A discourse about the people protesting Wall st's "unfairness"
When Corporations are taxed or overly regulated they don't pay taxes or the costs of the regulations, they merely pass them on in the form of higher prices to consumers or lower dividends to their owners/shareholders; corporations never actually pay taxes they only collect them. A perfect example is the new monthly fees charged by BofA to their customers who use a debit card, because of the regulatory framework of the Dodd-Frank Act, banks are limited what they can charge for credit/debit card purchases, in order to make up for lost revenue they just passed a new fee on to their consumers. The argument for this was "the banks are charging the merchants too much, so we should limit the transaction fee to make it easier on the merchant and then the consumer". When you affect the bank's bottom line then the free debit card use and checking convieniences are no longer free. And correct me if I'm wrong, but merchants haven't lowered their prices, right? I still know places that have a minimum purchase to use plastic. So you the consumer know get it from both ends!
If you use a BofA debit card thank your local democrat.
The second point is this country was never ever formed to be a democracy. A democracy is "mob rule"; it's as the framers described "a tyranny of the majority". We are Constitutional Republic.
These morons, overstate the influence of corporations. Corporations don't vote, corporations don't run a slate of candidates for elected office, corporations exist to only make a profit for their shareholders.
(In some cases it's quite the opposite as I bared wittness to in my state. The two largest employer corporations in Nevada (Casinos) were literally told if they didn't ensure Reid was elected, they would lose all pull they had in D.C.. Not just with him, but his entire party! They played with the major union (Culinary) and orchestrated setting up polls inside Casinos (can you imagine another state allowing voting in a location with active gambling and alcohol served?) and a fleet of busses. Sent on their lunch breaks, each handed a scripted ballot and told " if he doesn't get re-elected, you could lose your job!". )
And that's the problem for these people; they are marxists, they aren't intellectually honest to tell you that they are anti-capitalist, anti-free market and at the core... anti-American.
There are two separate problems that are hurting our economy. The first is so much American Capital is overseas because the tax laws are so favorable. We need to find away to bring this money home and have it start working here. Short of passing the Fair Tax, which does away with all taxes in favor of a national sales tax there should be some sort of tax amnesty given to American capital brought back here.
As for foreign investment in WS, I don't see that as a problem; whenever foreign money is put into play in our economy it helps to spur economic development here.
The issue of corp. taxes is a red herring for the most stupid amongst us. As I said, they don't pay taxes and like all businesses these costs are passed on in the form of higher prices or reduced dividends.
The second problem is the amount of US debt held by foreigners, particularly the Chinese. We had this debate last month and I see no need to replay it. Obviously, the necessary solutions as to the causes will not be effectuated until some time after January, 2013.
Candidate Herman Cain's "999 Plan" would implement the fair tax, which is a national retail sales tax. It will eliminate ALL other federal taxes, everything. No more withholding, no more federal income tax, capital gains, corporate, estate etc...No more IRS.
In return there is a 22% national retail sales tax. Now this sounds scary on it's face and would seem to hit the poorest the hardest, but you have to look more carefully at how it would work.
Because of the regressive nature of the tax every month every household in the US will receive a pre-bate amount which is the calculated cost of the tax for household necessities (the number based on the poverty level). You might say wait a minute we have to pay 22% tax on top of every purchase we make. Yes, but you have to understand macro-economics ( the left likes to use the tax code to punish activity they don't like, such as accumulating wealth) The "fixed cost" of complying with the internal revenue code is eliminated at every level of the production chain, secondly the actual tax burden is removed at every level of the supply chain.
(Remember the Left's idea was to use a VAT (Value Added Tax) where they would add a new tax at EVERY STAGE of a product. From it's raw componants, manufacture, assembly, distrobution, transportation... Would you really wanna pay $25 for a Cobb salad? All of that IN ADDITION to all the taxes you currently pay... AND a much bigger IRS to boot... Jack-booted, you might say.)
The economic models which were developed by people a lot smarter determined that the final cost of the finished product will be reduced by approx. 20%
These same uber bright economists, economic professors, staticians etc... determined that the amount of the tax to replace all previous fed. taxes would have to be at 22% in order to make the plan revenue neutral. If you want to read more about it with a clearer explanation than I provided you can go to fairtax.org.
For anyone who might look at this as a PSA I am going to enlighten on some of the more fallacious statements that you may have heard.
But first, why did they just single out corporations rather than corporations AND Unions?
Unions provide more money directly to candidates, as do corporate PACS. They provide even more in terms of "in kind contributions" to their favorite candidates.
1. Corporations by Fed. law are strictly prohibited from donating any $ to any candidate for federal office from its CORPORATE accounts.
2. Corporations may set up PACs and voluntarily solicit contributions from its employees and make contributions to candidates within limits set by Congress. Just like any person or other organization.
3. In 2010 the SCOTUS in Citizens United v. FEC, came to the conclusion that the Fed. law that prohibited Corp.s from participating in the electoral process by spending money on behalf of candidates was an un-constitutional violation of the Corp's 1st Amendment Rights. ( A corporation is made up of people and they are still taxed like people, so they have the right to have a voice on issues)
4. The decision allows Corporations to spend its money on behalf of political candidates (using its corp. funds) provided that the expenditures are independent of the campaign. There is no way of determining the impact of the decision as of yet, given that it helps both parties.
5. There are more than Corp. and Trade Group PACs providing funding to candidates. There are also Union PACs who donate more money than any other classification of PAC (and unlike Corp. PACs) the donations to the PAC are NOT voluntary as they are taken out of the Union members dues whether the Union member wishes to support the PAC or not.
6. The single biggest expenditure of any campaign is radio and tv ads. The Fed. govt. without violating the Constitution can not require the broadcasters to provide free air time.
7. Public Financing of Congressional campaigns will not work for reasons to numerous, but even the most simple among us should be able to figure that out.
8. There has never been a study directly linking PAC $ to the passage or defeat of a bill. (NOTE: Gary knows, he did his Honors Thesis on this topic.) It is a classic chicken or egg problem and there is no honest way to quantify or measure the data.
9. Unions spend more $ than any type of PAC and far outpace Corp. PACs. In fact, last time I looked at the numbers Unions contributed almost $1 for every $1 contributed by every other type of PAC. And we are still not talking about the in-kind contributions made to their favored candidates.
10. Almost 50% of the citizenry pays NO federal taxes, yet they receive a significant amount of federal assistance (welfare etc....) through various wealth transfer programs. These people have no PAC but they sure are getting a free ride. Don't tell me they are un-represented.
11. Corporations get blamed by those who are most ignorant of the political process for the fact that they supposedly have a disproportionate power in the political scheme, (and it is usually those Corporations who traditionally support Republican candidates) but yet Unions are immune such criticism and to a certain effect they have a greater effect or impact on policy in more areas and they tend to have a greater impact on our treasury.
From a comment stream by Gary Moss, which I edited and expanded on certain sections. While he tried to school a group, they could not handle his facts or reality and bounced him from their page.
If you use a BofA debit card thank your local democrat.
The second point is this country was never ever formed to be a democracy. A democracy is "mob rule"; it's as the framers described "a tyranny of the majority". We are Constitutional Republic.
These morons, overstate the influence of corporations. Corporations don't vote, corporations don't run a slate of candidates for elected office, corporations exist to only make a profit for their shareholders.
(In some cases it's quite the opposite as I bared wittness to in my state. The two largest employer corporations in Nevada (Casinos) were literally told if they didn't ensure Reid was elected, they would lose all pull they had in D.C.. Not just with him, but his entire party! They played with the major union (Culinary) and orchestrated setting up polls inside Casinos (can you imagine another state allowing voting in a location with active gambling and alcohol served?) and a fleet of busses. Sent on their lunch breaks, each handed a scripted ballot and told " if he doesn't get re-elected, you could lose your job!". )
And that's the problem for these people; they are marxists, they aren't intellectually honest to tell you that they are anti-capitalist, anti-free market and at the core... anti-American.
There are two separate problems that are hurting our economy. The first is so much American Capital is overseas because the tax laws are so favorable. We need to find away to bring this money home and have it start working here. Short of passing the Fair Tax, which does away with all taxes in favor of a national sales tax there should be some sort of tax amnesty given to American capital brought back here.
As for foreign investment in WS, I don't see that as a problem; whenever foreign money is put into play in our economy it helps to spur economic development here.
The issue of corp. taxes is a red herring for the most stupid amongst us. As I said, they don't pay taxes and like all businesses these costs are passed on in the form of higher prices or reduced dividends.
The second problem is the amount of US debt held by foreigners, particularly the Chinese. We had this debate last month and I see no need to replay it. Obviously, the necessary solutions as to the causes will not be effectuated until some time after January, 2013.
Candidate Herman Cain's "999 Plan" would implement the fair tax, which is a national retail sales tax. It will eliminate ALL other federal taxes, everything. No more withholding, no more federal income tax, capital gains, corporate, estate etc...No more IRS.
In return there is a 22% national retail sales tax. Now this sounds scary on it's face and would seem to hit the poorest the hardest, but you have to look more carefully at how it would work.
Because of the regressive nature of the tax every month every household in the US will receive a pre-bate amount which is the calculated cost of the tax for household necessities (the number based on the poverty level). You might say wait a minute we have to pay 22% tax on top of every purchase we make. Yes, but you have to understand macro-economics ( the left likes to use the tax code to punish activity they don't like, such as accumulating wealth) The "fixed cost" of complying with the internal revenue code is eliminated at every level of the production chain, secondly the actual tax burden is removed at every level of the supply chain.
(Remember the Left's idea was to use a VAT (Value Added Tax) where they would add a new tax at EVERY STAGE of a product. From it's raw componants, manufacture, assembly, distrobution, transportation... Would you really wanna pay $25 for a Cobb salad? All of that IN ADDITION to all the taxes you currently pay... AND a much bigger IRS to boot... Jack-booted, you might say.)
The economic models which were developed by people a lot smarter determined that the final cost of the finished product will be reduced by approx. 20%
These same uber bright economists, economic professors, staticians etc... determined that the amount of the tax to replace all previous fed. taxes would have to be at 22% in order to make the plan revenue neutral. If you want to read more about it with a clearer explanation than I provided you can go to fairtax.org.
For anyone who might look at this as a PSA I am going to enlighten on some of the more fallacious statements that you may have heard.
But first, why did they just single out corporations rather than corporations AND Unions?
Unions provide more money directly to candidates, as do corporate PACS. They provide even more in terms of "in kind contributions" to their favorite candidates.
1. Corporations by Fed. law are strictly prohibited from donating any $ to any candidate for federal office from its CORPORATE accounts.
2. Corporations may set up PACs and voluntarily solicit contributions from its employees and make contributions to candidates within limits set by Congress. Just like any person or other organization.
3. In 2010 the SCOTUS in Citizens United v. FEC, came to the conclusion that the Fed. law that prohibited Corp.s from participating in the electoral process by spending money on behalf of candidates was an un-constitutional violation of the Corp's 1st Amendment Rights. ( A corporation is made up of people and they are still taxed like people, so they have the right to have a voice on issues)
4. The decision allows Corporations to spend its money on behalf of political candidates (using its corp. funds) provided that the expenditures are independent of the campaign. There is no way of determining the impact of the decision as of yet, given that it helps both parties.
5. There are more than Corp. and Trade Group PACs providing funding to candidates. There are also Union PACs who donate more money than any other classification of PAC (and unlike Corp. PACs) the donations to the PAC are NOT voluntary as they are taken out of the Union members dues whether the Union member wishes to support the PAC or not.
6. The single biggest expenditure of any campaign is radio and tv ads. The Fed. govt. without violating the Constitution can not require the broadcasters to provide free air time.
7. Public Financing of Congressional campaigns will not work for reasons to numerous, but even the most simple among us should be able to figure that out.
8. There has never been a study directly linking PAC $ to the passage or defeat of a bill. (NOTE: Gary knows, he did his Honors Thesis on this topic.) It is a classic chicken or egg problem and there is no honest way to quantify or measure the data.
9. Unions spend more $ than any type of PAC and far outpace Corp. PACs. In fact, last time I looked at the numbers Unions contributed almost $1 for every $1 contributed by every other type of PAC. And we are still not talking about the in-kind contributions made to their favored candidates.
10. Almost 50% of the citizenry pays NO federal taxes, yet they receive a significant amount of federal assistance (welfare etc....) through various wealth transfer programs. These people have no PAC but they sure are getting a free ride. Don't tell me they are un-represented.
11. Corporations get blamed by those who are most ignorant of the political process for the fact that they supposedly have a disproportionate power in the political scheme, (and it is usually those Corporations who traditionally support Republican candidates) but yet Unions are immune such criticism and to a certain effect they have a greater effect or impact on policy in more areas and they tend to have a greater impact on our treasury.
From a comment stream by Gary Moss, which I edited and expanded on certain sections. While he tried to school a group, they could not handle his facts or reality and bounced him from their page.