Taxes vs. profits
The general dialogue according to the Republicans is that we can't raise taxes in a recession. What does this mean? Those who can control or manipulate markets (because they are too big to fail?) have a vested interest in making sure the economy never recovers so that they don't have to pay their share into the society that gives them everything. Without the social programs we constructed in the mid 20th C., we wouldn't have the consumer-based economy that has given large companies profits and the ability to go bankrupt when shit goes bad.
Yesterday, I recieved a notice in the mail from one of the few corporations I (am generally forced to) support: Comcast has no qualms about raising rates during a recession.
So, I ask, why is it OK for a private (monopolistic) company to raise rates during a recession, but it is not OK for us (the people, government) to raise our tithe on them? I'm just curious as to how that works.
By the way, the Comcast executives make in excess of 20M$/year*. Salaries alone are over 2M$. Just accounting for the salary, that is 82X what the median wage earner in America makes. If you include total compensation, that is 820X. One person on the board of Comcast, the company who is raising rates, make what 820 people, on average, make. The total compensation for the executives for 2008 (7 people) tops 93.2M$, which is what 2900 average people would make. Seven people versus two-thousand nine hundred people.
And who has been hit on taxes over the last 40 years? Not the mega-rich. Those 7 people have had their taxes go down by a logarithmic scale, (picture) while the rest of us have generally stagnated both in wages and tax rates (just look at the last 40 years, that's what I'm talking about). With the inflation caused by big-corporate boo-boos and convincing us that their investment-class lifestyle will work for everyone (!: You too can be rich like me! And when you do, you don't want to pay no pesky 40% tax rate! That's outrageous!) they have systematically undercut our wages... and our power of the people to enforce oversight.
No, America, you're not as tough as you think you are. In the 1770s and 80s, you would have taken up arms. But instead, we see British students protest a 6000GPB hike in tuition. Any of us would squeal at glee for a 14000$ annual tuition cap. We don't even have caps. We regularly pay corporate bankers and the government interest on hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And when we try to dig ourselves out of that hole, Comcast will do its best to work against us. Because, when it comes down to it, anyone raising rates, whether it be a company or a government; either way we're getting squeezed. So, where do I want my money? I would rather pay for the unemployed (which was set up by corporations to increase profits) than the profiteers of suffering. In 1776, it was the King who was profiting off of the people's labour. But in 2010, it is the corporations, who are (like terrorists) stateless who profit off the people. And no one says shit about it because it is generally 'corporations' who 'give' us jobs (as if they don't need any labour to do anything). They also rule by fear, by laying people off and forcing you to understand that, on a whim, your livelihood is in jeopardy.
Of course, you could start your own company. Where will you get the money from, though? Oh... that's right...
*I'll be you money they're all white men: Brian Roberts, Michael Angelakis, Stephen Burke, Ralph Roberts, David Cohen, John Alchin, Lawrence Smith. Yes, Brian, Mike, Steve, Ralph, David, John, and Larry are about the whitest-guy names ever created. They could practically be a white-guy superhero team.
PS: I don't want to hear any shit about how Brian Roberts earned his post from working hard from the bottom. His fucking dad started the company. It is classic silver-spoonism.
Yesterday, I recieved a notice in the mail from one of the few corporations I (am generally forced to) support: Comcast has no qualms about raising rates during a recession.
So, I ask, why is it OK for a private (monopolistic) company to raise rates during a recession, but it is not OK for us (the people, government) to raise our tithe on them? I'm just curious as to how that works.
By the way, the Comcast executives make in excess of 20M$/year*. Salaries alone are over 2M$. Just accounting for the salary, that is 82X what the median wage earner in America makes. If you include total compensation, that is 820X. One person on the board of Comcast, the company who is raising rates, make what 820 people, on average, make. The total compensation for the executives for 2008 (7 people) tops 93.2M$, which is what 2900 average people would make. Seven people versus two-thousand nine hundred people.
And who has been hit on taxes over the last 40 years? Not the mega-rich. Those 7 people have had their taxes go down by a logarithmic scale, (picture) while the rest of us have generally stagnated both in wages and tax rates (just look at the last 40 years, that's what I'm talking about). With the inflation caused by big-corporate boo-boos and convincing us that their investment-class lifestyle will work for everyone (!: You too can be rich like me! And when you do, you don't want to pay no pesky 40% tax rate! That's outrageous!) they have systematically undercut our wages... and our power of the people to enforce oversight.
No, America, you're not as tough as you think you are. In the 1770s and 80s, you would have taken up arms. But instead, we see British students protest a 6000GPB hike in tuition. Any of us would squeal at glee for a 14000$ annual tuition cap. We don't even have caps. We regularly pay corporate bankers and the government interest on hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And when we try to dig ourselves out of that hole, Comcast will do its best to work against us. Because, when it comes down to it, anyone raising rates, whether it be a company or a government; either way we're getting squeezed. So, where do I want my money? I would rather pay for the unemployed (which was set up by corporations to increase profits) than the profiteers of suffering. In 1776, it was the King who was profiting off of the people's labour. But in 2010, it is the corporations, who are (like terrorists) stateless who profit off the people. And no one says shit about it because it is generally 'corporations' who 'give' us jobs (as if they don't need any labour to do anything). They also rule by fear, by laying people off and forcing you to understand that, on a whim, your livelihood is in jeopardy.
Of course, you could start your own company. Where will you get the money from, though? Oh... that's right...
*I'll be you money they're all white men: Brian Roberts, Michael Angelakis, Stephen Burke, Ralph Roberts, David Cohen, John Alchin, Lawrence Smith. Yes, Brian, Mike, Steve, Ralph, David, John, and Larry are about the whitest-guy names ever created. They could practically be a white-guy superhero team.
PS: I don't want to hear any shit about how Brian Roberts earned his post from working hard from the bottom. His fucking dad started the company. It is classic silver-spoonism.