Well, you've gone a long way from "corporate taxes can lower wages as corporations pass burdens through where there aren't counter bailing institutions in some instances" (the paper you cite to "corporate taxes always cause wages go down and disproportionately hurt the poor, which isn't at all what is shown there

Please reread it. Particularly the conclusion.

Oh never mind I read your own statements wrong. But by reading it you can see that my argument is backed up by the data. Corporate taxes cause harm.

And pushing wages down, which adversely affects the poor, is more harm than good.

@Ogion

lower corporate taxes
lower costs
more downward room
price war occurs
market price drops

all you need is competition, and lowering costs will eventually lead to dropped prices, and that industry gets more attractive to the consumer, increasing demand, generally increasing employment.

so let's raise corporate taxes
raise costs
decrease competition from smaller businesses in industry
market price consolidation, with potential increases
oligopolies (or liberal crushing super evil corporatist monopoly appears oh no!!!)
decreases incentive for companies to increase wages, even with inflation
pure evil leads to the rise of Mordor (this is going downhill fast guys)


the key here is economics, i know that's hard for you but let's try. if a product is price ELASTIC (a % change in the quantity of the price is met larger % change in quantity) then if costs increase, the tax must be paid off by profits. this is because any raise in price to compensate for lost revenue will actually hurt revenue so much, the loss is simply unavoidable.

this means the company has less money to invest in capital, to pay out more wages and hire new people, and overall less money to invest in other areas of the economy.

if a product is price INELASTIC then the company will simply take the extra costs and raise prices. although it's illegal to form cartels and do this industry-wide inelastic goods have fewer substitutes, and industries generally react as one. you can punch a wall and scream "no fair" but sorry the price is still going up, hurting consumers.

this is what your precious corporate taxes do. i'm not against all corporate taxes, but i'm not so gleeful when i support them. please follow suit

What if you use corporate taxation to provide universal basic income (as some people are recommending?) or universal education and healthcare?

If the government program ises their taxation to help the worst off, is it still oppressive?

I mean, i will fully admit, i don't believe any current states ARE acting this way. But you also have states enforcing minimum wage laws which are designed to prevent companies from passing on tax hikes to employees (and you can argue that they don't work, but your libertarianism seems to be that government can't implement a better system, not that they shouldn't try..).

So yes, governments have tradiionally been oppressive power structures. And progressive politics is about trying to change that (what is seen as progress is not oppressing the worst off, equal access to education and healthcare... Etc) libertarian politics seems to be about giving that power to corporatuons, private power where the people have no vote in who profits from their misery.

"Other parents also told of assemblies for twelve-year-olds in Swindon in which Donald Trump's ban on refugees entering the country had been compared to the Holocaust."

Great comparison, both are examples of racialisation at work. They should be compared, one is a less extreme example of the other. Both use people, who happen to be angry at economic realities which they had no control over, and attempt to turn yhat anger against a minority who likewise had nothing to do with the economic reality.

So glad the racis tKatie Hopkins raised this wonderful fact.

@orathaic

political classes are a product of government. formerly structured as a pyramid, the founders created a cyclical pyramid with checks and balances, with power from the people

economic classes are a product of the markets. these can appear in many different ways, from equality to overall health.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shanedk/sets/72157646459874723/

(i'll leave that here)

social classes are purely subjective things, although most people view them through the lenses of economics. this is also a product of freedom


being against classes NATURALLY, allows for the potential to be against freedom. if you believe in a classless society, you are potentially advocated for taking away people's freedoms by force. just so we're on the same page

"If the government program ises their taxation to help the worst off, is it still oppressive?"

So the suggestion here is to shoot the poor to give them bandaids? I'm not against certain forms of taxation, but relying on the sorts of taxes that artificially increase prices (especially sales taxes) and decrease wages (corporate taxes) to prop up social programs that may or may not work (see the continued shrinkage of the middle class and continued lack of social and economic mobility of the poorest in the US, perpetuated by the ineffectiveness of our welfare system) is a net harm.

@orathaic

"What if you use corporate taxation to provide universal basic income (as some people are recommending?) or universal education and healthcare?"

corporate income taxes at rates from 15-35% have raised 343.8 billion $ in 2015: you couldn't fund every state's education at 634 billion $ OR the nation's healthcare at 3.2 trillion $ unless you MASSIVELY upped rates, and although @Ogion doesn't believe businesses care about taxation, as someone who actually understands economics: that would be catastrophic for our economy.


"If the government program ises their taxation to help the worst off, is it still oppressive?"

well by nature forcefully taking from one group and giving to another is oppressive... but if you're asking whether or not it's economical efficient: in small amounts it VERY much can be.


"I mean, i will fully admit, i don't believe any current states ARE acting this way. But you also have states enforcing minimum wage laws which are designed to prevent companies from passing on tax hikes to employees (and you can argue that they don't work, but your libertarianism seems to be that government can't implement a better system, not that they shouldn't try..). "

actually in all truth libertarians do say that government needs to let the markets open up and help competition, and a supply boom would naturally reinvigorate the wage market. our lack of productivity and investment (per capita) in recent years along with an ever increasing employee cost index has led to the wage crisis. minimum wage is a BAD long term solution, and the only reason it helps economies is because it helps stop the deadweight loss of monopolies and corporations that are usually propped up by government regulation preventing competition.


"So yes, governments have tradiionally been oppressive power structures."

agreed


"And progressive politics is about trying to change that"

what with socialism? organized stealing? the worst economic model since feudalism?


"(what is seen as progress is not oppressing the worst off,"

by oppressing others. you silly liberals always omit that last part"


"equal access to education and healthcare... Etc)"

ah, but we have equal ACCESS. what you mean is equal PRICE... and by THAT you mean equal price WITH SUBSIDIES!!! silly quasi-socialist goose


"libertarian politics seems to be about giving that power to corporatuons,"

no... they try to take away lobbyist power that the GOVERNMENT has given to them. a corporation in a libertarian society can AT WORST... offer you a superior product at a superior price. and you get to decide... whether or not to consume it with your hard worked for money (it is at this point in the horror story all the liberals peed themselves and ran out of the room. poor liberal Bernie had already wet himself first when he words "you get to decide" since it was the first time ever he had seen freedom... and it scared the poor senator for vermont, as the nurse put him on the changing table)


"private power where the people have no vote in who profits from their misery."

actually its takes away the power of bigger businesses to run smaller businesses out of town, WITHOUT offering a better product at a better price. THAT currently is a byproduct of liberal standards.


sadly, a few decades back socialists realized they don't need to nationalize industries to redistribute wealth, they just needed to rephrase their wording and run for office.

and also Venezuela. just in case you forgot what your policies lead to. #BernieSandersSaidBreadLinesWereGood

UBI doesn't have enough research for me to make a logistical comment, but I don't think people should have to rely on the government for a paycheck. Universal education and healthcare depends on the resources government can provide, which limits the effectiveness of both.

Putting people in a position where they require government assistance for survival is oppression with a nice happy smile on its face.

here's my message to all socialists: come back when we have a large enough renewable energy base and much more robotic-based manufacturing industry, along with a massive centralized economic database that has DAILY tracking of shifts in demand.

and even WITH all that it'd pretty much stunt all economic progress... but at least then it would not crash and burn IMMEDIATELY

@JY, you know what, i have been thinking about this a lot recently, and i think we're close to being on the same page.

I think that any attempts to create a classless society have resulted in taking freedom away from people, and have created those with the power to take that freedom away ad those without, which makes two political classes (almost by definition).

So there is a part of me which doubt that a classless society is possible. I don't believe in a society where some people have the power to take from others. Which i think does leave us on the same page, or pretty close.

When i think about a 'classless' society, i recognise that human nature is not going to change over night, or over the course of a century (though our culture may change dramatically over a single century). And human nature being what it is does result in some of those 'class' distinctions you mentioned.

So let me be clear, i don't know what the ideal society would look like, or how to get from here to there, but the kind of society i'd like is one where income is not related to status, where people strive to be respected for its own sake.

Olympic athletes wok harder than nearly anyone else to be the best, and they do it for nothing but status. So i'd love to see a society where everyone has the opportunity to be the best they can be - whether as a scientist, athlete, singer, or artist. However they want to compete. And nobody feels like they are less because of their upbringing, their race, their parent's, their performance in school, or anything else (unemployed class kids who are failed by our current education system).

I don't believe in a dictatorship of the proletariate - as Marx did - in order to get there. Because i don't believe that replacing one power system with another gets you any closer... And i don't know if this is possible, but i think it is worth striving for.

So if you think taxation to pay for universal education or universal healthcare is 'taking away people's freedom' then yes. I do believe in that. But only be ause i believe the educated people who don't have to worry about affording their health care costs are more free (I would include universal basic income, if not for the fact that it acts as a negative taxation - and having the government rely on you for tax places you in a position where if the government acts in your interest they can claim more tax, thus your interest align... Negative taxation reverse this suddenly you become a liability and i don't like the idea of a more powerful state which doesn't give a shit about their population - as we already see with unemployed classes living off of the social security net in Europe, they are marginalised and ignored, as much as the government can get away with...)

^that was all responding to your 02:28 message. I will read the rest shortly.

@orathaic

actually there were some job training programs in the 90s that were going to go federal, and actually economic forecasts showed the low cost of training, even with large fail rates, would be very economically prosperous in tax revenue. this would pay BACK the taxpayer.

THAT is the kind of liberal program i want to see pushed for

@"they try to take away lobbyist power that the GOVERNMENT has given to them. a corporation in a libertarian society can AT WORST... offer you a superior product at..."

Ok so i'm imagining that libertarian society is one without any state power (maybe that is better described as Anarchist-Capitalist, or AnCap - the only type of anarchist that every other kind will unite against), here there may be some problems. At least in my imagined corporate state. You can basically enslave people and run a mini-state on corporate property - shareholders acting like feudal oligarchs, private security which prevents any unauthorised entry.

When the entire country is owned by these Oligarchs, then you can tell me how oppressive governments are.

Unless you force government regulation of some kind on corporations.

@"TrPrado
Putting people in a position where they require government assistance for survival is oppression with a nice happy smile on its face."

I kinda agree, for reasons outlined above. I come at it from the perspective of the government's incentives not the individual - who i think becomes more free with UBI.

@wage stagnation and competition.

The unfortunate fact is productivity has increased so much over the last 100 years, nobody needs to consume everythig that we can prodce (on a per capita basis). So demand isn't there, which would drive up emoyment figures. And this leaves some group of people unemoyed.

They don't contribute to income tax, so the state doesn't give a shit about them, and mostly fears a revolution if this group became too big and blamed them for failing to manage the economy...

@JY, i can't wait for the day when we have massive renewable energy and robotic workforce, and automation forces us to reorganise our economic systems... So long as we don't end up in a dystopian nightmare Oligarchy run entirely by corporations.

@JY, i'm all for that kind of program (like targeted education which doesn't assume everyone should learn the same). But there is some anarchist thought which would claim that you end up being a drone working for the state to prop it up. They educate you only to make you a useful and compliant member of society.

I guess i'm bot a very good anarchist either...

i'm much more liberal on a community level. communities can determine an insurance net for their people, or public education and funding... it's much more individuals making decisions for themselves, and those whose lives they are directly affected with

I think i'd actually agree with you far more on the local level.

But wealth distribution and accumulation is a huge deal. Look at how Dutch banks, and insurance companies managed to turn a small European nation into a veritable super-power (controlling the east indies spice trade) with only smart financial technology. I don't know how to encourage this kind of lending and entrepreneurship on a very local level, while avoiding the worst problems associated with wealth inequality... Also global companies like google, amazon and facebook (or their chinese equivalents) only contribute services at a local level - at least google does some profit sharing with youtube creators (promoting creativity and entrepreneurship) mostly they take money away from local communities, and pile them into large (often offshore) centralised funds - to be used to firther corporate power...

And you know, i wouldn't have a problem with that, if it happened while people were free to do whatever they wanted...

the problem with government and taxes is the more they tax, the more they spend, the more they spend, the more they tax and so on....
California is a great example of this. when i was a kid the state sales tax was five percent. we had new freeways, nice neighborhoods, friendly police, great teachers and an inviting business climate. Now the tax is double. the property taxes rake in gobs of money despite prop 13, neighborhoods are crumbling, the overburdened schools are full of children where no one reads, works or speaks english, businesses flee, the only growth is in government union jobs such as the LADWP (who with the recent contract make nearly $200,000 and do not contribute to their healthcare) and prison guards.

At the rate we are 'progressing' in California we will be like Venezuela in five years.

isn't Ca. the fifth largest economy in the world (measured on its own). I wouldn't be surprised if it is growing faster than the rest of the US. And it contributes more to the federal budget than it gets out.

Overall, Ca looks like one of the nicest places in the US - though i've heard LA is pretty bad, and i think i'd melt in the weather...

But if you don't like it Brad, i'm sure you can leave.

@orathaic

well "largest economy" isn't a great sign of health... Venezuela had a pretty large economy and still does have a pretty large comparative economy (to before). living standards =/= capital and infrastructure, but the latter accumulates over time.

for california they're having surprisingly bad solvency problems even with their high taxation and open line to the federal government for natural disasters

ortho, you are just like all of those hordes of white 'settlers' that stole california from the natives, you racist son of a bitch. i have ancestors that have been here before there was a United States, before there was a Mexico, before it was Spanish. I have other ancestors, who came here and fought in the Revolutionary War and some that fled England and the germanic states over religious freedom. NO you are the invaders, YOUR kind need to leave. oh and ortho STFU ass!

oh and james ^ yay to you!

And ortho, your always complaining about the world around you. Get yourself a girlfriend like Michelle Carter and follow her 'advice'.

@Cpn Brad. I'm not sure you're making any sense now... Can you please come back when you have something to add to the conversation?

Do not encourage people to commit suicide in the forum.

- webDiplomacy Admin