Donald Duck Meets Glenn Beck

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

I actually agree that the fact that some large businesses (not every one of them of course contrary to your claim) are run by hired senior management hurts those companies at times.
Not clear on what you are actually proposing though?
[/quote]

The structure of corporate governance we currently have is deeply flawed. I’m sure there are great CEOs out there and corporate officers that care about the environment and ethics, but how they operate their businesses has nothing to do with their personal views. Part of our problem is that CEO are required by law to do one thing: make a much profit as possible. If Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman had said prior to the financial crisis, “wait a sec, these are shitty financial transactions I don’t think we should be betting against our own clients to make money,” he would have been removed as CEO and someone that would have done the job would have replaced him.

There are corporations that act more ethically than others, but corporate governance needs to be reformed. Another issue that could be addressed is officer compensation; if officers were compensated based on long-term measures, rather than short-term stock price gain, we would most likely see risky behavior reduced. Employee-owned corporations and S-corporations are also two examples of different approaches to corporate governance that I like.

[/quote]

Actually SEC has been pretty active lately adopting new policies to increase Wall Street transparency after the recent crisis/bailout (although I’m sure this office is of the utmost importance right now - §342: Establish new Office of Women and Minority Inclusion LOL ).

There are also all kinds of regulations enforcing all sorts of things regarding big businesses’ operations at the Federal and State level, there are democratically elected senators/representatives/governors endorsing various rules,regulations etc etc.

Since you brought up environmentalist-type concern - socialist states where all land is state owned are notorious for the high levels of environment pollution.

162

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

If we tried to write a new constitution today there would be so many more competing interests that stupid things would get added in.
[/quote]

Stupid things like allowing women to vote, outlawing slavery, child labor laws, rights for corporations, etc? None of these things were in the original consitution, I’m pretty happy with most of the changes we’ve made since 1787. [/quote]

No shithead. I gave you a frame of reference, for stupidity with the EU constitution which does not include provisions for slavery, preventing women from voting or child labor, so obviously I meant something else. I think outlawing slavery was a very good move. The same can’t be said for socialist cunts like you. Socialism is a form of slavery.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

This is what happened with the EU constitution. It awards ridiculous rights that are so ill conceived they are problematic for society and causing a pushback, where people are sick of the problems that are caused by human rights laws.
[/quote]

I disagree, but I’m curious as to what problems you are talking about. What are exmaples of problems you think are caused by “human rights laws?” I’m guessing you’re not a fan of Ecuador giving nature constitutional rights?
http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/09/29/ecuador-1st-nation-in-world-to-give-nature-rights-via-constitution/ [/quote]

A good example of stupidity would be the “right to a home and family life”. This is a right that addresses a problem that didn’t exist and in the process has caused all kinds of problems. Because of this law there are rapists, murderers, Al Qaeda members who cannot be deported to the country they came from because it would violate their “human rights”.

For example there was a violent triad member named Chindamo Learco who during a gang assault at school he did not go to stabbed and killed Phillip Lawrence a teacher who tried to stop the assault on one of his students.

Eight or nine years later when Learco got out of jail for committing murder the home office tried to deport Learco back to Italy where he was born. In 2007 it was ruled that to deport him all the way back to Italy would violate his human right to a family life.

Alqaeda recruiter Abu Qatada is another menace to society who because it would violate his human rights to do so, he cannot be deported back to his home country of Jordan because he has been sentenced to life in prison for planning terrorist attacks there. So instead the British taxpayer has to support him in luxury in a 4 bedroom home in London that is worth over a million dollars and gives him over $80,000 a year in welfare

Muslim extremist Abu Qatada to receive £8,000 incapacity benefits a year - for his bad back | Daily Mail Online

In Europe there are human rights that allow murderers to stay in countries that they deserve to be deported from. But what they don’t have human rights laws to protect is freedom of speech and I’ve given plenty enough examples of that in the past.

[quote]ReigonIB wrote:

these are all theoretical ramblings. like “uhhh I want piece on earth” or “human well being should be more important than GDP” or “no unjustified authority exists” etc.
please answer concrete questions.
I’m copy-pasting my questions from the previous post for your convenience :slight_smile:
For example: how will new businesses be started? Who will determine salary figures for the workforce? How will the prices of goods be determined?
[/quote]

People should start businesses in any system. I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re asking. Just because I’m advocating human well-being doesn’t mean I saying that we need to regulate the shit out of everything that moves.

I’m not anti-market. Like I said before, socialism does not equal strict government control of everything. I understand the merits of allowing market forces to determine salaries and prices, the market can be very efficient for certain things. I also understand the role individual entrepreneurship plays in innovation. People need have the ability to start businesses and try new things. I don’t have a problem with all business; I’m a big supporter of local business for example.

What I DO have a problem with though is the ever increasing number of multi-national corporations that have entirely too much power. When entire countries and governments can be pushed around by corporations I think that’s a pretty clear sign that things have gotten out of control.[/quote]

Socialism is a scourge upon the human race. Money to pay for all the giveaways has to come from somewhere. Socialism depends upon keeping people subservient to the government.

If you have a problem with huge multi-national corporations you really should look over seas because there are companies in other countries that would never be allowed to exist under US antitrust laws.

163

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Socialism is a scourge upon the human race. Money to pay for all the giveaways has to come from somewhere. Socialism depends upon keeping people subservient to the government.
[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head Sifu. But when you are a little nitwit and you have nothing, taking from others who have actually worked for it seems like a pretty good idea.

164

Wow. This forum is really the most pathetic of all.

Move along virgins, I’m on my way to SAMA!

165

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Very good, you’ve done lots of reading I respect that. The LLC’s that you refer to are a recent phenomenon. However, “C” corporations are not allowed LLC status. And virtually every one of the large corporations that you are speaking of are in fact “C” corporations. LLC’s are treated more like “S” corporations where money flows through to the owner and is taxed only once.
[/quote]

I’m from the US, lived in the south and on the east coast. Accounting is actually my field of work, so I’m all over the tax treatment of different types of businesses and how corporate law has evolved in recent times.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Also, as a side note that’s one reason why Obama’s “tax the rich” policy will hurt America. Many (most?) making 250-k are entrepreneurs who may own a company that flows 250-k and now they are considered rich. By hurting those small businesses Obama is either showing a lack of understanding (that can’t be it he’s the smartest man in the world) or concern (ahh that’s it) with those who actually make the economy move forward.
[/quote]

You are misinformed my friend. Your ranting about how a “tax the rich” policy will hurt America may fit in with your overly proud, right-wing agenda, but it happens to be factually wrong. High personal income tax rates for the rich actually provide strong incentives for business investment (note we’re talking personal, not corporate tax rates). Corporations are more inclined to re-invest, rather than excessively compensate their executives, when tax rates are high because paying bonuses that get taxed at 90% makes no sense at all; on the hand, bonuses that get taxed at 35% are more easily justified. Go google “golden age of capitalism” and take note of the tax rates we had at the time.

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

Actually SEC has been pretty active lately adopting new policies to increase Wall Street transparency after the recent crisis/bailout
[/quote]

Seriously? Are you talking about that weak ass financial reform bill that was pretty much written by lobbyists? Obama called Wall St some bad names in a few speeches and hasn’t done much of anything to reform the finance industry.

And before when I was talking about examples of businesses I like, I meant to say B corporations rather than S corporations. http://www.bcorporation.net/

166

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:

You are misinformed my friend. Your ranting about how a “tax the rich” policy will hurt America may fit in with your overly proud, right-wing agenda, but it happens to be factually wrong. High personal income tax rates for the rich actually provide strong incentives for business investment (note we’re talking personal, not corporate tax rates). Corporations are more inclined to re-invest, rather than excessively compensate their executives, when tax rates are high because paying bonuses that get taxed at 90% makes no sense at all; on the hand, bonuses that get taxed at 35% are more easily justified. Go google “golden age of capitalism” and take note of the tax rates we had at the time. [/quote]

Your theory on high taxation actually causing economies to flourish is wrong minded. First of all 67% of all employees are hired by small business, not big business. And as I noted earlier small businesses are usually “S” corps or a similar style corporation which allows business income to flow through as personal income to the owner(s). Hence, when Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire for all Americans January first he is in essence raising taxes on most of those small businesses that employ so very many people. This my friend, is NOT good for economy. There are no big shot executives getting raises when there is extra money in a small business. In small business that money is used to hire more people, replace older machinery, perhaps expand to an additional location. All things which help economic growth.

I don’t think we have to post another word. All we have to do is sit back and see what happens after January first. I predict economic slow down in a time where we need the very opposite.

167

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:

Seriously? Are you talking about that weak ass financial reform bill that was pretty much written by lobbyists?
[/quote]

I actually think they went too far, expanding SEC too much , so you see it’s a matter of perspective.

168

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Your theory on high taxation actually causing economies to flourish is wrong minded. First of all 67% of all employees are hired by small business, not big business. And as I noted earlier small businesses are usually “S” corps or a similar style corporation which allows business income to flow through as personal income to the owner(s). Hence, when Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire for all Americans January first he is in essence raising taxes on most of those small businesses that employ so very many people. This my friend, is NOT good for economy.
[/quote]

So since peoples’ taxes are going up they are going to want to NOT take money out of their business in the form of compensation and can avoid that tax by instead keeping business revenue inside the business aka re-invent. Raising personal income tax rates is not the same thing as taxing small businesses. You seem to have a good enough understanding of how partnership income flows though. You can do two things with business revenue, re-invest or pay people. Do you get how higher taxes can provide incentives for investment, by encouraging business revenue to be re-invested rather than payed out in compensation?

169

sweet fuck.

170

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Your theory on high taxation actually causing economies to flourish is wrong minded. First of all 67% of all employees are hired by small business, not big business. And as I noted earlier small businesses are usually “S” corps or a similar style corporation which allows business income to flow through as personal income to the owner(s). Hence, when Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire for all Americans January first he is in essence raising taxes on most of those small businesses that employ so very many people. This my friend, is NOT good for economy.
[/quote]

So since peoples’ taxes are going up they are going to want to NOT take money out of their business in the form of compensation and can avoid that tax by instead keeping business revenue inside the business aka re-invent. Raising personal income tax rates is not the same thing as taxing small businesses. You seem to have a good enough understanding of how partnership income flows though. You can do two things with business revenue, re-invest or pay people. Do you get how higher taxes can provide incentives for investment, by encouraging business revenue to be re-invested rather than payed out in compensation? [/quote]

Okay, I understand what you’re saying but here’s what you’re missing. If Joe Schmoe has an “S” corporation all the income that the business makes is taxed one time as his personal income. Whether he takes the money out of the business or leaves it in is irrelevant. The government grabs a larger share of it just as if he was a Wall Street fat cat making 1 million per year. So in essence raising personal income tax is the same thing as raising tax on small business. As many small businesses are either an “S” or “LLC”. If they are neither they are then most likely a “Sole Proprietorship” or “partnership”. Either way the tax hike effects them adversely. Companies that can have an unlimited number stockholders are listed as “C” corporations. And ironically those corporations will NOT be touched by the Bush tax hikes disappearing. But, the executives running those corporations will most certainly be paying more tax. As a side note I don’t think that this is good for the economy either. But I won’t address that right now.

Based on the above I am really wondering why Obama is allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on January 1st. He will be negatively effecting the economy at a time when one would think that he’d want the economy to turn around so that he could win reelection. Is he digging his heels in because the republicans wanted the Bush tax cuts to continue for everyone. Ane he (Obama) only wanted them to go into effect for those making under 250-K. But again, please understand that a small business man with any sort of corporation, sole proprietorship, or partnership will be hit hard by these tax cuts as money flowing through the company is considered personal income.

One more thing, one reason someone forms an “S” corp for example is so that they are taxed only once on their money. That’s a good thing. But when taxes are hiked for those making in excess of 250-k that becomes a bad thing.

I can’t see how the economy prospers when those who are able to make the economy work have to write a bigger check to the US Treasury Department. That is less money for them to operate their business. And as I’ve stated 67% of all new hires are from small business (S Corps LLC’s Sole Proprietorships and partnerships) not large corporations.

Honestly all politics aside I don’t understand this President.

171

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Okay, I understand what you’re saying but here’s what you’re missing. If Joe Schmoe has an “S” corporation all the income that the business makes is taxed one time as his personal income. Whether he takes the money out of the business or leaves it in is irrelevant.[/quote]

Oooo is this true? Can anyone confirm? Is money reinvested in the company counted as a tax deduction?

If so small businesses would get reamed by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

172

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Okay, I understand what you’re saying but here’s what you’re missing. If Joe Schmoe has an “S” corporation all the income that the business makes is taxed one time as his personal income. Whether he takes the money out of the business or leaves it in is irrelevant.[/quote]

Oooo is this true? Can anyone confirm? Is money reinvested in the company counted as a tax deduction?

If so small businesses would get reamed by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.[/quote]

That’s not true.