Political & Elections

BigG wrote:

---

If we get no taxes from corporations, why protect their business interests abroad or even domestically?

Let them pay for their own regime change and hegemony.

 

---

 Because they donate huge sums of money to politicians... and also a standard practice, though less well known, is to donate huge sums of money to the charities that are run by the politician's spouse.  They can donate unlimited money to these charities (which I'm sure the companies only do because they want to give back, right?)

I just call it a, degree-of-patriotism.

I view corporations as vastly powerful entities that do a tremendous amount of good for the most part, but are capable of causing a great deal of harm.  Individuals are no match for their power.  Government is the only counterweight to the power of corporations, unless government is bought by powerful corporations.  Corporations cannot be trusted any more than government or organized religion can be trusted because every organization is led by people and people in positions of power are often corrupted, if not corrupt when they arrived.  However, corporations and religious organizations can operate in private and in foreign countries, and the people at large cannot effect their leadership.

That said, I am not entirely crazy and do understand that corporations compete economically on a global scale, and domestic regulations can put them at a competitive disadvantage.  At some point, global capitalism may not work very well for the majority of persons in this country, which is dangerous since they have voting privileges.  If they keep voting and finding unresponsive leadership, than more extreme groups than the teaparty may come along to shake things up in a way more extreme than a cooperative approach of spreading the wealth around a little bit might bring.  If the rich are ultimately perceived as uncaring jockeys riding the backs of people they treat as no better than domestic herd animals, rather than bleating on the way to being fleeced, the sheep may wake up and realize that their right to vote can change the balance of power.

I have nothing against productive people making lots of money, but their refusal to share their wealth with reasonable taxes for social services for those with less ability or good luck may prove problematic for society as a whole in the long run.  If that happens, then rich will find things far less hospitable here, and this country has many advantages.  While the rich can move if they choose to, the others will rise to take their places.

People here are supporting the notion that corporations are persons under the law for virtually all purposes except criminal prosecution and for paying taxes.  The Supreme Court gives them the right to influence the outcomes of elections more than any individual could possibly hope to with donations, yet they should not be taxed?

Maybe they could compete better without spending the money to bribe the politicians, or at least not the ones from this country.  I could consider the notion of no corporate taxation, at least for manufacturing corporations (those providing economic services perhaps should be taxed even more heavily), if they were not accorded so much political power.  They direct government policy and pay nothing in support of that government?

Also, the notion that taxes on corporate profits would otherwise be spent on workers, or on more competitive prices, or R & D rather than dividends, executive salaries and perks, sounds nice in theory, but rings a bit hollow in practice with corporations currently sitting on record profits with executives doing very well, but the workers, not so much.  It seems a bizarre, corrupt, and unjustifiable system where the corporations bribe the individual politicians, who theoretically represent the people, in order to manipulate the tax code so that the corporations avoid paying taxes that would benefit the people.  Meanwhile, corporate political donations help ensure that cooperative politicians will win the elections and keep from spreading the wealth around a little bit.  That is hardly something I think the participating politicians deserve praise for.  They are not public servants; they are corporate concubines.  It might look a little bit more like principled economic theory absent the bribes.

I agree that the business tax rate in the US should be zero.

I DO NOT agree with special groups getting special exemptions while politicians get to run around raising the business taxes as a way to seem like they are "for" the little guy, while mainly taxing those without connections.

If every business was afforded the same set of rules?  I'd be "for" it.  What I object to is crony capitalism/socialism financed on the backs of the less well-connected, not the idea that businesses should pay zero in taxes.

So, yeah, if those GE bought pols had made it so that no business was paying taxes?  I'd say they should be congratulated.  But, I bet more than a handful of them are running around talking about taxing the corporate world out of one side of their mouth while givng a break to their "friends" at GE.  Sad but true.

Yes, the teachers are the shareholders of the unions.  The leadership is running away with the hen, the eggs AND the henhouse, frankly

But most major corporations pay very little (if any) in the way of taxes anyway,right? Which is why, when the Governors of States experiencing steep budgetary shortfalls insist on laying off teachers (and rendering their unions powerless), all while extending tax breaks to corporations under the guise of "bringing jobs" to the state, they are liable to be lying through their teeth.

How can you cynics question a process in which Mr. Rangel played so important a part.  He is a bastion of integrity and a bulwark against government corruption.  The real reason you question why GE pays no taxes because Rangel and Obama are black, right?  Damn racists!  In any event, I am heartened to learn that so many lawyers are so well employed by GE.   

Perhaps that is what the "new transparency" the current administration was about...not to expose bad things like the power of lobbyists, but to acknowledge and welcome it, right out in the open?

I try not to think about it either.  Yet, it's hard to ignore.   

It's excellent that President Obama appointed GE CEO Jeffrey Immeult the new Chairman to the brand new Council on  Jobs and Competitiveness. 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/ge-s-immelt-to-head-obama-s-new-jobs-and-competitiveness-board-20110121

The irony in the appointment makes me nearly speechless.  It's a little like appointing the wolf to guard the henhouse.