The End of Pax Americana

[Pwns]

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/youre-not ... what-comes

May be a little over-dramatic here, but I do get what he's saying.

We need more economic integration with western hemisphere countries for everything from energy to semiconductors. We can't keep pretending if we just do enough trade and job shipping with certain countries they will become less shitty and more democratic.

He also makes a point that's pretty provocative among centrist type thinkers and says we need more defense spending and that Chinese numbers on how much they spend on defense is largely BS.  Not something I'm enthusiastic about doing, but I think either way the era of low taxes on corporations and the wealthiest are going to have to come to an end.

[kalm]

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/youre-not ... what-comes

May be a little over-dramatic here, but I do get what he's saying.

We need more economic integration with western hemisphere countries for everything from energy to semiconductors. We can't keep pretending if we just do enough trade and job shipping with certain countries will become less shitty and more Democratic.

He also makes a point that's pretty provocative among centrist type thinkers and says we need more defense spending and that Chinese numbers on how much they spend on defense is largely BS.  Not something I'm enthusiastic about doing, but I think either way the era of low taxes on corporations and the wealthiest are going to have to come to an end.

Totally agree.

[houndawg]

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/youre-not ... what-comes

May be a little over-dramatic here, but I do get what he's saying.

We need more economic integration with western hemisphere countries for everything from energy to semiconductors. We can't keep pretending if we just do enough trade and job shipping with certain countries they will become less shitty and more democratic.

He also makes a point that's pretty provocative among centrist type thinkers and says we need more defense spending and that Chinese numbers on how much they spend on defense is largely BS.  Not something I'm enthusiastic about doing, but I think either way the era of low taxes on corporations and the wealthiest are going to have to come to an end.

Those who profit most from Pax Americana should pay their fair share of the cost, becuse pretty much from here out its going to be Pax Americana or no pax at all

[GannonFan]

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/youre-not ... what-comes

May be a little over-dramatic here, but I do get what he's saying.

We need more economic integration with western hemisphere countries for everything from energy to semiconductors. We can't keep pretending if we just do enough trade and job shipping with certain countries they will become less shitty and more democratic.

He also makes a point that's pretty provocative among centrist type thinkers and says we need more defense spending and that Chinese numbers on how much they spend on defense is largely BS.  Not something I'm enthusiastic about doing, but I think either way the era of low taxes on corporations and the wealthiest are going to have to come to an end.

The tax the rich part makes perfect sense, but I never get the tax the "corporations", for whatever that is. The rich today find ways around taxes because they get paid out in stock options or other things that aren't directly money. Get that part figured out and you get more tax money from those who have more. I haven't seen a wealth tax proposed that makes any sense yet, so I'm skeptical about that, assuming it's even constitutional in the first place. But more emphasis on taxing compensation of the rich would go a long way.

People throw around "corporations" as if it's a term that really means something. But in the end, any business is still just a collection of regular people, some rich and some not so rich, doing work. Tax the people, all of the people, and that's enough. Trying to then put more taxes (and I mean income or profit taxes) on businesses and those businesses will just gravitate to other places that don't tax profit. Property taxes make sense, use taxes (i.e. resource depletion, environmental permitting) make sense, but only so far as we make them pay for what they use, not to use it as a way to exorbitantly tax to gin up government revenue.

[houndawg]

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/youre-not ... what-comes

May be a little over-dramatic here, but I do get what he's saying.

We need more economic integration with western hemisphere countries for everything from energy to semiconductors. We can't keep pretending if we just do enough trade and job shipping with certain countries they will become less shitty and more democratic.

He also makes a point that's pretty provocative among centrist type thinkers and says we need more defense spending and that Chinese numbers on how much they spend on defense is largely BS.  Not something I'm enthusiastic about doing, but I think either way the era of low taxes on corporations and the wealthiest are going to have to come to an end.

The tax the rich part makes perfect sense, but I never get the tax the "corporations", for whatever that is. The rich today find ways around taxes because they get paid out in stock options or other things that aren't directly money. Get that part figured out and you get more tax money from those who have more. I haven't seen a wealth tax proposed that makes any sense yet, so I'm skeptical about that, assuming it's even constitutional in the first place. But more emphasis on taxing compensation of the rich would go a long way.

People throw around "corporations" as if it's a term that really means something. But in the end, any business is still just a collection of regular people, some rich and some not so rich, doing work. Tax the people, all of the people, and that's enough. Trying to then put more taxes (and I mean income or profit taxes) on businesses and those businesses will just gravitate to other places that don't tax profit. Property taxes make sense, use taxes (i.e. resource depletion, environmental permitting) make sense, but only so far as we make them pay for what they use, not to use it as a way to exorbitantly tax to gin up government revenue.

If the term doesn't mean anything why does the law bother to consider them to be people?

[Caribbean Hen]

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/youre-not ... what-comes

May be a little over-dramatic here, but I do get what he's saying.

We need more economic integration with western hemisphere countries for everything from energy to semiconductors. We can't keep pretending if we just do enough trade and job shipping with certain countries they will become less shitty and more democratic.

He also makes a point that's pretty provocative among centrist type thinkers and says we need more defense spending and that Chinese numbers on how much they spend on defense is largely BS.  Not something I'm enthusiastic about doing, but I think either way the era of low taxes on corporations and the wealthiest are going to have to come to an end.

The tax the rich part makes perfect sense, but I never get the tax the "corporations", for whatever that is. The rich today find ways around taxes because they get paid out in stock options or other things that aren't directly money. Get that part figured out and you get more tax money from those who have more. I haven't seen a wealth tax proposed that makes any sense yet, so I'm skeptical about that, assuming it's even constitutional in the first place. But more emphasis on taxing compensation of the rich would go a long way.

People throw around "corporations" as if it's a term that really means something. But in the end, any business is still just a collection of regular people, some rich and some not so rich, doing work. Tax the people, all of the people, and that's enough. Trying to then put more taxes (and I mean income or profit taxes) on businesses and those businesses will just gravitate to other places that don't tax profit. Property taxes make sense, use taxes (i.e. resource depletion, environmental permitting) make sense, but only so far as we make them pay for what they use, not to use it as a way to exorbitantly tax to gin up government revenue.

Even with all the loopholes, the rich are still carrying this country when it comes to paying taxes, too many free loaders living the “lifestyle” that encourages laziness and non productive members of society… now excuse me while I sway in my hammock under the breezy wind swept tropical palms by the tranquility of the turquoise Caribbean Sea

[GannonFan]

The tax the rich part makes perfect sense, but I never get the tax the "corporations", for whatever that is. The rich today find ways around taxes because they get paid out in stock options or other things that aren't directly money. Get that part figured out and you get more tax money from those who have more. I haven't seen a wealth tax proposed that makes any sense yet, so I'm skeptical about that, assuming it's even constitutional in the first place. But more emphasis on taxing compensation of the rich would go a long way.

People throw around "corporations" as if it's a term that really means something. But in the end, any business is still just a collection of regular people, some rich and some not so rich, doing work. Tax the people, all of the people, and that's enough. Trying to then put more taxes (and I mean income or profit taxes) on businesses and those businesses will just gravitate to other places that don't tax profit. Property taxes make sense, use taxes (i.e. resource depletion, environmental permitting) make sense, but only so far as we make them pay for what they use, not to use it as a way to exorbitantly tax to gin up government revenue.

If the term doesn't mean anything why does the law bother to consider them to be people?

You're just being argumentative. Of course it means something, but in the end it's just a business of individuals.

[kalm]

If the term doesn't mean anything why does the law bother to consider them to be people?

You're just being argumentative. Of course it means something, but in the end it's just a business of individuals.

Not supported by the constitution but given legs by a court clerk’s transcript which became case law.

[houndawg]

If the term doesn't mean anything why does the law bother to consider them to be people?

You're just being argumentative. Of course it means something, but in the end it's just a business of individuals.

...a paper construct for helping a shareholders and executives avoid having their enormous bonuses being taxed at the same rate as the wage-earning folks that actually produced the wealth. Thats the way we've always done things but there's no way we can keep doing it in today's world without those who profit most from wars pulling their weight financially

[UNI88]

You're just being argumentative. Of course it means something, but in the end it's just a business of individuals.

...a paper construct for helping a shareholders and executives avoid having their enormous bonuses being taxed at the same rate as the wage-earning folks that actually produced the wealth. Thats the way we've always done things but there's no way we can keep doing it in today's world without those who profit most from wars pulling their weight financially

Maybe those "wage-earning folks that actually produced the wealth" should get financing and start their own companies so that they can earn those enormous bonuses. No risk it, no biscuit.

[houndawg]

...a paper construct for helping a shareholders and executives avoid having their enormous bonuses being taxed at the same rate as the wage-earning folks that actually produced the wealth. Thats the way we've always done things but there's no way we can keep doing it in today's world without those who profit most from wars pulling their weight financially

Maybe those "wage-earning folks that actually produced the wealth" should get financing and start their own companies so that they can earn those enormous bonuses. No risk it, no biscuit.

That's a great idea, I'm surprised banks aren't pushing it harder.

[kalm]

...a paper construct for helping a shareholders and executives avoid having their enormous bonuses being taxed at the same rate as the wage-earning folks that actually produced the wealth. Thats the way we've always done things but there's no way we can keep doing it in today's world without those who profit most from wars pulling their weight financially

Maybe those "wage-earning folks that actually produced the wealth" should get financing and start their own companies so that they can earn those enormous bonuses. No risk it, no biscuit.

The world needs Dutch diggers too.

[houndawg]

...a paper construct for helping a shareholders and executives avoid having their enormous bonuses being taxed at the same rate as the wage-earning folks that actually produced the wealth. Thats the way we've always done things but there's no way we can keep doing it in today's world without those who profit most from wars pulling their weight financially

Maybe those "wage-earning folks that actually produced the wealth" should get financing and start their own companies so that they can earn those enormous bonuses. No risk it, no biscuit.

Risk what? A government bailout if things don't go right?

[houndawg]

Maybe those "wage-earning folks that actually produced the wealth" should get financing and start their own companies so that they can earn those enormous bonuses. No risk it, no biscuit.

The world needs Dutch diggers too.

They should be good at it - most of their country is below sea-level

[UNI88]

Maybe those "wage-earning folks that actually produced the wealth" should get financing and start their own companies so that they can earn those enormous bonuses. No risk it, no biscuit.

Risk what? A government bailout if things don't go right?

All the more reason they should stop whining about low wages/benefits and start their own business. Thank you for helping to make the point.

[houndawg]

Risk what? A government bailout if things don't go right?

All the more reason they should stop whining about low wages/benefits and start their own business. Thank you for helping to make the point.

If they had an equal ability to obtain financing you would have a point.

[UNI88]

All the more reason they should stop whining about low wages/benefits and start their own business. Thank you for helping to make the point.

If they had an equal ability to obtain financing you would have a point.

The reality is that the vast majority of small businesses don't have any more access to government bailouts than individuals. They put their time and money on the line to pursue a dream and if it hits then they get big enough to have that access. But don't forget they're the ones that took the risk and put in the time, they deserve the reward. Salaried and hourly workers take the safe route and get what they get with less risk thus less reward. It's their choice.

[houndawg]

If they had an equal ability to obtain financing you would have a point.

The reality is that the vast majority of small businesses don't have any more access to government bailouts than individuals. They put their time and money on the line to pursue a dream and if it hits then they get big enough to have that access. But don't forget they're the ones that took the risk and put in the time, they deserve the reward. Salaried and hourly workers take the safe route and get what they get with less risk thus less reward. It's their choice.

There's "small" businesses, and there's "small businesses", with sales up to $50,000,000 annually - the government did pretty well by both of them during the latest pandemic.

...wages and salaries don't get taxed at the same rate as the stock dividends and workers generally don't have the option of structuring their compensation to take advantage of tax loopholes available to the highly-compensated.