06 Oct 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis takes you straight back to the means of production.
He worked while they played.
Or, maybe inheritance. Inheritance is a strange and difficult topic that challenges the idea of a capitalist meritocracy by giving money to people that never had to earn it.
If person A owns the chair factory and he influences the government to benefit his situation (current politics), my only choice as chair maker is to work for him.
Therefor I can work as hard as I want, but a chair-maker I shall remain. And he'll grow ever richer from my labour.
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by shavixmirStart your own chair making business.
This takes you straight back to the means of production.
If person A owns the chair factory and he influences the government to benefit his situation (current politics), my only choice as chair maker is to work for him.
Therefor I can work as hard as I want, but a chair-maker I shall remain. And he'll grow ever richer from my labour.
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by kmax87So taking less of someone's money in taxes is state sponsored welfare? Oh brother.
CEO's with Golden parachutes for one. Number two, the strategy of using leveraged financing that allows smart money to grow wealth by paying less tax,ie state sponsored corporate welfare.
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by SleepyguyHaha, yes they still whip you, just not so hard....some reward eh.
So taking less of someone's money in taxes is state sponsored welfare? Oh brother.
As for golden parachutes, if that's part of their contract and it's a private company, it's none of your business kmax.
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by SleepyguyAnd why would they be taking less of your money? Because you borrowed some to start a business and because the rules allow you to deduct the cost of servicing that debt off your taxable income, you end paying less tax than someone who started a similar business with a similar turnover but did it with equity, and you wonder why the system's in such a mess that it needs to be bailed out to the tune of over $700 B bux? Purhleeeese!
So taking less of someone's money in taxes is state sponsored welfare? Oh brother.
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by kmax87I'm trying to follow your point. You're saying that the government had to bail out Wall Street because our tax system allows people to deduct interest as a business expense?
And why would they be taking less of your money? Because you borrowed some to start a business and because the rules allow you to deduct the cost of servicing that debt off your taxable income, you end paying less tax than someone who started a similar business with a similar turnover but did it with equity, and you wonder why the system's in such a mess that it needs to be bailed out to the tune of over $700 B bux? Purhleeeese!
I thought it was (basically) because idiot lenders made risky loans to people who could not ultimately pay them back, on the apparent assumption that property values would always go up, and then securitized, insured, and sold those loans as supposedly safe investments.
06 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by SleepyguyWell the cumulative effect of all those debt instruments in the form of a financing strategy that layered so many derivatives referenced around the basic real transaction, allowed a lot of people to minimise their tax position while hedging their risk. So it seems that the whole exercise has been a fantastic double dip into the public purse by these corporate hotshots, who not only helped write the rule book in their favour, so that when the weight of their corrupt management practices finally triggered this collapse they did their best to convince the greater unwashed general public that the cause of the crises was the defaulting sub prime lender.
I'm trying to follow your point. You're saying that the government had to bail out Wall Street because our tax system allows people to deduct interest as a business expense?
If you analyse the real cause of this malaise, you need look no further than the irresponsible practice of debt financing and its inbred cousin, the leveraged buy out, the favourite of all hedge fund and private equity managed fund manoeuvrings. The thought that you could reward someone for going into debt by allowing them to grow wealth and equity at the expense of the public purse due to lowered tax obligations is the most fundamental and critical piece of oversight in terms of the way that markets are structured and allowed to operate.
The gods of economic greed and managed risk have deemed this form of investment strategy to be a fundamental aspect of any market activity. Yet it would seem that as companies find newer and better ways to reduce their liability to the social system within which they symbiotically coexist, then its simply a matter of time before a tipping point is reached as the smart money tries to tie itself into more and more convoluted capital arrangements that are self serving and ultimately produce nothing of concrete value other than help ruin the workforces of many a company, as keeping up with the Ponzi activities that eventually ensue, mean staying ahead of debt interest payments,a responsibility that most companies who are heavily leveraged discharge simply by downsizing and sacking hundreds if not thousands of productive staff.
Much like a healthy tree can be bored out from the inside through the activity of white ants and other pests and vermin, the nett effect of some of these management strategies is to effectively strip value out of companies in order to pay the increased salary's of the company's boardrooms, while increasing numbers of workers are retrenched, laid off, sacked or made redundant.
And who pays for this madness? The people and their taxes.
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by WajomaSo, if all the employers in the world are behaving unethically in this way, and potential employees have greatly reduced bargaining power because they'll die of starvation due to lack of govt support if they don't get a job, then that's okay with you?
Haha, yes they still whip you, just not so hard....some reward eh.
As for golden parachutes, if that's part of their contract and it's a private company, it's none of your business kmax.
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThe right-wing extremist version of capitalism is untenable in the long term, because capitalism relies on two processes co-occurring: people living within their means, and people spending and receiving money to stimulate the economy. The more that the gap between rich and poor grows and poorer people are excluded from fuller participation in the economy (and that's exactly what happens under Reagan style deregulation), the more the economy as a whole gets into trouble. This contradiction is illustrated when the government sends out an economic stimulus package with the idea that people are supposed to spend it to stimulate the economy, yet many people would be unwise to do this because they need to pay off their debt.
Perhaps you don't understand the capitalist economic system. Boom and busts are inevitable byproducts of that system. I find it amusing that right wingers like yourself extol its virtues when things are going well, but always seek to blame government or quasi government agencies when things go bad.
The bottom line is that this latest c ...[text shortened]... nd caused the value of these securities to plummet. Result: same except with a worse economy.
It's inevitably going to lead to problems when fewer people are able to afford to buy houses. Either the banks lend too much (as they did) or else these people don't get to own houses at all. Either way, the economy is headed for a fall sooner or later.
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by karnachzgovt support?
So, if all the employers in the world are behaving unethically in this way, and potential employees have greatly reduced bargaining power because they'll die of starvation due to lack of govt support if they don't get a job, then that's okay with you?
Guvamint can't give anything it hasn't taken first, and if it's to take something it can only be from the productive.