[ale] Corporate taxes...

[James S. Cochrane]

At 12:15 PM 11/13/02 -0500, Jeff Rose wrote:
>I love to hear the right wing conservative "fortunate" ones whine about
>their taxes.  Boo friggin hoo.  We all have to support our country and
>our government.  Just pay your damn taxes and shut up.

No.
Our government was given limited powers by the people, and was given a 
limited authority to levy
taxes (through a Constitutional amendment which 'passed' under dubious 
circumstances) to allow
it to exercise those limited powers.  Taking my tax dollars to redistribute 
as handouts (including corporate welfare, btw, and by such I'm not 
referring to legitimate contracts for goods or services,
but programs to benefit certain corporations or industries) is outside of 
the legitimate mandate of
that government.  So are laws regulating what kinds of computer software I 
use, or whether I enjoy viewing images of nubile women who legally 
consented to the production of such images, etc.  As
a citizen of this country I have certain responsibilities back to society, 
and in 1989 I stood on Grant Field and swore my oath of enlistment, in 
addition to the services I have performed on various occasions when it was 
necessary to come to the aid of my community to handle emergencies.  I also 
vote, and report for jury duty when summoned.  I also maintain those 
military skills I was taught so that I may use them in the service of my 
community, state, or country if called into service to do so.  So I think I 
have a pretty good handle on what my responsibilities to society are.


>If we had a flat
>tax,  then there would be no discussion, we'd all pay the same
>percentage.  Then again you "fortunate" ones couldn't avoid paying YOUR
>share.  Maybe only liberals are smart enough to realize that taxes are a
>necessary evil.  And that if we all pitch in our fair share, then the
>country remains solvent.  And furthermore, there have only been a
>handful of true liberals in Congress the past 20 years.  This government
>has been dominated by right wing Conservatives and moderate
>conservatives since the 70's.  If you want to blame someone, blame
>yourself.  You voted for these right wing conservative bozos who value
>corporate freedom above individual freedom.  Now you and I are reaping
>the rewards of Reaganomics.

You've just demonstrated an amazing lack of reasoning capability for 
someone on a mailing list for a technical subject.  First off, claiming the 
government has been dominated by right-wing conservatives for the past 
thirty years really makes me wonder which plane of reality you reside 
upon.  I suggest if you talk to two of the biggest left-wing bogeymen on 
the US Supreme Court at the moment (Scalia and Thomas), you'll find men 
MUCH more concerned with individual liberties than you'll find at a DNC 
convention (next one is scheduled to be in Boston, which I find kind of 
ironic, kind of like banning ceremonial rifles from a stadium built on a 
former military training camp in a city named after James Madison).  I 
recognize that there are cases where individual liberty and the liberty of 
corporations has clashed, mainly in the late 19th century and early 20th 
century when corporations were allowed to run entire towns, with no 
oversight over their actions, something that might have been allowed by the 
courts at the time but which had no basis in our Constitution, but the 
majority of the time, individual liberty and corporate liberty are 
intertwined, since a corporation is essentially an artificial entity 
created so that the combined interests of shareholders could have 
representation before the courts and government.

>
>         Any entity that doesn't pay taxes should have no influence in US laws
>or policies.  A person that avoids paying taxes should not be allowed to
>vote.  A corporation that doesn't pay taxes should not be allowed to
>lobby congress or give money to political campaigns.  You can't reap the
>rewards of this economy without taking some of the tax burden.

Here you show your ignorance of our system of government and corporate 
campaign laws.
In fact, you sound suspiciously like a regular poster on atl.general who is 
an aging hippie teaching chemistry at a junior college affiliated with 
Emory University, someone who excuses the platitudes of Marxism by claiming 
they are based on statements attributed to Jesus.  For the most part, the 
'rewards of this economy' are in SPITE of government action, not due to 
it.  And the current crash can be traced to deliberate actions on the part 
of the Federal government to change the rules involved in corporate 
financing.  Should we go back to the days when only land owners could vote, 
on the premise that they have a direct financial stake in how well 
government is run?

James

>
>
>On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 11:33, Terry Lee Tucker wrote:
> > I had intended to stay out of this; however, your comments are exactly
> > correct and you have quite effectively summed up the entire situation.
> > Would you run for office? I'll vote for ya  :^)
> >
> > F. Grant Robertson wrote:
> >
> > >Did you not read what I replied to you?  GE as an entity may have paid
> > >no actual tax but, the shareholders and employees paid taxes on the
> > >dividends and wages they were paid.  Even Jack Welch, paid taxes.. and
> > >believe you me he paid quite alot of them.
> > >
> > >If you eliminated personal income tax, and forced the corporations to
> > >pay for the burdens of the federal government, you would not create any
> > >net difference in where the money came from. You would only create the
> > >illusion that individuals pay no tax..  The reality is quite the
> > >contrary though, as people who earn money (consumers) are the ones who
> > >provide the income to the corporation, they are in turn the ones who
> > >bear the burden of any tax, regardless of who is technically liable for
> > >it under the tax code.
> > >
> > >The myth of corporate taxes is only a device used to make you as a voter
> > >think that you are being relieved of the burden. the end result of any
> > >tax is money _you_ earned through work or investment is confiscated at
> > >the point of a gun by the federal government. It makes absolutely no
> > >difference who signs the check, it's coming out of _your_ pocket.
> > >
> > >The only exception comes if you are one of the "unfortunate" people who
> > >the liberals have relieved of their own tax burden by shifting that
> > >burden to those who are "fortunate". The end goal of the Democrats is to
> > >eliminate the direct, visible tax burden on the lower and middle class
> > >so that they think they are getting a deal and a free ride. However,
> > >this idea breaks down once transfered from paper to practice because of
> > >the principles I've outlined above. Any income for the federal
> > >government _must_ come from GDP. When you expand your thoughts to
> > >visualize this larger picture, and remove individuals and corporations
> > >from view (by taking all as a whole, hence the concept of GDP or Gross
> > >Domestic Product) it becomes crystal clear. More money in federal income
> > >directly translates to less free capital in the open economy.  If you
> > >ran the numbers and expressed the yearly federal budget as a percentage
> > >of GDP, you'd find that the total tax burden is growing at a rate beyond
> > >that of the growth of GDP.  This by definition is an impossible cycle to
> > >continue, as eventually, all of GDP becomes the sole property of
> > >government..  and that by definition is the economics of communism.
> > >
> > >It's plain and simple, it's right there in front of you but you refuse
> > >to see it.
> > >
> > >-G
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:42, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:01, Brian J. Dowd wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Ok...my blood has finally reached the boiling point...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>The only thing you left out was to close the tax loopholes
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>Since all tax "loopholes" are congressional laws initiated by the House
> > >>>and passed by both
> > >>>the House and the Senate. And since both houses have been almost 
> totally
> > >>>under the control of Demorats for the past 48 years...What, exactly, is
> > >>>your thesis?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>The process of paying taxes requires money. It has always seemed to me
> > >>that since corporations are an artificial entity whose existence is
> > >>solely for the accumulation of money, they should be required to chip in
> > >>as I am required to chip in. I have always viewed taxes as the means for
> > >>funding the processes we, as a collective people, want to see done.
> > >>
> > >>I place the blame on the current loopholes that allowed GE to earn
> > >>billions and pay $0 tax squarely on the greed of the people that make
> > >>the rules and the greed of the people that asked for the rules to be
> > >>made.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>that allow
> > >>>>corporation to earn billions and pay no taxes. GE, Enron, and several
> > >>>>others have managed to avoid paying taxes on the billions they 
> earned in
> > >>>>profits
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>Corporations are figments of lawyers' imaginations and corporate taxes
> > >>>are figments of liberals' dreams. Corporations are totally owned by
> > >>>shareholders, ie: *people*, who then wind up paying the taxes on any
> > >>>imputed profits. Any tax actually paid by corporations merely serves to
> > >>>raise the production costs of its goods so that all  its customers wind
> > >>>up paying this hidden tax when they buy its products.
> > >>>
> > >>>If you really want to learn about (not just argue about) the
> > >>>ramifications of "corporate taxes" please give http://www.fairtax.org a
> > >>>few minutes of your time after you calm down.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>I have read much from that site before. And I still believe very
> > >>strongly that an entity whose only reason for existence is the financial
> > >>conquest of a market should be part of the funding process for the goods
> > >>and services that the government attempts to provide to the entire
> > >>population. As I see it, much of the current system of rules and
> > >>policies and processes exist to benefit that direct class of artificial
> > >>people. So, since they do have pockets lined with gold, why should they
> > >>not financially support the system that allows them to thrive here
> > >>better than anywhere else in the world.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>while our schools were cramming 35 kids into a trailer called a
> > >>>>classroom in front of a single teacher who is supposed to train these
> > >>>>kids to become good employees of these companies.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>I'd seriously like to see your references to studies which correlate
> > >>>class size or classroom construction methods to SAT scores or some 
> other
> > >>>measure of students' depth of knowledge. I will read your info after I
> > >>>calm down. ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>I teach, for one source of data. The direct evidence is getting harder
> > >>to come by as a layman. But some plugging on the web shows that the
> > >>schools with smaller class sizes will, on average, have better
> > >>performing students than schools with larger class sizes.
> > >>
> > >>It really is all about investment. Some areas of the country are willing
> > >>to invest more into their schools than others. The immediate payback is
> > >>bragging rights based on test scores. The long term payback is a better
> > >>educated population with higher lifetime earning potential to fill the
> > >>coffers of government with their tax money.
> > >>
> > >>The reference to trailers is not a slap on building style. It is an
> > >>attack on the poor planning and budgetary woes of many school systems.
> > >>
> > >>It is well known in the education profession that the closer a class can
> > >>get to the one-on-one mentor/student scenario found in graduate school,
> > >>the higher the learning rate becomes. As society moves towards using
> > >>more technology, the total amount of knowledge needed by an individual
> > >>to be an active participant in this society is increasing.
> > >>
> > >>So we have class sizes mandated by non-teachers in Georgia to be 32
> > >>students to one teacher maximum. This number has been chosen as the best
> > >>trade-off between teaching paradigms and budgetary concerns.
> > >>
> > >>I am still looking for a full-time job. But not in Georgia. Or anywhere
> > >>in the south, for that matter.
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>James P. Kinney III   \Changing the mobile computing world/
> > >>President and CEO      \          one Linux user         /
> > >>Local Net Solutions,LLC \           at a time.          /
> > >>770-493-8244             \.___________________________./
> > >>
> > >>GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics)
> > >><jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
> > >>Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >---
> > >This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> > >See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems 
> should be
> > >sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Sparta, NC 28675 USA
> > 336.372.6812
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> > See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems 
> should be
> > sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
> >
>--
>Jeff Rose
>
>jojerose at mindspring.com
>
>
>
>
>---
>This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
>See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
>sent to listmaster at ale dot org.



---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.