you obviously rock philosophy different in the states, cos here in the uk it's like the transferable skill
you obviously rock philosophy different in the states, cos here in the uk it's like the transferable skill
The US has over 700 military bases on foreign soil. The US has 38 sizable military bases. (Rome had 37, Britain had 36)
Data from Chalmers Johnson's 'Nemesis: The last days of the American Republic'
I could see it being used as a 'stepping stone' for something else, but that's about it. The things that philosophy tends to teach are things that people already have, or do not have. All of the random (sometimes goofy) world ideas are secondary to attempting to improve comprehension, analytical, and debate skills. However, again, most people either have these to begin with, or they don't.Originally Posted by The Imp
Thanks for that addition. I didn't even think to go there (the historical references) with it. Nice work. ;)
"I don't hate you, I'm just removing an enemy..."
~~~D. Randall Blythe
hi guys. i have an idea. we kill off the poorest 30% of the population. BOOM the gap between rich and poor has gotten smaller.
But of course that won't happen, because nobody is willing to take one for the team anymore :(
Who would make your cheese?
Support email: utopiasupport@utopia-game.com <- please use this and don't just PM me| Account Deleted/Inactive | Utopia Facebook Page | #tactics <-- click to join IRC|PM DavidC for test server access
You are only saying that cause you are sitting on a mountain of jewgold!
Reading through a lot of the posts on here has been interesting. All and all I don't think its a matter of raising taxes on the rich as much as ensuring everyone pays their fair share. Being middle class just in taxes on net income as well as paying for SS and medicare I pay out roughly 28% of my income per paycheck, 21% being to taxes. At the end of the year with all deductions in place I get about 30% of that back. That means I pay roughly 15% in taxes when all is said and done. Now turn that around to the rich, they pay 35% in taxes then move money into investments to avoid taxation on those investments and it brings down the average that the rich pay on average to between 10-17%. There should be a cap of deductions so that no one should be allowed to pay less than 15% in taxes if they are above the 100k mark. On the other hand though they are paying far more of their share than big business is.
For example. AT&T has basically told the Illinois government that they will not pay their taxes because they cannot afford to and if Illinois forces them to pay they will take their business elsewhere so Illinois gave in. So Illinois government still gained nothing in taxes anyway. AT&T can't afford it but small business with minimal profits can? I don't buy that AT&T with their ever growing profit margins as they gouge their customers time after time ($1600 wireless data bill for using 4mb of data while roaming without notifying the customers?) Because its so hard to make money on a company that has a monopoly that has already once been taken apart by the government that owns ALL physical phone lines in at least 4 midwest states, has bought other companies to gain infrastructure, and has lowered their class of customer service to paying 3rd parties to handle their complaint calls so they don't have to actually have people on full staff to deal with their own customer issues? Yet they can say I'm too big to fail so you will not make me pay taxes or you will be sorry? We've heard that from the larger banks too. The larger banks should have been allowed to fall and allow the smaller banks to acquire loans held at lower interest rates. That way the banks that got too big and ran themselves in the ground fall and everyone benefits. Banks gained incomes from loans and the ones that owe on those loans get lower interest rates to have a better ability to pay them (meaning less foreclosures more people keeping their homes, less people moving to desperate measures to try and hold onto them)
Thats where the government needs to look. Force the big companies to pay their fair share of their corporate taxes. No loopholes, no money sent to other countries or cries of inability to pay. If your business can't pay your taxes then those at the top responsible for the rise and fall of the company should not get their bonuses and have to take pay cuts to make up the money for taxes. If your company has a recorded loss no one at the top should be allowed to get bonuses and not have to pay taxes. Its purely a matter of not letting big business take advantage of loopholes.
Lastly would be a matter of less military spending. What business is it of ours who has issues across the world? If we can't afford to rebuild our country why are we helping tear down and rebuild others? We spend far more money on Military than we do on helping the poor, education, and health care combined. There should be limitations on things such as welfare, and there should be no spending of SS except on those that are eligible for it. It all really comes down to limiting corruption of the system. Raising and lowering taxes has really done little in comparison to what keeping big business paying their share of taxes would.
The moral of the story is, big business controls politics so they control if and when they pay taxes leaving the taxpayers to pay the debts for them. Those on top know they can run the rounds of the loopholes so they never personally see those increases.
Last edited by DarknessSoars; 12-01-2012 at 03:44.
Some guy with a Phd in a lucrative subject matter that would charge him 50$+ an hour to do it ;).
AT&T threaten to move because:
a) they can and will,
b) some tax revenue is better than none (which the government knows),
c) having AT&T has a positive effect on the local economy (jobs etc. etc. etc.)
the moral of the story is that all parts of the US suck, from health to the economy. lawls.
I think taxes are too high, in the US and other countries (Aus for me).
I don't think it makes sense that an individual can and does pay a higher rate than a company. (?)
My answer, flat tax rates ftw.
I disagree.
A flat 15% tax will hurt someone who earns 20k a year a lot more than it will hurt someone who earns 20 millions a year.
Tax % should be incremental with income up to a cap (say of 50%).
But before that can be done, measures should be put in place to restrict capital mobility (citizen mobility should be ok as part of basic freedom, capital mobility shouldn't, at least not if you are a corporation... a corporation is not a person).
Maybe make it impossible to sell/move assets from the country unless a comitee (appointed by voters, not the government) approves it as genuine (ie, is really closing down shop, is exploiting a natural ressource that got exausted and need to go elsewhere, etc).
If the sell/move is not approved, then the company can still abandon the asset, but then the state seizes it (and the company is not compensated).
Also, maybe make it more and more expensive to fire an employee the longer he worked at a company (increase the severance package, not just a flat percentage of his income so far, increase the percentage) unless it can be showed that the employee screwed up a manner than showed malice or negligence.
Basically, make the setup of a company in a country like a marriage with no prenup.
Last edited by Magn; 19-01-2012 at 14:26.
lols are you a commie?
companies are legal persons. ergo they share the same rights we do. but not marriage :P
the government taking over a private asset because the company wants to move because a committee won't let the company move??? wtf??? conflict of interest????
flat taxes are not disproportionate, 15% of you income is 15% regardless of how much you earn.
People forget that if someone is paying 50cents in the dollar tax, then they have a greater incentive to seek deductions and tax losses as it is worth 50cents in the dollar to them, as opposed to 15 cents in the dollar if you're paying 15 cents in the dollar tax.
Regarding employee payouts....fml...we have that in Australia and its ****. It prevents people taking on employees full time, people only end up with part time work as a result with less certainty, less protection and less money.
The problem is that rich people manage to pay much less tax than normal people by using loopholes. :) Those loopholes need to be removed.
ABS vs Rangers
No, but since you disagree with me, I'll follow your line of reasoning and ask you: are you a facist?
According to the law, yes.
But going beyond the law, was it a good idea to allow it?
Does it even make sense to consider a company a legal person?
Wouldn't it be better to find some other provision for it?
I mean, like you so aptly said, a legal person can marry, but a company can't.
This is just the tip of the iceberg that differentiates a company from a legal person.
I see no problem with it.
Company made it's money using the resources in an area, essentially thriving on a partnership between the people of the area and itself (they do make a profit and they couldn't have done it without the ressources, both material and human, in the area they based themselves in). And then, it abruptly wants to sever the partnership whenever it's convenient, fine, but people in the area get to take their fair due out of the partnership. I mean, it's only fair since they invested in the company.
If the comitee is elected by citizens, then there is no conflict of interest, except that it is biased towards the needs to the citizenry, but I personally have no problem with such a bias.
Assume that the costs of living a middle class life is 30k.
A 10% tax on someone who earns 30k will seriously cut into his lifestyle.
A 10% tax on someone who earns 25 millions won't make a serious dent on his lifestyle (ok, he might not get to buy the gold plated car he wanted, but I'm sure most people would cry a river about it).
I rest my case.
Last edited by Magn; 20-01-2012 at 18:10.
Flat taxes are disproportionate when living expences are considered, however there would be welfare to compensate up to a certain level of income.
Re loopholes, it more of a problem with the system that allows this. Simple systems work better + it costs money to exploit loop holes, lower the rate of tax it becomes more effective to pay more tax at a lesser rate.
You don't see the problem with a committee deciding whether a company can move overseas for whatever reason....and if deniedthe committee (government) takes the asset if the company cannot sell it....why would the gov approve any requests to leave at all?? Free assets!
Also I think capitalism is the opposite to communism.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote