So, lets see. I said: "The "poor masses" are in general much better off today than they were at the time when Marx developed his theory." You said: "I disagree" So I pointed out how according to historians the typical working class family fared back them. Now you say "I get that, but it's highly irrelevant" Is that a change from your original position? Disagreeing with what I presented as fact is not the same as opining that the facts I presented are irrelevant to whatever point you may be trying to make.
Where did he actually compare his plight to those in the industrial era? Wage growth has been stagnant, the former Boeing CEO didn't get a severance package; but still received $60m he was "contractually entitled to" despite hundred of people dying, and income inequality is at it's highest in 50 years per the US Census. I actually had a boss like that in the bold when I worked retail a decade ago. A favorite tactic was to slam a stack of applications, yell about how we'd be replaced no problem, and be without a job the next day. I loved hearing that all the time because someone had the nerve to use the bathroom for instance. Or the supervisor I had at my first job, who demanded to see a doctor's note for the cast I was wearing for my broken wrist and couldn't pick up heavy objects. Thankfully, his bosses saw sense and said otherwise. You're partially right that things are better, but that's with the technological advancements made over the years. There's still numerous issues. And the thing is, the billionaires and the CEOs are aware that there's numerous issues. Warren Buffett has been saying that there's been a gap for ages, white collar employees are unionizing, and there's a guy who calls himself a socialist (The conservatives favorite word for everything from infrastructure to health care) running for President and is popular. People always think I'm insane when I state that employers would use child labor if they could. They would.
He replied to an unrelated post of mine about plight of the working class today compared to the working class during the industrial revolution by saying he disagreed. Then he allowed that maybe I wasn't wrong but to him it was irrelevant. So, I'll leave it at that. Of course things are better, much better. Yes, there is still obviously a lot of room for improvement. I do understand that kids today, as they play their video games and watch their porn on their smart phones, computers and tablets, probably have a bit more stress and uncertainty about the future than we did back in the 70s and 80s when we got our kicks at video arcades, but that's largely a product of inevitable trends like the technological revolution and globalization, and the changes and uncertainty these trends created, not because a few rich guys are making lots of billions. Lets be real. This whole income disparity bullshit is the result of some economists calculating abstract numbers from income statements and tax returns over the years and reporting the obvious, that a few people have lots more zeroes in their bank accounts than most of us. Ideologues like Sanders then use this as propaganda to foment hatred for the rich. Do they care for the poor? Sanders will vote against a trade deal that helps the poorest peasants in China as well as American workers, just because it also benefits the rich whom he despises so much. And yet the truth is that the fact that some guy in nearby Marin County has twenty times as many zeroes in his bank account than I do, while real and maybe unfair, does not change the fact that by historical standards I - and the majority of residents of the Unites States - still are fortunate to live extremely comfortably today. Yes, the rich guy in Marin County drinks every day from the kind of bottle that I can only afford to open for my 25th wedding anniversary (and I wonder who enjoys it more). But the rich guy in Marin County does not own all the land in the country, like old nobles did in the old world, and he does not kidnap all the best looking women for his harem, as the old kings did. (and if he does treat young women like property, he eventually gets caught and commits suicide -maybe suicide- in jail.) The so called one percent merely lives in more luxury than I do, and obviously has a more secure future than I do. He is not a threat to my daily life, in the way that the old rich were to the lives of the average peasant in previous eras. To make him into our enemy is a lie coming from the ideological left. To deny that overall things have improved significantly for the average human being in the past century is a lie coming from the ideological left. While we, unlike the lies some on the left are trying to sell us, are still overall a very affluent society, we do of course have real issues and problems we need to deal with, both in the US and globally. Economic problems related to the upheaval caused by the technological revolution, absorbing immigration from poorer places, and homelessness are very real. Of course we still have very serious social problems like bigotry, racism, xenophobia etc, and above anything else, we are now faced with the environmental threat to our species that we need to face urgently or it will destroy us. So the last thing we need is to make up divisive bullshit problems like inequality, and try to resurrect old ideological issues like class hatred, at a time when what we really need is to work in partnership as a society with the government and small businesses, with the working class, the middle class and yes, even the wealthy class and large corporations, in order to solve the real challenges facing us, rather than trying to turn groups against each other, which is of course unfortunately what the Trumpists are successfully doing, to devastating effect. We need to move past this blame game and work together towards solutions to the real problems we are facing. Employers as a whole? Sure, there are some employers who would use child labor if they could, just like there are some parents who would force their kids to work if they could. Human nature has its dark side, and apparently you had the experience of working for some real a-holes, just like some people had horrible parents. But we shouldn't use it to indict a whole class of people, like employers or parents in general, should we?
Things are still the same in more subtle ways. Instead of mass land ownership and sending Pinkertons to people demanding better conditions, employers just go to lawmakers. What policy proposals have been put forward by businesses and conservatives that would help benefit their employees? What has been put forward along the lines of time off? Pay? Benefits? Working extra hours? Medical leave? The current labor laws are more or less employer friendly, what with at-will employment, no mandatory time off policy, FMLA being unpaid, and so on. I have nothing against people whaving wealth, whether it be through their roles, their investments, their inheritances, whatever. Hell, I had it quite great compared to most growing up. What I, and a lot of other people have issue with, is executive pay and compensation being at incredibly high levels while also paying incredibly low taxes. Henry Ford caught flak from his fellow industrialists because he decided to give workers more suitable conditions at the time. That should tell you everything. To paraphrase Harlan Ellison, management wants everything for nothing, and won't go for five seconds without getting paid.
Right. And I caught flack from other California Counties because I was able to convince Santa Clara County to pay more for the contractors I hired to work at our courts, and then they all wanted to work for us and the other counties had to follow suit. What do you expect? Humans are programed to look for their own self interest and that is how society works. The good news is that we also have an instinct to cooperate, and there are influential people like Henry Ford, and like Franklin Roosevelt, and they do make a difference when we allow them to lead, That is why the revolution Marx predicted didn't happen - at least not in the way that he predicted, and that is why at least in the developed world, today we live better than human beings ever did, at least since they developed agriculture and began living in towns and cities. That is why today we have a society that features protection for workers and a safety net. Yes, we had to fight for it, but within the political process and through cooperation for the most part. Of course it's not a perfect system, there are reactionaries, and for every two steps forward there is a step back - as we are seeing right now, but overall society is much more fair for the working class today than it ever was, income inequality notwithstanding. The challenge for our society is to be able to take care of its people without promising what we cannot deliver, without demanding what our economy cannot sustain - as for example Argentina and Greece did, because overpromising can destroy a society - and I've experienced it. The US and the richer European nations of course can offer a lot more to its people than other countries can, but they still need to be careful not to overpromise, and they need to be careful not to kill the geese that lays the golden eggs, because we need wealth creation in order to take care of the working class. I cringe when I hear candidates like Warren promise that they will take down the innovators who are driving the economy and leading in technology, including clean technology. Yes, we need to work to become even more fair, and we need to challenge the successful businesses and work with them to improve working standards. And, we must work together, look for leadership from today's equivalents of the Henry Fords and Franklin Roosevelts, both in the government and the private sector, and encourage them to lead by working together, instead of fomenting adversarial models and hatred for one or the other.
But where is that leadership now? There’s two political leaders proposing changes, there’s one CEO I know of who raised pay for everyone but that was years ago ($70k a year for all). FDR wouldn’t even get elected today with the stuff he proposed, hell, Eisenhower would be attacked for suggesting a freeway (and he was then!) Henry Ford would be seen as an oddity and considered toxic by shareholders if he proposed something similar today by current standards. And that safety net you’ve mentioned, has been under attack by conservatives since day one. Corporations began attacking FDR’s policies under various advocacy groups. Look up the American Liberty League, for instance. The very safety net that exists now wouldn’t even happen today, it’d be deemed radical. Nobody is screaming for revolution, but eventually people will have enough. I know people like to dunk on the economic anxiety and such, but it is a valid point despite the other reasons Trump is in office. As for Warren’s comments, Politicians like her and Sanders want to stop monopolies, not hurt business. Facebook for instance, owns WhatsApp and Instagram despite having their own native services. Does that not come across as problematic? They’d have been under scrutiny in the New Deal era if they existed then. As for your experiences in Argentina, I get it. I’m not dismissing them, but the US isn’t Argentina obviously. I heard enough stories from my great-grandmother along with reading history books about what businessmen would do just to make a buck. For every Henry Ford or you, those that care about their employees and see the benefits of taking care of them; there’s an Andrew Carnegie or an Adam Neumann who will run amok if they aren’t kept in check.
At the time, people accused Teddy Roosevelt of being anti-business, but the opposite was true. He supported business by busting those who competed unfairly. His anti-trust actions are widely regarded now as being beneficial, except to the monopolists themselves. The modern Republican party has convinced the public that any government intervention into business is bad for the economy. This is false in theory (busting monopolies is a social good) and false in practice. Warren and Sanders don't owe anybody any apologies for their approach, assuming that they would carry out their policies sensibly.
Michael Baden says not even maybe. Yes, we by and large are living in a wealthy era, especially compared to many other countries. At the same time we had until fairly recently like 40 million uninsured Americans. And we have giant corporations that effectively paid $0 in taxes last year. There's so much room for improvement and tax fairness would be a way to get there. Along with a 50% cut in the defense budget.
Don't forget Climate Change. Democrats are proposing effective action and investment on saving the planet, possibly parting corporations and wealthy people with some of their money, while the GOP is sending tweets about the first snow of the year in 60 degree weather and promoting fracking and deep sea oil exploration in the North pole. Basically one party wants Earth to support human life in the long run, while the other could not care less, as long as they have profits and golden parachutes for the next decade or so.
This is similar to those on the right who are actively trying to destroy public education. They are doing it solely because they know they will never use it, and if it fails, their child will have an advantage over those publicly educated.
That's what I am asking myself. Where are these leaders? Do our candidates who claim that they will provide leadership care about jobs, working conditions and environment? Then how about if instead of publicly indicting corporations , putting them on trial and pronouncing them guilty on the campaign trail, for their own political purposes, and in the process promoting hatred and division from their followers, why not commit to work together with the top successfu corporate leaders who are driving the economy and at the forefront of technology to work together on the issues like jobs, working conditions, and the environment that they care so much about? I'd like to see a political leader say on the campaign trail something like "I am also going to propose a summit with the leaders of the large corporations, with Tim Cook from Apple, with Sundar Pichai from Google, with Elon Musk from Tesla and so on, to discuss the issues that we care about, like jobs, working conditions and the environment. I want to hear the candidate say that they can indeed work together with the corporate leaders, and so put the ball in their court, instead of attacking them. That would be a leader I could truly get behind. I am not a proponent of American exceptionalism, but I truly believe that with cooperation between government and our top new technology corporations, America today has the resources and is capable of leading the world in tackling climate change and the environmental crisis. Ford was not a pleasant person - neither was FDR - by today's standards, and he probably could have been criticized from the bully pulpit as much or more than today's top corporate leaders, But he was a smart leader, and saw the wisdom in providing change, and so are some of the corporate leaders of today, if they are engaged. Contrary to what the left would have you believe, they are not all pure evil. If you engaged them, you might find that they are human beings who actually care, and bright people who have good ideas. I'm all for stopping monopolies, but those are issues that should be dealt with in courtrooms, not on the campaign trail. You know very well why these candidates attack corporations in public. They feed their angry base, and continue to promote the circle of hatred that will make it even more difficult for the nation to work and find solutions to the serious issues we need to work on. Argentina was a very rich country with lots of resources, and the potential to be as rich as the United States. They had their issues in the early 20th century, like most of the world did, yet still it was considered a country with great potential, and like the US it was a magnet for immigrants. But starting with the Peronists in the 40s they became overly ambitious in promising people more benefits than the Argentine economy could give them. Argentina got stuck in class warfare and the cycle of hatred, which created an environment that made it impossible for the creative people like a Steve Jobs to be involved in wealth creation, and so the nation became unable to give the workers what (as Eva Peron eloquently put) they deserved. That's why we never had a Steve Jobs, not because we are dumber than Americans. Instead, we got into a cycle of hatred that hit rock bottom with Videla but continues until today with Kirchner. I hope we don't take that route in the United States, because even though we obviously have a much wealthier economy, and a much better business environment, and there is much more wealth creation, don't think if we start going the class warfare and populist hatred road, we will be immune to the same problems other nations have faced. I am seeing similarities, starting with Trump, but also - granted, to a much lesser extent so far - on the other side of the spectrum. My message to Americans is, Trump must be stopped, and then the healing must begin, and it will take all of us to do it. And that's what I want to hear from the candidate who will emerge as our leader.
there needs to be a qualifier, if a business loses money, it is ok for them to not pay taxes. Amazon made a shit lot of money, but they still did not pay taxes (for the past 2 years) and even got a rebate in 2018 for 130 million . So we have to see why, it is not necessarily bad if they are investing it in things that grow the economy. This is very legit, companies can carry forward and carry back loses, the process was accelerated by the law, but still very legit. ok, this is more questionable, should the government give credits for R&D or not? should they give for green energy R&D? for medical R&D? for technological R&D. I can see arguments for it or against it. This looks like a give away to management (even if I am sure many employees do get a benefit from this). https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/why-amazon-paid-no-federal-income-tax.html
If there’s any reason why I don’t think big business can ever be trusted, it’s pre existing conditions.
1) companies that lose money don’t pay corporate income taxes. No need for a qualifier. 2) it isn’t necessarily bad if a company generates economic growth, provided that growth addresses the needs of those to whom the additional tax revenue would be geared. Problem: not all growth is equal. Amazon likes to talk about jobs created. What corporate economic impact studies don’t tell you is the number of jobs destroyed to create those jobs. If you streamline retail, kill 2 jobs for every one you create, reduce costs and pay contract workers shit, a company will make a lot of money. GDP will increase in the short and intermediate term. But if there are not sufficient alternatives for displaced workers, the economy is collectively mortgaging its future. We collectively create a growing underclass with no skills, no prospects and no buying power. And if we do want to support them, we’ll probably end up paying as much (or more) in redistributive policies than we get in savings from buying cheap shit online. The delta is the additional money going to corporations. Economic growth is much more nuanced than GDP. 3) people like to focus on things like r&D credits and carrying losses forward. Those aren’t problems in any material sense. The actual problem is offshoring activities and transfer pricing. Step 1: sell an IP/services bundle for x. Pay up front taxes to offshore. Step 2: charge the higher tax jurisdiction (the US) an annual fee to use those assets as a percent of revenue. As revenue grows and as profit margins increase (which supports a higher royalty rate), the cash flow leaving the US will vastly exceed the projections from when the assets were initially priced to be sold to Ireland or Luxembourg or wherever. This is income stripping. The transfer pricing principles we have used support this, but the system is broken due to the ease of offshoring business functions with digitization. Which is why BEPS 2.0 is one of the biggest issues in economics no one really knows/talks about outside of certain accounting/global finance geek circles.
That is the point, lots of "giant" corporations have a strategy to lose money to capture market share, so for example UBER or TESLA or NETFLIX probably pay no income tax because they lose money every year. So when people scream 'that corporation did not pay any taxes', they need to separate the ones with legit loses from the ones that scam away their income. That is not the business of the corporation, it is the business of the tax regime to encourage certain type of growth over another. That is why I said growing is not necessarily bad, some may be as you say, other may not be. Driving the price down of products with better technology had some bad consequences, it has some good consequences. We being on this website talking to each other can be seen as a good consequences of these type of corporations and innovation ideas that pop up with out paying income tax (at first) Yes that is why i pointed them out as reasonable reasons on why a corporation may not pay taxes. I am sure GM and Ford did not pay taxes for a few years when they were losing s shit lot of money. The Europeans think we are becoming that low tax jurisdiction, this also means corporations parking their money offshore until republicans get in power and they pass laws that give out special taxation if they bring their money back in. So these are examples of some of the bad that corporations do to not pay income taxes.
I know the bold above is a favorite Democratic talking point so I'll just leave this here. https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-a...axes-heres-the-complicated-answer-11560504602
For those krauts arbeit macht frei so they can really enjoy rumspringa. Not sure if still the case but in rural Maine the potato picking season has the kids take a few weeks break to help pick them taters Seems like it's still a thing: Northern Maine school board revives fall potato harvest break Robert F. Bukaty | AP A potato remains in a field after harvesting in Fryeburg, Sept. 27, 2017. The MSAD 1 school board voted Wednesday to reinstate the annual fall potato harvest break. By Anthony Brino, BDN StaffJanuary 17, 2019 2:13 pm PRESQUE ISLE, Maine — The MSAD 1 board of directors voted to reinstate a three week harvest break for high school students Wednesday, while superintendent Brian Carpenter resigned from his post effective Jan. 18. The school board voted 12-2, with one abstention, in favor of a harvest break, following an effort made by board member Carol Bell to bring the issue back to the board’s consideration. In February 2018, the board voted 9-7 to end the high school’s harvest break as of 2019 with a provision allowing students to take time off to work for a farmer with parental permission https://bangordailynews.com/2019/01...hool-board-revives-fall-potato-harvest-break/
Paywall. And yes, Stanger, there are many ways to effectively get to 0% (or lower) with credits, deductions and other legal loopholes for these super-profitable corps. If you or I have a good year and move up a bracket we might grouse about paying more. But there's no way in hell we'd ever get close to 0% even with Madoff-ian accounting tricks. For decades, profitable Fortune 500 companies have manipulated the tax system to avoid paying even a dime in tax on billions of dollars in U.S. profits. This ITEP report provides the first comprehensive look at how corporate tax changes under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act affect the scale of corporate tax avoidance. The report finds that in 2018, 60 of America’s biggest corporations zeroed out their federal income taxes on $79 billion in U.S. pretax income. Instead of paying $16.4 billion in taxes at the 21 percent statutory corporate tax rate, these companies enjoyed a net corporate tax rebate of $4.3 billion. https://itep.org/notadime/
Amazon doesn’t pay zero. We could certainly try to change the tax code, but it doesn’t take “Madoff-Ian” ACC accounting to get there. The lack of understanding of our tax system contributes to your talking point.