even realize they're being taxed - and that's not a good thing.
When you argue for higher taxes on corporations, you're actually arguing for higher taxes on yourself.
Outrageously simplistic - you assume corporations can simply push the increased tax onto the cost of their product. This isn't the case.
I agree with everything you said. I was being overly simplistic for the sake of brevity. In truth it's as you say: corporate taxes are paid in part by the customers, and in part by the shareholders. Either way, it's paid by individuals. I would argue that customers pay a significantly larger burden than shareholders (aside from the fact that these groups do overlap).
Also note those shareholders aren't the millionaires you make them out to be. They're ordinary people, anyone with a retirement or pension fund, anyone with an investment of almost any kind. I'm a poor graduate student and I own shares in several companies. I think for the average Fortune 500 company, millionaire execs own only about 2% of the shares.
it's very generous of you all to pay my BBC licensing fee. Thanks!
When a tax is levied on a corporation, it is paid by one of two groups of individuals: its shareholders, or its customers. Considering that a corporation's biggest responsibility is to generate wealth for its shareholders, who do you think ends up paying the taxes?
That's a ridiculously simplistic world-view you have there.
Of course it's simplistic, this is a Slashdot post, not a treatise on economics.
In most industries you can't just simply 'pass an added expense to the consumer' that simply because consumers will start choosing alternative products.
And they do. That's why higher corporate taxes put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
Ironically, a first year economics course covers this: prices are set by supply and demand, not by product cost.
Of course, but, this current issue of tax shelters aside, corporate taxes affect businesses fairly uniformly across-the-board, so every product in the market is affected by price creep.
And technically I should be separating the issues of profits and profit margins to take into account the higher demand for products from companies that buck the trend and let their shareholders take the hit rather than their customers (or companies that flee to tax havens). And of course a huge issue is the global economy, in which we have foreign companies that have lower tax burdens competing against American companies, and are therefore generally able to price their products lower, or with higher profit margins.
So while my suggestion of a direct correlation between product prices and corporate taxes was over-simplified for the sake of brevity, it doesn't change the point I'm making, with which I think you agree: that one way or another, corporate taxes are paid by individuals - either the consumers or the investors.
When a tax is levied on a corporation, it is paid by one of two groups of individuals: its shareholders, or its customers. Considering that a corporation's biggest responsibility is to generate wealth for its shareholders, who do you think ends up paying the taxes?
Easy solution to that problem. Raise capital gains taxes instead.
That would be a much better solution, if your objective is to tax investors rather than consumers. From the perspective of liberty, it's better to tax individuals directly rather than through "hidden" taxes like corporate taxes, that way they are informed of the amount of tax they are actually paying, and can make better decisions about who to vote for and what government policies to support.
You're an idiot. Corporations are a legal entity with balance sheets, and they pay taxes.
Sigh. I really didn't want to give a lesson in economics here, but... Who owns the corporation? As I said, a corporation does not pay taxes, because all its wealth is owned by the individual shareholders. The corporation is just a place-holder. So when a corporation is taxed, the money to pay for it comes from two possible sources: the wallets of the shareholders, or the wallets of the customers. Either way, the tax is paid by individual Americans. It just so happens that corporations roll the cost of taxes into the price of their products rather than reduce the wealth of their shareholders.
Here's a simple analogy. Everyone in your community decides to pool their money together to buy food in bulk and then distribute it evenly amongst each other. To do so they form a "company", put someone in charge of the operation, and hire people to buy the food and deliver it to everyone's front door. Then the government comes along and decides to tax your company. Who pays the tax?
In this very simple case, the shareholders and the customers are the same people: the members of your community. They pay the tax. The situation would be no different if the shareholders and customers were different groups of people; one or both groups would pay the tax.
You seem to have missed my entire point. Corporations do not pay taxes, at all! If we impose a 75% tax on every corporation and eliminate all loopholes and tax havens, corporations still won't pay a cent in taxes. All wealth is held by individuals. When a corporation is taxed, you and I pay that tax when we buy their products. I don't know how to make this more simple. If only they'd teach economics in school these days, maybe people wouldn't be so easily duped.
When you argue for higher taxes on corporations, you're actually arguing for higher taxes on yourself. Think about it for a few minutes. It may feel like social justice to raise taxes on a mega-corporation, but your emotions are wrong. No matter what they call it, the money always comes out of the same pocket: the individual American taxpayer.
You're really going to defend tax cheats? They make a ton of money from US customers and they live in the US but they don't have to pay there fair share of taxes?
Explain to me how corporations pay taxes. Please. You do realize that all private wealth is held by individuals, don't you? When a tax is levied on a corporation, it is paid by one of two groups of individuals: its shareholders, or its customers. Considering that a corporation's biggest responsibility is to generate wealth for its shareholders, who do you think ends up paying the taxes?
By going after these "corporate tax cheats", what Obama is really doing is raising taxes on the American public - the hidden taxes that are embedded in the price of everything we purchase. But it gets worse, because we live in a global economy: when the price of American-made goods are increased because of taxation, those goods become less competitive relative to goods produced overseas. Thus American companies suffer, go out of business, or move overseas taking their wealth with them.
Agreed. Let's start with the biggest tax drain of all: military budget.
Funny. Social programs account for 60% of the federal budget, while military spending accounts for 20%. The combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from 2001-2008 accounted for 4% of federal spending. This is all from Wikipedia. Also note that if you read the Constitution, maintaining the military is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, while providing social welfare programs is not.
And you say that you are a scientist? In some nonmathematical field, I presume?
A 37% increase in the concentration of a trace gas is still a small increase. A 4-degree mean temperature increase, given historic temperature trends and the amount of energy involved, is a large increase. You seem to be confusing percentages, which can be misleading, with absolute amounts, which are scientifically relevant. Yes, my field is mathematical.
Look at the data again. There is most assuredly a dramatic warming trend, despite the slight decrease in global mean temperature over the past few years. Run a regression on the data, it's quite clear.
In my opinion, any evidence based on "global temperature" that includes data from more than just recent years should be viewed with scepticism, because our worldwide measurement and calculation techniques have changed dramatically, which likely skews the results in one direction or another. NASA presents data on mean global temperature extending from today back to 1880 as a single line graph with no error bars, which is ridiculous.
Instead, look at the temperature trends I linked to above, based only on direct measurements made in the United States since 1880, or "mean global temperature" using modern measurement techniques (since 1996). These datasets are, IMO, the only ones we can believe with any confidence. Is there a dramatic warming trend? The answer is as likely no as yes, or a resounding "we don't know".
Here's another interesting way to look at the data:
Mean global temperature versus number of measuring stations. In the 1990s the dramatic temperature increase coincides with the loss of thousands of Russian measuring stations when the Soviet Union collapsed. My point is that arriving at a "mean global temperature" is a very difficult calculation to make.
I'm a scientist too, and I judge theories based on merit, not popular opinion.
As a rule, scientific theories are not accepted by the scientific community until they have done two things: (1) explained known observations in a more simple or fundamental way than alternative theories, and (2) made a prediction about something that is currently unknown and that other theories don't predict, which is then confirmed by observation.
Global Warming theory has met neither of those requirements. The main statement of Global Warming is something like this: "small changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cause large changes in global temperature". Despite this theory, there is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO2 has ever caused the temperature to change, over the entire billions-years history of the planet. So GW theory doesn't explain past observations.
It doesn't explain current observations either: CO2 concentration has steadily increased over the past 100 years, while temperatures have gone up, then down, then up again, then down again (as they are currently). There is no dramatic warming trend as predicted by GW theory.
Finally, GW has not made any unique predictions that have later been confirmed as true. It predicted more and bigger hurricanes; that hasn't happened. It predicted significant temperature increases; that hasn't happened. In fact, the theory seems totally based on computer models that have failed to make a single correct prediction about the climate ever since I first started following the issue, in 1998.
To summarize, GW theory does not meet the standards of scientific acceptance, not by a long shot.
The problem with earmarks isn't their monetary value - although 2% was still a huge amount of money. The problem is that earmarks are a tool for corruption. Saying we shouldn't reject a bill that contains 8,000 earmarks is like saying we shouldn't reject a bill that contains 8,000 bribes.
You're confusing "stupid" with "ignorant". Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
If you've reached the point in your life where you've been elected to public office, and you're still scoring 44% on a basic civics test, it's more likely that you really are "stupid", rather than simply "ignorant".
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason the US isn't as strict is that the banks have used their powerful influence to make sure that nothing gets in the way of their ability to offer vast amounts of credit (home loans, car loans, personal loans, credit cards etc) to anyone and everyone.
Right - it is in a bank's best interest to lend their money to as many people as possible, with no verification of whether or not those people will ever be able to pay it back. Because you know, when you steal the bank's money, the bank wins!
YOU made the erroneous connection between the proposal that higher CO2 in modern times is increasing global temperature
Can you show me one tyme I said higher CO2 levels in modern tymes is increasing global temperatures? This is the first tyme I even recall using "modern" in this thread. What I do recall is saying that greenhouse gases are called that because they increase temperatures in greenhouses.
Dear lord, please make it stop. I should have known you were a troll!
In fact, what I'm saying is in 100% agreement with the "more than hundreds of Atmospheric and Climate scientists who say that greenhouse gases are warming the planet". I never said that greenhouse gases aren't warming the planet. It is established scientific fact that they are. Earth would be about 33 degrees colder if not for the ill-named "greenhouse effect". The problem is YOU made the erroneous connection between the proposal that higher CO2 in modern times is increasing global temperature and the fact that horticultural greenhouses are warmer than the outside environment. That statement is patently false. There is not one of those "hundres of atmospheric and climate scientists" who would agree with your statement to that regard.
As for my field of specialty, because you asked, I have a degree in chemical engineering with a focus on environmental science, and I'm a Ph.D. student in materials science and engineering (focus nanotechnology) with about a year to go.
Of course "greenhouse gases" warm the earth's atmosphere, this is not disputed. But the reason greenhouses are warmer inside than outside is NOT because they are filled with extra CO2. Greenhouse gases are warmer because the enclosure reduces convective heat transfer. There is no dispute about this, just like there is no dispute that "greenhouse gases" warm the earth's atmosphere by a completely different mechanism.
At this point I'm just trying to educate you, since I am a scientist and it's a pet peeve of mine that so many people misunderstand basic scientific concepts. Or perhaps you're really a troll and I'm wasting my time.
Did you google "greenhouse gas misnomer"? Do you still not understand your mistake - that greenhouse gases warm the earth's atmosphere, but the term "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer because the mechanism that keeps greenhouses warmer than the outside air is completely different from the mechanism by which greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere?
I'll say it another way. The reason gardeners in Scandinavia can grow tomatoes in greenhouses is NOT because they pump extra CO2 into their greenhouses and this causes them to trap heat. It is because, regardless of the CO2 content inside the greenhouses, the greenhouse enclosure allows radiative heat transfer in, but prevents convective heat transfer out. Do you understand the difference between radiative and convective heat transfer?
I'll go into even further detail. Sunlight shines into greenhouses, warming everything inside - the ground, the plants, the air inside, and so-on. Without the greenhouse enclosure, the heat transfer process called convection would occur, transferring heat from inside the greenhouse to outside, and the temperature in the greenhouse would cool until it is the same as the outside world. The enclosure prevents this convection from taking place, and therefore the heat that enters the greenhouse through radiative heat transfer is trapped inside, and the greenhouse stays warm.
As I said, at this point I'm just trying to help, and in fact this conversation is making me worry about how pervasive this misconception about greenhouses/greenhouse-gases is in the general public.
You seriously think that growers fill their greenhouses with a higher concentration of CO2 to keep their plants warmer - and you think that's why CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas"? Well uh, that's not only wrong, it's just plain silly.
Yes, growers do pump greenhouse gases into greenhouses to warm them. And it's not silly or wrong, you are wrong and ignorant or trolling.
You just unwittingly proved my point while displaying your own ignorance. CO2 is pumped into greenhouses because it is an essential plant nutrient, and higher CO2 levels assist plant growth. It has nothing at all to do with making greenhouses warmer. Greenhouses stay warm because the enclosure reduces convective heat transfer.
It is very, very well-known in the science community that the term "greenhouse gas" is a misnomer. It's also much-lamented that the term has stuck (I don't know who first used it), because many in the public misconstrue it to imply that the mechanism involved in the climate "greenhouse effect" is the same as that which keeps greenhouses warm.
Seriously, just google "greenhouse misnomer" and you'll find many hits that explain it further. I will now accept your apology.
Hey, I would really like some more text around that graph in the second link. It looks awfully suspicious - that average temperature just looks wrong.
It's right - remember the timescale is millions of years. Here's the source, from the well-known geologist Christopher Scotese:
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
"Global Warming theory is based on computer climate models" Forgive me for my obvious bias but I take the work of Fourier and Farady over the opinion of a random slashdotter.
Don't be silly. You know very well that computer climate models take into account the physics of infrared radiation absorption by gases. I presume that's the "work of Fourier and Farady (sic)" that you're talking about. The question the climate models try to answer is whether the heat-trapping effect of a trace gas is significant compared to the many other drivers of climate change, and if so what the consequences of that effect will be.
there was NO period in which the CO2 has increased without an increase of global temperature. In other words, every time there was an increase of CO2, there was also an increase of global temperatures, but the inverse is not true.
Here's the research proving my point (oh and I was wrong, CO2 change lags temperature change by 1000 years, not 200,000):
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791
As for your assertion that CO2 has never increased without an increase in global temperature, firstly as I mentioned before you have the causal relationship backwards: it's been shown that temperature increases first, then CO2 increases 1000 years later (same for decreases of both).
Also, how about this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/SANF6KvP1sI/AAAAAAAAATQ/FP8y3DPkssY/s1600-h/image277.gif
I see CO2 changes without corresponding temperature changes happening many times there.
There is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO2 has ever caused a change in temperature in the history of the planet.
You're wrong. Have you ever thought about why greenhouse gases are called that? It's because it's a known fact that a greenhouse rich in these gases will be warmer than the prevailing temperature around the greenhouse. Growers in cooler climates use that to grow plants that are not tolerant to cooler temperatures.
You seriously think that growers fill their greenhouses with a higher concentration of CO2 to keep their plants warmer - and you think that's why CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas"? Well uh, that's not only wrong, it's just plain silly.
most of the science points to a rapid change in CO2 being the causal agent for climate change.
Wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO2 has ever caused a change in temperature in the history of the planet. In fact, the only causal relationship ever found is the inverse: it's been shown that changes in temperature have caused equivalent changes in CO2 concentration, with the change in CO2 lagging the change in temperature by about 200,000 years.
Global Warming theory is based on computer climate models, not on historical evidence.
I'll tell you what I'd like. Linux Desktop, just as it is, except suspend/resume actually work, and my laptop battery lasts as long as it does with Windows. Developers should focus on making Linux function properly on the diverse hardware of its users. Trust me on this one: way more people would prefer that to some cool new interface, file system, or eye-candy.
Your argument would work, except for the fact that (aside from the current issue of tax evasion) corporate taxes affect all companies in a given market fairly uniformly. This provides a mechanism for all prices to creep up, and the market actually does bear a higher price when there is no alternative, to a point. This absolutely does happen. And the reverse is true as well: if the corporate tax were set to zero, many companies would lower the price of their products overnight, and the rest would be forced to follow, or lose business.
Of course as other posters have pointed out, the tax is not paid totally by the consumer, but rather by a combination of consumer and investor. It doesn't change the fact that no matter how you figure it, corporate taxes end up being paid by individuals, whether consumers or investors. And this doesn't even consider the enormous cost and burden of complying with a tax code that's as complex as ours (67,000 pages and counting!).
My point is that it's silly to argue for higher corporate taxes, because however you figure it, it increases the tax burden on individuals, except it's hidden so they don't even realize they're being taxed - and that's not a good thing.
When you argue for higher taxes on corporations, you're actually arguing for higher taxes on yourself.
Outrageously simplistic - you assume corporations can simply push the increased tax onto the cost of their product. This isn't the case.
I agree with everything you said. I was being overly simplistic for the sake of brevity. In truth it's as you say: corporate taxes are paid in part by the customers, and in part by the shareholders. Either way, it's paid by individuals. I would argue that customers pay a significantly larger burden than shareholders (aside from the fact that these groups do overlap).
Also note those shareholders aren't the millionaires you make them out to be. They're ordinary people, anyone with a retirement or pension fund, anyone with an investment of almost any kind. I'm a poor graduate student and I own shares in several companies. I think for the average Fortune 500 company, millionaire execs own only about 2% of the shares.
it's very generous of you all to pay my BBC licensing fee. Thanks!
I'm sure we do, somehow...
>
When a tax is levied on a corporation, it is paid by one of two groups of individuals: its shareholders, or its customers. Considering that a corporation's biggest responsibility is to generate wealth for its shareholders, who do you think ends up paying the taxes?
That's a ridiculously simplistic world-view you have there.
Of course it's simplistic, this is a Slashdot post, not a treatise on economics.
In most industries you can't just simply 'pass an added expense to the consumer' that simply because consumers will start choosing alternative products.
And they do. That's why higher corporate taxes put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
Ironically, a first year economics course covers this: prices are set by supply and demand, not by product cost.
Of course, but, this current issue of tax shelters aside, corporate taxes affect businesses fairly uniformly across-the-board, so every product in the market is affected by price creep.
And technically I should be separating the issues of profits and profit margins to take into account the higher demand for products from companies that buck the trend and let their shareholders take the hit rather than their customers (or companies that flee to tax havens). And of course a huge issue is the global economy, in which we have foreign companies that have lower tax burdens competing against American companies, and are therefore generally able to price their products lower, or with higher profit margins.
So while my suggestion of a direct correlation between product prices and corporate taxes was over-simplified for the sake of brevity, it doesn't change the point I'm making, with which I think you agree: that one way or another, corporate taxes are paid by individuals - either the consumers or the investors.
When a tax is levied on a corporation, it is paid by one of two groups of individuals: its shareholders, or its customers. Considering that a corporation's biggest responsibility is to generate wealth for its shareholders, who do you think ends up paying the taxes?
Easy solution to that problem. Raise capital gains taxes instead.
That would be a much better solution, if your objective is to tax investors rather than consumers. From the perspective of liberty, it's better to tax individuals directly rather than through "hidden" taxes like corporate taxes, that way they are informed of the amount of tax they are actually paying, and can make better decisions about who to vote for and what government policies to support.
You're an idiot. Corporations are a legal entity with balance sheets, and they pay taxes.
Sigh. I really didn't want to give a lesson in economics here, but... Who owns the corporation? As I said, a corporation does not pay taxes, because all its wealth is owned by the individual shareholders. The corporation is just a place-holder. So when a corporation is taxed, the money to pay for it comes from two possible sources: the wallets of the shareholders, or the wallets of the customers. Either way, the tax is paid by individual Americans. It just so happens that corporations roll the cost of taxes into the price of their products rather than reduce the wealth of their shareholders.
Here's a simple analogy. Everyone in your community decides to pool their money together to buy food in bulk and then distribute it evenly amongst each other. To do so they form a "company", put someone in charge of the operation, and hire people to buy the food and deliver it to everyone's front door. Then the government comes along and decides to tax your company. Who pays the tax?
In this very simple case, the shareholders and the customers are the same people: the members of your community. They pay the tax. The situation would be no different if the shareholders and customers were different groups of people; one or both groups would pay the tax.
If corporations paid their fair share
You seem to have missed my entire point. Corporations do not pay taxes, at all! If we impose a 75% tax on every corporation and eliminate all loopholes and tax havens, corporations still won't pay a cent in taxes. All wealth is held by individuals. When a corporation is taxed, you and I pay that tax when we buy their products. I don't know how to make this more simple. If only they'd teach economics in school these days, maybe people wouldn't be so easily duped.
When you argue for higher taxes on corporations, you're actually arguing for higher taxes on yourself. Think about it for a few minutes. It may feel like social justice to raise taxes on a mega-corporation, but your emotions are wrong. No matter what they call it, the money always comes out of the same pocket: the individual American taxpayer.
You're really going to defend tax cheats? They make a ton of money from US customers and they live in the US but they don't have to pay there fair share of taxes?
Explain to me how corporations pay taxes. Please. You do realize that all private wealth is held by individuals, don't you? When a tax is levied on a corporation, it is paid by one of two groups of individuals: its shareholders, or its customers. Considering that a corporation's biggest responsibility is to generate wealth for its shareholders, who do you think ends up paying the taxes?
By going after these "corporate tax cheats", what Obama is really doing is raising taxes on the American public - the hidden taxes that are embedded in the price of everything we purchase. But it gets worse, because we live in a global economy: when the price of American-made goods are increased because of taxation, those goods become less competitive relative to goods produced overseas. Thus American companies suffer, go out of business, or move overseas taking their wealth with them.
Agreed. Let's start with the biggest tax drain of all: military budget.
Funny. Social programs account for 60% of the federal budget, while military spending accounts for 20%. The combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from 2001-2008 accounted for 4% of federal spending. This is all from Wikipedia. Also note that if you read the Constitution, maintaining the military is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, while providing social welfare programs is not.
I have to assume that you are a political scientist.
I'll assume you are too. You know, attacking the poster rather than the merits of his argument and all.
And you say that you are a scientist? In some nonmathematical field, I presume?
A 37% increase in the concentration of a trace gas is still a small increase. A 4-degree mean temperature increase, given historic temperature trends and the amount of energy involved, is a large increase. You seem to be confusing percentages, which can be misleading, with absolute amounts, which are scientifically relevant. Yes, my field is mathematical.
Look at the data again. There is most assuredly a dramatic warming trend, despite the slight decrease in global mean temperature over the past few years. Run a regression on the data, it's quite clear.
You mean this data?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif
Or this one?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
In my opinion, any evidence based on "global temperature" that includes data from more than just recent years should be viewed with scepticism, because our worldwide measurement and calculation techniques have changed dramatically, which likely skews the results in one direction or another. NASA presents data on mean global temperature extending from today back to 1880 as a single line graph with no error bars, which is ridiculous.
Instead, look at the temperature trends I linked to above, based only on direct measurements made in the United States since 1880, or "mean global temperature" using modern measurement techniques (since 1996). These datasets are, IMO, the only ones we can believe with any confidence. Is there a dramatic warming trend? The answer is as likely no as yes, or a resounding "we don't know".
Here's another interesting way to look at the data:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
Mean global temperature versus number of measuring stations. In the 1990s the dramatic temperature increase coincides with the loss of thousands of Russian measuring stations when the Soviet Union collapsed. My point is that arriving at a "mean global temperature" is a very difficult calculation to make.
I'm a scientist too, and I judge theories based on merit, not popular opinion.
As a rule, scientific theories are not accepted by the scientific community until they have done two things: (1) explained known observations in a more simple or fundamental way than alternative theories, and (2) made a prediction about something that is currently unknown and that other theories don't predict, which is then confirmed by observation.
Global Warming theory has met neither of those requirements. The main statement of Global Warming is something like this: "small changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cause large changes in global temperature". Despite this theory, there is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO2 has ever caused the temperature to change, over the entire billions-years history of the planet. So GW theory doesn't explain past observations.
It doesn't explain current observations either: CO2 concentration has steadily increased over the past 100 years, while temperatures have gone up, then down, then up again, then down again (as they are currently). There is no dramatic warming trend as predicted by GW theory.
Finally, GW has not made any unique predictions that have later been confirmed as true. It predicted more and bigger hurricanes; that hasn't happened. It predicted significant temperature increases; that hasn't happened. In fact, the theory seems totally based on computer models that have failed to make a single correct prediction about the climate ever since I first started following the issue, in 1998.
To summarize, GW theory does not meet the standards of scientific acceptance, not by a long shot.
The problem with earmarks isn't their monetary value - although 2% was still a huge amount of money. The problem is that earmarks are a tool for corruption. Saying we shouldn't reject a bill that contains 8,000 earmarks is like saying we shouldn't reject a bill that contains 8,000 bribes.
You're confusing "stupid" with "ignorant". Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
If you've reached the point in your life where you've been elected to public office, and you're still scoring 44% on a basic civics test, it's more likely that you really are "stupid", rather than simply "ignorant".