shadowy corporate loopholes and tax shelters

[Decyferon]

actually starting a business is something I am looking at but doing it more as a social enterprise. Again it is something that gets funding but is essentially my own business with no involvement from the government. Just much easier to set up and has to have a more social based agenda rather than say a shop where I just make profit for myself.

 

I disagree with Mccain and Clinton but just onthe opposite spectrum of disagreement to yourself, I think that is something we can both agree on.

 

Unfortunately, with my wages and the cost of living I disnt have any money to save (and believe me I dont live an excessive lifestyle at all, I never go out drinking etc I am at home most evenings and am a family man) I wasnt even on a bad wage but the cost of living means it is impossible to save (and had I managed to save a little bit of cash I wouldnt be getting any help from the government and would be in an even worse off position).

[CILONE/SK]

AOD, I commend you to living life in a way that you want, but you are not dealing in reality. IF what you say is right, then these companies making record profits right now, would be doing more then they are doing now. But the fact is they are not making jobs, the markets are not correcting themselves, and they are not providing for the poor.

 

You assume people with no money are their voluntarily, but the truth of the matter is that a vast majority of them do not have a choice. Charity is not going to cut it for helping those in society that need it. Like I said before, the government taking care of people who need help is not suppose to be considered charity, it is the job of a responsible government.

 

The libertarians are living in a political academia, not in the real world with real people and real problems.

 

It is not ok to write people off as a cost of doing business and capitalism does not have a mechanism to provide for people who need help unless there is some benefit in it for them.

[angelofdeath]

that entire line of thought is faulty.

 

would you rather be poor in a poor country or poor in a rich country? the poor in a poor country cant drink the water or have food to eat. the poor in america are throwing away more food than those other people consume.

 

i find it hilarious that you keep saying i am not facing reality. i just laid out real world cases i was personally involved in. in all honesty, you are the one who needs to get out more. perhaps hop out of your urban bubble for a day. get out in the rest of the country and see how we live.

 

companies making record profits are doing exactly what they should be doing. when bill gates made it so even the poor families in the US can afford a computer, he is helping them. when walmart makes it so the poor people can buy food, they are helping them. when walmart employs wheel chair bound greeters, they are helping the poor.

 

your theories also neglect to realize that most people act in different ways when different institutions are in place. for instance.. if someone is having 40% of their income taken in taxes and the job of a 'responsible' government is do things like dole out other peoples money to people who drive escalades and millionaire lottery winners, they might not feel it is necessary to use the rest of their income to fund something they are already being taxed for. for instance, say you feel that social security taxes need to be raised. do you automatically stroke off a check for 50% of your income just to fund more social security revenues? or do you feel that the government already is taxing you for this purpose, so you just pay what they take? lets say you are taxed to fund a library. are you 'against' the library if you do not donate any extra funds over what you are being taxed, to fund this project?

 

 

 

i would never think of using force against you for you exercising your rights to say that you think a large leviathan government with a monopoly on force can provide the best services to the destitute. (although, destitute is no longer destitute in todays america) i happen to disagree. all that i ask is that you leave me alone and agree to not use force against me if i choose to help those in need by other means

[Decyferon]

AOD those companies you mentioned arent helping anyone!! They are selling a product just because they can make it more affordable (like microsoft comuters) doesnt mean they are doing anything to help the poor, a computer and supermarkets does nothing towards keeping a roof over your head, paying your bills.

 

Not to mention that companies like walmart pay such a poor wage that it is barely liveable, how is that helping the poor, they are only there for profit they have no social function or responsibility. They are only helping themselves.

 

I just find the libertarian viewpoint that you hold to be so remarkably selfish, although you live your life well and give help, I guarantee that most others dont.

[CILONE/SK]

AOD, your thought process is not based on reality. The cases you mention are single cases and not representative of anything except those single cases. That is like saying, I know one homeless person who is there because of drugs, so all homeless people must be homeless because of drugs.

 

You obviously only spout rhetoric from the Ron Paul book of what to say when someone does not agree with his bullshit. I have yet to hear you ever say anything that can hold up to the realities of todays world and what companies are doing. Your viewpoint is proven wrong every day, because the business world is not correcting itself and also not taking care of anybody but their profits, they are not even taking care of their own employees.

[angelofdeath]

who exactly benefits MORE from cheap prices at walmart? 100K 'poor' people in an area who can now buy food or the couple hundred workers who willingly line up to work at these places? i'd say both benefit, but the consumer benefits much more. by selling products for less money, it means more people can afford them. therefore they benefit. if they didnt benefit, they wouldnt engage in said transaction. if the poor are able to cut their grocery bill in half by capitalist market innovation in super markets, they can use this money to pay the rent.

 

capitalism has raised the living standard of the poor. it is the reason why the poor have cell phones, 2 cars, air conditioning, etc. 100 years ago, the richest person in the world didnt have these. the poor live better today than any king of the past. all thanks to the market place.

 

"They are only helping themselves."

 

that is exactly what were doing when you went to work every day. you didnt go to work out of benevolence, or to give money to your neighbor, you did so to put food on your table.

 

 

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Adam Smith

[CILONE/SK]

AOD, so how are the markets correcting themselves for anyone except their own profits?

Your insistence that all poor have these items is completely wrong and shows how sheltered you are.

[angelofdeath]

AOD, so how are the markets correcting themselves for anyone except their own profits?

Your insistence that all poor have these items is completely wrong and shows how sheltered you are.

 

what exactly are you trying to ask here? what exactly do you mean by 'markets correcting themselves for anyone except for their own profits?' it doesnt even make any sense.

[CILONE/SK]

My point is that markets will do ANYTHING to make a profit and those people who are blinded like you will follow them to your grave because for some reason you believe that the business world, if unregulated will take care of a country. When reality is that they will ruin the environment, starve the poor and keep people uneducated. This is happening everyday. Business only are concerned with the profits and are not willing to do anything unless it makes them money.

[Decyferon]

He means the companies are turning huge profits and not hiring new staff or increasing the jobs in the market to help the unemployed.

 

Which is true here as well, companies are making money yet still cutting jobs, how is that helping anyone other than their bottom line.

 

Also you always say that we are helping ourselves by working, I am forced to work im not doingit out of choice, I used to work because I had to I didnt want to make the company money I hated every fucking minute of it there, it was a necessary evil, I also did help my neighbour because I paid taxes into things such as welfare, education, healthcare etc more money than I would have given had it been down to me to choose how much but I dont care because I think supporting the poor and needy is something we should all HAVE to do not by choice.

[Decyferon]

greed trumps any ideological standpoint. this is why capatalism doesnt work, this is why communism doesnt work because man is inherently greedy and out for their own at whatever cost.

 

That is exactly what business is, profit over everything else no matter who suffers, employees with shit working conditions and wages, who cares I made a mil. No healthcare for the vast poor in America, who cares I have a yacht - that is real life not anything else that we have discussed and that is what would happen to the world if we didnt have taxes funding things like welfare.

 

People crying over liberty and taxx evasion when you dont have social healthcare/paid for by tax healthcare is shameful in my book and definitely something that makes me proud not to be American.

[angelofdeath]

When reality is that they will ruin the environment, starve the poor and keep people uneducated. This is happening everyday. Business only are concerned with the profits and are not willing to do anything unless it makes them money.

 

 

ok, im glad you said this because you need to understand something.

the US is not a free market, if it ever was. it is a highly regulated corporatist/socialist market place. lets just get that straight first and foremost. until you understand this, further discussion is useless.

 

even michael moore admitted when he released his latest screed, that the US is indeed corporatist and not an actual free economy.

[CILONE/SK]

I do understand that, but to say it is it is a highly regulated corporatist/socialist market place is extreme and not true. You sure like to put labels on things and lump everything into one group so you can easily try to dismiss it, too bad you do not have a good hold on the way the world works.

 

I do not want a free market, because then we will be ruled by corporations and you libertarians do not see that.

 

Go drink your kool aid.

[angelofdeath]

 

Also you always say that we are helping ourselves by working, I am forced to work im not doingit out of choice, I used to work because I had to I didnt want to make the company money I hated every fucking minute of it there, it was a necessary evil, I also did help my neighbour because I paid taxes into things such as welfare, education, healthcare etc more money than I would have given had it been down to me to choose how much but I dont care because I think supporting the poor and needy is something we should all HAVE to do not by choice.

 

thank you for proving my point. even the loudest proponents of 'helping the poor' though a coercive welfare state, admit they are just as a greedy bastard as the evil capitalist.

 

 

its always the 'do unto thee, not to me' mindset.

 

*sigh

 

but the main thing you guys just cant wrap your head around is the policies create dependence and more people, not independence and less poverty. the incentives in the system literally create the environment to breed never ending policy. such as the marriage requirements, etc. until you can eliminate all the waste and literally provide welfare for only the people who NEED it and who are truly destitute, you will have this philosophical divide. namely, yall think ANYONE on welfare is destitute, whether they are yuppie hipsters, lottery winners or the standard system abusers and i think less than 20% on the dole are actually in need of it. you must also realize that when it is figured out who is actually in need and who is not, the actual number of poor drop to a super small percentage of what it is now. and the issue is largely moot or atleast dramatically reduced in significance.

[CILONE/SK]

A few quick points;

 

* I would guess that 12oz users would be comprised of mostly younger and lower earners, moreover I would guess that 12oz users as a group would be over-represented as welfare recipients. So they/we may not be the best group to base a theory of charity provision on.WRONG

 

* Stating that you think very few people would chose to personally provide welfare in absence of taxation does not make it so. The fact that private welfare exists, whatever its scale, in a context where it competes with state welfare is a sure sign that in absence of the state crowding out, private welfare would proliferate. If you believe it would not, then I feel the burden of proof is yours to demonstrate this hypothesis. wrong again, just because some people do provide some assistance, does not mean it can take over for a government providing help for its people, which is the governments responsibility

 

* Even if it was the case that 15-20% of your income is directed, through taxation, towards welfare, this does not mean that in absence of state welfare provision you would need an equivalent amount to deliver the same results. As previously mentioned, states are notoriously bad at efficiently allocating resources towards any end, including welfare. Any private welfare system will be inherently more efficient at providing welfare to those who need it. Even if a private system did nothing more in terms of efficiency than reduced wastage through greater vetting for undeserving recipients, this would reduce the overall amount needed to provide welfare for those who need it. Yet, it is unlikely that this is all a private system would do to increase efficiency as there are a number of other areas that could be targeted; better administration, better distribution, etc.Who would pay for this private system?? Business?? HAHAHA

 

Stay in lala land.

[Decyferon]

I am basing my opinion based on the fact that I worked for a bank previously and saw a lot of peoples financial records and looking at them I can see quite clearly that barely anyone gives to charity, the most common were old age pensioners who would give maybe £ 3 a month to Save the Children. These people are hardly going to all of a sudden change their ways and start giving money away if they dont have to pay taxes.

 

I can neither prove my side of the arguement as you would be able to prove yours. You cannot show that if tax was taken away more people would give to charity.

 

The vast majority of people where I live would love to be able to not pay taxes they would be a little bit betterr off but that money would not go into helping society, it would help them make ends meet a bit more.

 

Until better living wages are paid to people you cannot expect charity to pick up the welfare state.

[angelofdeath]

I do understand that, but to say it is it is a highly regulated corporatist/socialist market place is extreme and not true. You sure like to put labels on things and lump everything into one group so you can easily try to dismiss it, too bad you do not have a good hold on the way the world works.

 

I do not want a free market, because then we will be ruled by corporations and you libertarians do not see that.

 

if you understood this, then you would not be posting your silly nonsense.

 

every single aspect of the US economy is micromanaged. every single aspect. down to how hot your hot water heater is or how much water comes out of your shower head.

 

a corporation cannot rule, unless it is given a monopoly on force, ie from the government. you can voluntarily consent to transact with a corporation, but you cannot do this with a government. 'corporations' exist to give consumers what they want. if various science magazines can dream about zapping away all humans on the earth to save the planet, then i can talk about the much more realistic notion that all markets are based on voluntarism and consent. if consumers do not want to patronize companies, churches or private schools, they go belly up. if you do not want to patronize a government, you get shot. see a difference?

[CILONE/SK]

h

 

but the main thing you guys just cant wrap your head around is the policies create dependence and more people, not independence and less poverty. the incentives in the system literally create the environment to breed never ending policy. such as the marriage requirements, etc. until you can eliminate all the waste and literally provide welfare for only the people who NEED it and who are truly destitute, you will have this philosophical divide. namely, yall think ANYONE on welfare is destitute, whether they are yuppie hipsters, lottery winners or the standard system abusers and i think less than 20% on the dole are actually in need of it. you must also realize that when it is figured out who is actually in need and who is not, the actual number of poor drop to a super small percentage of what it is now. and the issue is largely moot or atleast dramatically reduced in significance.

 

It amazes me how people like you are so selfish and are willing to not take care of their fellow person.

 

How would a private system based on charity like you have stated a few post above sort out anyone who needs help? Reality is that those private charities will miss a large majority of the people who need help.

 

So what if there are some people getting help who do not need it? It is better for that then one person not get help because it is not available.

[CILONE/SK]

if you understood this, then you would not be posting your silly nonsense.

 

every single aspect of the US economy is micromanaged. every single aspect. down to how hot your hot water heater is or how much water comes out of your shower head.

 

a corporation cannot rule, unless it is given a monopoly on force, ie from the government. you can voluntarily consent to transact with a corporation, but you cannot do this with a government. 'corporations' exist to give consumers what they want. if various science magazines can dream about zapping away all humans on the earth to save the planet, then i can talk about the much more realistic notion that all markets are based on voluntarism and consent. if consumers do not want to patronize companies, churches or private schools, they go belly up. if you do not want to patronize a government, you get shot. see a difference?

 

 

You are so blind to what is happening in real life. You really do not know what is going on in the real world. Just amazing.

[Decyferon]

thank you for proving my point. even the loudest proponents of 'helping the poor' though a coercive welfare state, admit they are just as a greedy bastard as the evil capitalist.

 

 

its always the 'do unto thee, not to me' mindset.

 

*sigh

 

but the main thing you guys just cant wrap your head around is the policies create dependence and more people, not independence and less poverty. the incentives in the system literally create the environment to breed never ending policy. such as the marriage requirements, etc. until you can eliminate all the waste and literally provide welfare for only the people who NEED it and who are truly destitute, you will have this philosophical divide. namely, yall think ANYONE on welfare is destitute, whether they are yuppie hipsters, lottery winners or the standard system abusers and i think less than 20% on the dole are actually in need of it. you must also realize that when it is figured out who is actually in need and who is not, the actual number of poor drop to a super small percentage of what it is now. and the issue is largely moot or atleast dramatically reduced in significance.

 

I dont know about the US but welfare here is income based means tested, a lottery winner would have any claim for help thrown straight away, a hipster yuppie well it would depend on circumstances.

 

I had to provide bank statements for all bank accounts, details of rent loads of documentation to show my financial situation before qualifying for anything, ok somepeople cheat the system and yea they are scumbags.

 

It is just a matter of who you trust more, business or government, as I have a say in who is in government I will rather them run things than a big business.

 

I didnt say I was greedy infact I stated the complete opposite in another thread, I dont quite know where you got that from, all I said is I agree with taxation and funding of a welfare state that no one is exempt from paying into.

[angelofdeath]

It amazes me how people like you are so selfish and are willing to not take care of their fellow person.

 

How would a private system based on charity like you have stated a few post above sort out anyone who needs help? Reality is that those private charities will miss a large majority of the people who need help.

 

So what if there are some people getting help who do not need it? It is better for that then one person not get help because it is not available.

 

hahaha.

damn, you are a box of rocks.

you chastised my world view as being to simple because i routinely donate to private charities, give food to shelters, food banks, and directly handed out aid to the victim of a house fire. i also routinely fix neighbors cars for free. and im 'selfish and not willing to take care of my fellow person?'

 

private charities abound and do a great job. they actually deliver services to those that NEED it and not those that abuse the government welfare system. for instance i think showing up at the local private homeless shelter in an escalade talking on your iphone might disqualify you from assistance. not so with the government.

 

its nice to know you are fine with billions wasted in order to feed a handful of hungry people. congrats. and you are then basing your entire theory that there is so much poverty and we need so much money from everyone to address this.

 

a simple economics education can do wonders.

[angelofdeath]

I dont know about the US but welfare here is income based means tested, a lottery winner would have any claim for help thrown straight away, a hipster yuppie well it would depend on circumstances.

 

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/national/michigan-lottery-winner-still-on-welfare-20110518

http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=619315

 

 

I didnt say I was greedy infact I stated the complete opposite in another thread, I dont quite know where you got that from, all I said is I agree with taxation and funding of a welfare state that no one is exempt from paying into.

 

you must of mis typed because you said you paid taxes and that when you paid taxes to supposedly help your neighbor (how do you know he actually benefitted from it at all? if someone pays taxes it doesnt benefit me as i dont collect govt cheese) you said that if left to your own devices you wouldnt of paid as much.

 

so it seems very hypocritical to say its fine to tax others to pay for others way in life, but that you wont voluntarily cough up as much of your income as possible.

[Decyferon]

Yea because I would have needed that money to actually live off of, even when I was working I was barely making ends meet so obviously any little extra money would have just helpled my bills etc, if I could afford to pay out more I would have but given that I more than likely wouldnt have been able to make the same contribution personally that I do through taxes then I see taxes as the better option for society in general. I am actually more genrous through my taxes than I could afford to be at my own choice.

 

Anyone like a lottery winner who was claiming bebenfits would actually be taken to court/prison in this country and they would deserve it.

[Mercer]

I love all this anti capitalism talk, LOL the truth is no country has ever advanced it's citizens standard of living sustainably by any other method.

Communism has failed miserably in many places, sure there are minor acceptions here and there I'm talking about the vast majority of times it was tried.

 

It's just hilarious reading privileged kids typing out how much they hate capitalism on their fancy computers like they're Buddhist monks that swore off owning any possessions.

The world is a fucked up imperfect place no matter what system is in place, but I think despite it's flaws capitalism is the least fucked up.

I know that doesn't sit well with some idealistic kid with very little experience fending for themselves or living in a communist state but it's the truth.

[angelofdeath]

i always like to say...'everything they know and love, they owe to capitalism'

[Decyferon]

I don't have a problem with capitalism as such I have a problem with lazy regulation and an unregulated market.

 

I don't see a problem with people trying to make a business gor themself what I disagree with is poor wage structure shit employee benefits, allowing markets to make business billions with no trickle down effect.

 

Capitalism is fine. Just how we allow it to essentially do what it wants is what I disagree with.

[angelofdeath]

one of the glaringly obvious problems with this mindset is that the 'regulations' you advocate, make it impossible for people to be entrepreneurs. regulation costs dont affect walmart the way they affect a small competitor. they dont affect monsanto the way they affect joel salatin, etc.

[Mercer]

I don't have a problem with capitalism as such I have a problem with lazy regulation and an unregulated market.

 

I don't see a problem with people trying to make a business gor themself what I disagree with is poor wage structure shit employee benefits, allowing markets to make business billions with no trickle down effect.

 

Capitalism is fine. Just how we allow it to essentially do what it wants is what I disagree with.

 

 

I agree here, I'm just referring to the blanket statements being made against the system that provided a way for us all to make those statements.

The question is always how much regulation is needed and how to go about working out the details of regulation.

I'm not condoning some sort of economic anarchy, I just think capitalism is the essential foundation of a higher standard of living.

[Mercer]

one of the glaringly obvious problems with this mindset is that the 'regulations' you advocate, make it impossible for people to be entrepreneurs. regulation costs dont affect walmart the way they affect a small competitor. they dont affect monsanto the way they affect joel salatin, etc.

 

They can and do for the most part, obviously this isn't perfect either but should it just be some sort of free for all.

For example, many regulations are based on capitol holdings, number of employees, earnings ect.

I think the lack of standing up for our founding principals when it comes to regulation like monopoly, patents ect. is a huge problem.

W also have an unprecedented level of corporate corruption that has been taking it's toll on the people supposedly here to regulate.

[CILONE/SK]

hahaha.

damn, you are a box of rocks.

you chastised my world view as being to simple because i routinely donate to private charities, give food to shelters, food banks, and directly handed out aid to the victim of a house fire. i also routinely fix neighbors cars for free. and im 'selfish and not willing to take care of my fellow person?'

 

private charities abound and do a great job. they actually deliver services to those that NEED it and not those that abuse the government welfare system. for instance i think showing up at the local private homeless shelter in an escalade talking on your iphone might disqualify you from assistance. not so with the government.

 

its nice to know you are fine with billions wasted in order to feed a handful of hungry people. congrats. and you are then basing your entire theory that there is so much poverty and we need so much money from everyone to address this.

 

a simple economics education can do wonders.

 

Because you donate to charities does not mean that you are not selfish. Your whole world view is selfish. You called me a box of rocks, but you have yet to tell us anything other then Ron Paul talking points which will not work in reality, because they neglect a large portion of the population.

 

Do you wish to go to your knees to get a load from him?