Hey, I understand what you're saying. The current situation is pretty fucking bleak and dystopian. What I don't understand is how replacing a potentially democratic institution with a completely undemocratic institution is going to improve things. You act like if the government were to go away, suddenly everything would be love and hugs. No sir, the powerful would fight even harder to fill the power gap.
You claim that corporations are not the government, and they can't force you to buy things. I'm saying that in the absence of a government they god damn would force you to buy things. They'd keep you as chattel if we didn't have a government stopping them.
Without a government, anyone can just confiscate my cash and imprison me. Or rape and murder me. If they have a big enough private army, they can do whatever they want. That is what you are advocating for here.
You're talking about curing the disease by killing the patient. Eliminate the government in Russia, and you'd just have the mob running everything. The mob would be a de facto government. Same thing that you'd see in America. Corporations would be our de facto government. One which is completely anti-democratic, instead of just almost completely anti-democratic.
Sure, because most business are small businesses. They're regulated more than large businesses, who find it cheaper to just buy the regulators or the legislator outright. Accordingly, we don't see as much criminality from small businesses as we do from mega-corporations.
The problem isn't over regulation, or under regulation. It's misregulation, combined with a lack of enforcement. Deregulation isn't going to fix any of this.
For me: income 33% (self employed, my effective rate last year), state 7%, property 3%, sales tax 7% for a TOTAL OF 50% !!!!
You fail math. You can't just add percentages if they are percentages of different things. Income tax is 33% of your income. Sales tax is 7% of what you spend. If you want to add the two, you have to use a factor to correct for what proportion of your income you spend.
Do you realize the top 25% pay 60% of ALL Federal revenues with just their income taxes and Social Security taxes? Yep - those evil rich pay the supermajority of all Federal revenues. Clearly not paying their fair share and waging war on everyone else...
Do you realize that the top 25% includes those making more than $77K a year. It's remarkably disingenuous (read: you are a liar) to portray them as "super rich".
The fact* is, the top 20% (not 25) owns 85% (not 60) of the wealth in the United States. Shouldn't the top 20% be paying 25% of the tax?
How about we do a truly fair tax system? Our Government is spending $3.7 trillion this year; every single person in the US - man, woman, child - now has to pay $11,746 in annual taxes. Everyone pays the same amount... That's fair, no class warfare, no BS.
Sure, let's do that. What happens when half the country can't pay their tax bill? Are you going to throw them all in jail? But I thought you said "no class warfare"?
Or are you going to spend less? Ok, what gets cut? Well the poor can't pay for the services they use, so that gets cut. Now we have a society owned by the rich, run by the rich. If you're poor, go fuck yourself. But I thought you said "no class warfare"?
Sure. Combine that with >90% taxes on income and capital gains for individuals in the top bracket, and >90% tarriffs on money leaving the country(so Mr CEO can't send his company to the US but receive a salary and pay tax in Antigua), and you have a deal.
Corporations are in fact legal fictions. We really should be taxing the individuals.
Also, your philosophy is empirically unsound. The past decade has been one of great deregulation. It has also been one of great corporate criminality. If deregulation were the answer, we'd see the opposite.
The fact that wealth makes money faster than work does is a fact that exists independent of whether there's a government or not. You cannot blame government for the concentration of power in the hands of a few. You can only blame it for failing to prevent such concentration.
Removing regulations to deal with corporate malfeasance is a lot like legalizing murder to reduce crime rates.
If the government is so all powerful, why do we see wanton lawlessness on the part of practically every industry, with the government powerless to do anything? I don't know what fantasy land you live in, but it's abundantly clear that in the US the government works for corporations.
What morality based economics do you think I possess? Do you think I'm a tea partier, just because I'm uncomfortable with the behavior of the Fed? I assure you I am not. I'd appreciate it if you limited your rebuttals to thinks I've actually said.
I don't have answers to your questions, and I would disbelieve anyone who claimed to have the answers to your questions. I have some potential answers though. It may be that banks are hoarding the dollars Bernanke is putting on the market. That would keep inflation low, until the economy turns around. Then we have a nice surprise waiting for us.
Alternatively, short and long term interest rates are low because the Fed's rate is low. How is a bank going to charge high interest rates when money is so cheap? If a bank triest to charge a lot of interest, a borrower can just go to the next bank over.
Is any of this actually the case? I don't know. I don't believe Bernanke knows either. Economics is not a science.
Correct. It isn't assault when you knee a rapist in the balls either. The rich are clearly the agressors in this class war, and they have been for at least 30 years.
A family of 4 earning $1M and paying $500k in taxes is still *very* rich.
Inflation may change all that very soon. Bernanke is dumping dollars on the market like there's no tomorrow (there very well may not be). Not that I disagree with this rule, but perhaps it should be stated relative to the mean, instead of as an absolute value.
No, the existing power structure is the establishement, whatever that happens to be. Power resides mainly in corporate board rooms these days. Therefore the establishment is corporate.
You can't change the entire world's way of doing business in one go. Note that the Protestant movement resulted in several wars, which I'm sure isn't something you're prescribing here.:)
Why are you so sure? Entrenched power never goes away without a fight. The world is better off for having broken Catholicism's cultural hegemony. The world will be better off once we break the Corporate hegemony as well.
It could well be that a couple laws such as those you describe would suffice. But our system is so well and truly broken, that the best chance of getting any such laws passed would be to have a revolution anyway.
It's the same god damn thing and you know it. It's based on the laws of the US government. It's decided by the US government. It's enforced by the US government. It ought to be limited by the constitution of the US government.
I would bet you anything that this "rogue trader" was tacitly, if not explicitly, encouraged in his behavior. As long as he kept getting lucky, everyone profits. As soon as his lucky streak ends, he's a rogue trader.
The Constitution is the law of the land. A judge who cannot apply it properly is a big problem. This government is just completely off the rails. There is not an ounce of legitimacy left in it.
Yes, I know. It's surprising how many people deny that fact. It's important to point that out on a regular basis to make it harder to deny. Counter the Big Lie with the Big Truth.
Ah, yes. Administrative law. Nothing but an end run around the constitution. You can't just make up a new body of law and pretend the constitution doesn't apply to it. Either consent of the individual is required to affix something to his property or it is not. If it is, then you must get a warrant to do so. If it is not, then anyone may do so. Anything else is unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I understand what you're saying. The current situation is pretty fucking bleak and dystopian. What I don't understand is how replacing a potentially democratic institution with a completely undemocratic institution is going to improve things. You act like if the government were to go away, suddenly everything would be love and hugs. No sir, the powerful would fight even harder to fill the power gap.
You claim that corporations are not the government, and they can't force you to buy things. I'm saying that in the absence of a government they god damn would force you to buy things. They'd keep you as chattel if we didn't have a government stopping them.
Without a government, anyone can just confiscate my cash and imprison me. Or rape and murder me. If they have a big enough private army, they can do whatever they want. That is what you are advocating for here.
You're talking about curing the disease by killing the patient. Eliminate the government in Russia, and you'd just have the mob running everything. The mob would be a de facto government. Same thing that you'd see in America. Corporations would be our de facto government. One which is completely anti-democratic, instead of just almost completely anti-democratic.
Sure, because most business are small businesses. They're regulated more than large businesses, who find it cheaper to just buy the regulators or the legislator outright. Accordingly, we don't see as much criminality from small businesses as we do from mega-corporations.
The problem isn't over regulation, or under regulation. It's misregulation, combined with a lack of enforcement. Deregulation isn't going to fix any of this.
For me: income 33% (self employed, my effective rate last year), state 7%, property 3%, sales tax 7% for a TOTAL OF 50% !!!!
You fail math. You can't just add percentages if they are percentages of different things. Income tax is 33% of your income. Sales tax is 7% of what you spend. If you want to add the two, you have to use a factor to correct for what proportion of your income you spend.
Hold on, I'm not done yet.
Do you realize the top 25% pay 60% of ALL Federal revenues with just their income taxes and Social Security taxes? Yep - those evil rich pay the supermajority of all Federal revenues. Clearly not paying their fair share and waging war on everyone else...
Do you realize that the top 25% includes those making more than $77K a year. It's remarkably disingenuous (read: you are a liar) to portray them as "super rich".
The fact* is, the top 20% (not 25) owns 85% (not 60) of the wealth in the United States. Shouldn't the top 20% be paying 25% of the tax?
* See here for citations.
How about we do a truly fair tax system? Our Government is spending $3.7 trillion this year; every single person in the US - man, woman, child - now has to pay $11,746 in annual taxes. Everyone pays the same amount... That's fair, no class warfare, no BS.
Sure, let's do that. What happens when half the country can't pay their tax bill? Are you going to throw them all in jail? But I thought you said "no class warfare"?
Or are you going to spend less? Ok, what gets cut? Well the poor can't pay for the services they use, so that gets cut. Now we have a society owned by the rich, run by the rich. If you're poor, go fuck yourself. But I thought you said "no class warfare"?
Sure. Combine that with >90% taxes on income and capital gains for individuals in the top bracket, and >90% tarriffs on money leaving the country(so Mr CEO can't send his company to the US but receive a salary and pay tax in Antigua), and you have a deal.
Corporations are in fact legal fictions. We really should be taxing the individuals.
Also, your philosophy is empirically unsound. The past decade has been one of great deregulation. It has also been one of great corporate criminality. If deregulation were the answer, we'd see the opposite.
The fact that wealth makes money faster than work does is a fact that exists independent of whether there's a government or not. You cannot blame government for the concentration of power in the hands of a few. You can only blame it for failing to prevent such concentration.
Removing regulations to deal with corporate malfeasance is a lot like legalizing murder to reduce crime rates.
If the government is so all powerful, why do we see wanton lawlessness on the part of practically every industry, with the government powerless to do anything? I don't know what fantasy land you live in, but it's abundantly clear that in the US the government works for corporations.
What morality based economics do you think I possess? Do you think I'm a tea partier, just because I'm uncomfortable with the behavior of the Fed? I assure you I am not. I'd appreciate it if you limited your rebuttals to thinks I've actually said.
I don't have answers to your questions, and I would disbelieve anyone who claimed to have the answers to your questions. I have some potential answers though. It may be that banks are hoarding the dollars Bernanke is putting on the market. That would keep inflation low, until the economy turns around. Then we have a nice surprise waiting for us.
Alternatively, short and long term interest rates are low because the Fed's rate is low. How is a bank going to charge high interest rates when money is so cheap? If a bank triest to charge a lot of interest, a borrower can just go to the next bank over.
Is any of this actually the case? I don't know. I don't believe Bernanke knows either. Economics is not a science.
There's age-inappropriate content in Futurama? Where?
I've met Star Trek fans at corner bars and construction sites. Every one of them was a nerd though.
Correct. It isn't assault when you knee a rapist in the balls either. The rich are clearly the agressors in this class war, and they have been for at least 30 years.
A family of 4 earning $1M and paying $500k in taxes is still *very* rich.
Inflation may change all that very soon. Bernanke is dumping dollars on the market like there's no tomorrow (there very well may not be). Not that I disagree with this rule, but perhaps it should be stated relative to the mean, instead of as an absolute value.
No, the existing power structure is the establishement, whatever that happens to be. Power resides mainly in corporate board rooms these days. Therefore the establishment is corporate.
anything that is aimed at minimizing government involvement is anti-establishment and may just be a special case of libertarian movement.
Deregulating major industries both minimizes government involvement AND is pro-establishment.
You can't change the entire world's way of doing business in one go. Note that the Protestant movement resulted in several wars, which I'm sure isn't something you're prescribing here. :)
Why are you so sure? Entrenched power never goes away without a fight. The world is better off for having broken Catholicism's cultural hegemony. The world will be better off once we break the Corporate hegemony as well.
It could well be that a couple laws such as those you describe would suffice. But our system is so well and truly broken, that the best chance of getting any such laws passed would be to have a revolution anyway.
, I feel that a "financial reformation" is needed in our society. Something literally of the magnitude of the Protestant reformation in the 1500s.
I believe what you're referring to there is the glorious socialist revolution, comrade.
It's the same god damn thing and you know it. It's based on the laws of the US government. It's decided by the US government. It's enforced by the US government. It ought to be limited by the constitution of the US government.
I would bet you anything that this "rogue trader" was tacitly, if not explicitly, encouraged in his behavior. As long as he kept getting lucky, everyone profits. As soon as his lucky streak ends, he's a rogue trader.
The Constitution is the law of the land. A judge who cannot apply it properly is a big problem. This government is just completely off the rails. There is not an ounce of legitimacy left in it.
Yes, I know. It's surprising how many people deny that fact. It's important to point that out on a regular basis to make it harder to deny. Counter the Big Lie with the Big Truth.
Ah, yes. Administrative law. Nothing but an end run around the constitution. You can't just make up a new body of law and pretend the constitution doesn't apply to it. Either consent of the individual is required to affix something to his property or it is not. If it is, then you must get a warrant to do so. If it is not, then anyone may do so. Anything else is unconstitutional.