Ireland to go bust

[Being]

Once again, define "fairness" and how low tax rates preclude sensible environmental regulations.

I'll ask again, who do you want to pay for government? Somebody has to.

[Dreadnaught]

I want to pay for government, and I want everyone else too. I benefit from the government ever day. But I don't want to pay for an ever-expanding government of wasteful busybodies. Bloated government is becoming the greatest danger to liberalism since Communism.

[GGT]

Aren't Ireland and the Netherlands well known as intermediary tax havens? Corporations set up a HQ there and move money around only for the tax breaks, not really doing business there. They have slang names but I can't remember them right now. One may be the Dutch Sandwich (?)

[Khendraja'aro]

The very language of "race to the bottom" shows how ideological and not economical your concern is. Yes, lowering your tax rates could make your economy both more attractive and more efficient.

Interesting to compare the unemployment rates across Europe. Portugal has unemployment rates of around 20% and serious debt problems as a result, the fundamentals of Irelands economy were strong it is the banks that are the problem. Maybe lower tax rates could reduce unemployment in other nations.

So, since banks are the avatars of capitalism, one could say that you want more capitalism because capitalism has shown to be incapable of thinking of the greater good.

Really good reasoning there.

I want to pay for government, and I want everyone else too. I benefit from the government ever day. But I don't want to pay for an ever-expanding government of wasteful busybodies. Bloated government is becoming the greatest danger to liberalism since Communism.

Right. Because the Irish crisis came about because of bloated government. Jesus H. Christ.

Sometimes I really don't get the reasoning of some people here: "Hey, lowering the safeguards made the whole thing crash! Let's lower the safeguards some more!"

[Dreadnaught]

Being was making a general point, I wasn't speaking about Ireland specifically. Although the core of the problem (and the main thing being negotiated) has shifted to Ireland's massive government deficits.

However, I think using a case like Ireland (or any other financial failure) as a blanket excuse to promote larger government and higher taxes is irrelevant to the point of fallacy.

[Khendraja'aro]

Being was making a general point, I wasn't speaking about Ireland specifically. Although the core of the problem (and the main thing being negotiated) has shifted to Ireland's massive government deficits.

However, I think using a case like Ireland (or any other financial failure) as a blanket excuse to promote larger government and higher taxes is irrelevant to the point of fallacy.

Same goes for using it as an excuse to promote smaller government and lower taxes, my dear.

[GGT]

Being was making a general point, I wasn't speaking about Ireland specifically. Although the core of the problem (and the main thing being negotiated) has shifted to Ireland's massive government deficits.

However, I think using a case like Ireland (or any other financial failure) as a blanket excuse to promote larger government and higher taxes is irrelevant to the point of fallacy.

And how much of that larger government and higher taxes came from guaranteeing the banks' debts? Everyone has massive government deficits, even the USA. The common thread running through all countries is that the banking and financial industries ran amok with less regulation and lower standards. They didn't just cause a hole, they created huge black holes that are sucking money before it's made, and swallowing entire nations. And needing central banks and tax payers to bail them out, like insult to injury.

[Being]

And how much of that larger government and higher taxes came from guaranteeing the banks' debts? Everyone has massive government deficits, even the USA. The common thread running through all countries is that the banking and financial industries ran amok with less regulation and lower standards. They didn't just cause a hole, they created huge black holes that are sucking money before it's made, and swallowing entire nations. And needing central banks and tax payers to bail them out, like insult to injury.

It's okay though, Dread wants to pay for government as long as it's not bloated.

[GGT]

Well, the multi-TRILLION dollar question everyone is asking is........where did all that money actually GO?

The top 2-10% saw huge gains and profits, but the majority of people at the bottom 90% are now being asked to cough up the rescue money to fix the mess. Was just a few years ago the press was cooing about the miracle of the Irish boom. Same with Iceland's massive growth in wealth, and London becoming the financial center of the universe. In the US Wall St. grew by leaps and bounds.

Now Main Street around the world is angry.

[Loki]

Someone actually posted an article here few months back showing that the top income earners actually had the steepest decline in wealth as a result of the recession. But carry on with your empty assertions.

[Being]

Someone actually posted an article here few months back showing that the top income earners actually had the steepest decline in wealth as a result of the recession. But carry on with your empty assertions.

It's not merely an assertion that taxes were used to keep the loss of wealth for the top income earners to a minimum.

[Loki]

You mean taxes were changed during the recession? And how exactly do taxes minimize losses from capital gains and real estate losses?

[GGT]

Someone actually posted an article here few months back showing that the top income earners actually had the steepest decline in wealth as a result of the recession. But carry on with your empty assertions.

More than one article has been posted in this forum showing the jump in wealth among the top percentiles, compared to stagnant wealth for everyone else. Some of it from "official government" sources. Large Corporate earnings have seen some of their largest gains in decades, even during The Great Recession. They're still holding huge reserves of cash. Luxury spending has resumed, but don't let the facts disturb your bias.

[Being]

Yes, though the changes have been delayed. Funded by debt just like our two wars. The future will pay for it.

[Loki]

Yay for empty rhetoric. Is there a reason why you have to post this crap here and not at the Democratic Underground?

[Being]

Is there a reason why you have to post this crap here and not at the Democratic Underground?

Yes, there is. People like you who seem to think that Capitalism can pay all the bills.

[Dreadnaught]

Same goes for using it as an excuse to promote smaller government and lower taxes, my dear.

I'm not. I have a particular philosophy about government in general. I don't see the value in taking advantage of a situation to compel higher taxes to "protect" jobs in my backyard.

Yes, there is. People like you who seem to think that Capitalism can pay all the bills.

So...what will pay the bills? I don't think our government will accept lima beans as currency.

[GGT]

....I think he meant that Capitalism (the kind of the last couple of decades, at least) needed to be repaired with a bit of SSSocialism. The Wild West type of crony capitalism made billions of wealth, but not spread around very well, mainly concentrated in pockets at the top. Now we need some socialism, sharing the pain of repairing the wreckage. That's why people on Main Street are disappointed, angry, and frustrated. That's what I think, at least.

[Nessus]

Okay, so you can't have low taxes and strictly enforced laws against dumping stuff? It's not like this is a novel concept.

This is starting to sound like a libertarian tax paradise, I haven't seen those in practice except in Bioshock and well, that's not the kind of Daddy I want roaming my streets!

Garbage, you can have lower taxes while still ensuring the environment is maintained etc, etc - most of what are tax money goes on has nothing to do with anything you said.

Really Rand? What I say is garbage?

And do you want to talk about where tax money actually goes towards? Because I have news for you, it is called civilization. I know jack-asses such as yourself love painting it as waste, as some kind of trifle useless thing pissed into the wind, eaten at the cost of the innovative entrepreneur. That's garbage. Tax money pays for the greatest things humanity produces, such as science and ethics. Corporation money pays for lies, cons and cola.

[Loki]

Tax money doesn't exist without corporation money.

[Nessus]

But Randy is crying about how evil the gummint is for taking away some of that corporation money.

[GGT]

Tax money doesn't exist without corporation money.

False dichotomy.

[Being]

Tax money doesn't exist without corporation money.

Corporation money doesn't exist without consumers.

[Loki]

But Randy is crying about how evil the gummint is for taking away some of that corporation money.

Once you pass a certain threshold, taking more today will mean less money available tomorrow. In fact, there's a real trade off at every tax level. So instead of viewing this as a simplistic "either corporations get to keep the money or we spend more money on our civilization", you have to realize that it's "we spend more money on our civilization today at the expense of money we can spend on it tomorrow".

[Being]

"We spend more money on our civilization today at the expense of money we can spend on it tomorrow and that's why we prefer to borrow".

Fixed.

[Nessus]

Once you pass a certain threshold, taking more today will mean less money available tomorrow. In fact, there's a real trade off at every tax level. So instead of viewing this as a simplistic "either corporations get to keep the money or we spend more money on our civilization", you have to realize that it's "we spend more money on our civilization today at the expense of money we can spend on it tomorrow".

Is this about the Laffer curve?

[GGT]

Once you pass a certain threshold, taking more today will mean less money available tomorrow. In fact, there's a real trade off at every tax level.

Yes, we know that. That's how the "Cut Taxes" group managed to make that our policy, during the housing and financial industry booms, with two unfunded wars, an aging population, crumbling infrastructure and failing education/health systems. Genius strategy.

So instead of viewing this as a simplistic "either corporations get to keep the money or we spend more money on our civilization", you have to realize that it's "we spend more money on our civilization today at the expense of money we can spend on it tomorrow".

No one here claims this is simple. You should realize that previous generations (and administrations) took the "Borrow and Spend" road. And look at us now. We're broke. Genius strategy.

[Loki]

Is this about the Laffer curve?

No, it's not (the Laffer Curve is about a short-term relationship between taxes and revenues). It's about the basic principle that the lower someone's marginal utility of doing something, the less they'll do it. In this case, the lower the marginal utility of earning an extra dollar in profit, the less the incentive to try to earn that dollar. If you tax people/firms enough, they will not work/produce enough to keep the national income from falling. Though any taxes will reduce willingness to work/produce, which means they are hurting the ability of the state to raise revenue in the future. Obviously a certain level of taxation is necessary, but people have to acknowledge that it comes at a long-term cost, and not just to the firm's pocketbook.

[Being]

You should realize that previous generations (and administrations) took the "Borrow and Spend" road. And look at us now. We're broke. Genius strategy.

But...but...but...we have record profits...how can we be broke?

[Nessus]

No, it's not (the Laffer Curve is about a short-term relationship between taxes and revenues). It's about the basic principle that the lower someone's marginal utility of doing something, the less they'll do it. In this case, the lower the marginal utility of earning an extra dollar in profit, the less the incentive to try to earn that dollar. If you tax people/firms enough, they will not work/produce enough to keep the national income from falling. Though any taxes will reduce willingness to work/produce, which means they are hurting the ability of the state to raise revenue in the future. Obviously a certain level of taxation is necessary, but people have to acknowledge that it comes at a long-term cost, and not just to the firm's pocketbook.

So the Soviet Union failed and the Nordic countries are taking the plunge as well, because garbage men such as Randy over there are preaching the Coca-Cola message of work less for more and FUCK EVERYONE ELSE, period. What you're saying hinges on the willingness of the corp dollar to accept levels of taxation; bull-shit artists such as garbage-man work very hard to reduce that. To prove their own prophecy about the ultimate truth of the free market.