Worst Recession in 60 Years?

[native]

"No other recession in the last 60 years saw such rapid job destruction..." writes Henry Olsen in the Wall Street Journal.

...and no other recession has created such a high ratio of unemplyment to population:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But how do we get the economy growing and providing jobs again?

"...There is only one instance since World War II of the U.S economy increasing the employment-population ratio by five percentage points in a decade: the recovery that followed Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in 1983.... An administration that pursued job creation—not ideology—would note this history and see how individuals and companies can create wealth and jobs quickly if they have the right incentives. Instead, we have policies that are uncertain and portend higher taxes and greater regulatory burdens. This is causing business and consumers alike to restrain spending, creating a drag on the economy too great for any government stimulus to reverse...."

What is the solution?
Obamanomics/government spending?
Reaganomics/tax cuts?
Something else?

[ATrain]

Reaganomics...or a world war could help.

[native]

Olsen's analysis measures an employment to population ratio:

"...In contrast to the better-known unemployment rate, which measures the percentage of working-age Americans who are actively seeking jobs but do not have one, the civilian employment-population ratio measures the percentage of working-age Americans who have a job, whether they are seeking one or not.

This distinction matters because the state of an economy affects whether someone looks for a job at all. Bad times discourage potential workers from seeking jobs; boom times encourage marginal workers to seek them. As our population grows, we have more working-age adults who need work. A growing economy needs to replace the jobs we have lost and add new ones to accommodate these added potential workers.

Looking at this ratio, America is suffering its largest drop since World War II. When the economy was at its Bush-era height, in 2007, a little over 63% of adult Americans had jobs. Friday's report shows that only about 58.4% do, a decline of nearly five percentage points. While the unemployment rate remains steady at 9.5%, the employment-population ratio continues to fall each month. In April it was 58.8%, in May 58.7%, and in June 58.5%.

Since America has about 238 million noninstitutionalized civilian adults of working age, this decrease means that we have nearly 12 million fewer jobs today than we would have if the employment-population rate were still at its 2007 level of 63%. ..."

[native]

"...Initial claims have now risen in three of the last four weeks and are close to their high point for the year of 490,000, reached in late January. The four-week average, which smooths volatility, soared by 14,250 to 473,500, also the highest since late February. ..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100812/ap_ ... us_economy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ASUG8]

Employment to population ratio doesn't really address the baby boomer retirement issue, and pure unemployment rate doesn't address those who dropped out of the work force completely.

Government spending hasn't worked thus far, and tax cuts will only exacerbate deficit spending and total debt. I have no idea how to address it, but it feels like stimulus spending isn't working.

[kalm]

Tax cuts would be fine if they are directed strictly at increasing manufacturing. We also need a better trade policy. Tax increases on the top 1% and corporations that rely upon off-shore labor would also be nice.

[Ivytalk]

Tax cuts for corporations -- U.S. corporate rates are currently among the highest in the world -- are long overdue. Keep the Bush tax cuts and current cap gains/dividend rates in place. Slash earmarks and other discretionary spending to the bone. Continue focus on entitlements reform with focus on deferring eligibility. Simplify the tax code by reducing number of brackets and eliminating deductions and credits that create perverse market incentives (like the mortgage interest deduction, to name one).

Last but not least, invent a "smart bomb" that will fry every lobbyist on Gucci Gulch in Washington.

[coastal89]

The Fair Tax.

[CitadelGrad]

Last but not least, invent a "smart bomb" that will fry every lobbyist on Gucci Gulch in Washington.

That would take out about half of your law school class.

[mrklean]

The Fair Tax.

This is 40 years in the making. This was bound to happen.

[Ivytalk]

Last but not least, invent a "smart bomb" that will fry every lobbyist on Gucci Gulch in Washington.

That would take out about half of your law school class.

Nobody likes a smartass!

[kalm]

Tax cuts for corporations -- U.S. corporate rates are currently among the highest in the world -- are long overdue. Keep the Bush tax cuts and current cap gains/dividend rates in place. Slash earmarks and other discretionary spending to the bone. Continue focus on entitlements reform with focus on deferring eligibility. Simplify the tax code by reducing number of brackets and eliminating deductions and credits that create perverse market incentives (like the mortgage interest deduction, to name one).

Last but not least, invent a "smart bomb" that will fry every lobbyist on Gucci Gulch in Washington.

There's a huge difference between rates and effective rate. Exxon made more money than any corporation in the history of the world in 2008 and paid nothing in taxes. This while their product creates a number of expenses that are externalized onto the tax payers.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Explain how they paid nothing in taxes...........



http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... B+analysis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/ ... ero-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Tax/ge-e ... d=10300167" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[native]

That would take out about half of your law school class.

Nobody likes a smartass!

... But everybody likes a little ass!

[GannonFan]

Explain how they paid nothing in taxes...........



http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... B+analysis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/ ... ero-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Tax/ge-e ... d=10300167" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed - Exxon pays plenty of taxes, just not here in the US. Of course, we seem to think somehow that Exxon, and other companies, are crazy by choosing to put their profits in countries with low corporate tax rates. What a shocker that they don't see the US, as now the country with the highest corporate tax rate, as a place that's best to park their profits. Stunning.

[kalm]

Explain how they paid nothing in taxes...........



http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... B+analysis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/ ... ero-taxes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Tax/ge-e ... d=10300167" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed - Exxon pays plenty of taxes, just not here in the US. Of course, we seem to think somehow that Exxon, and other companies, are crazy by choosing to put their profits in countries with low corporate tax rates. What a shocker that they don't see the US, as now the country with the highest corporate tax rate, as a place that's best to park their profits. Stunning.

Let's see here.

U.S. military spending, Federal Highway System, pollution related health costs, environmental clean up - just a few of the expenses picked up on behalf of Exxon courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.

Good businesses shouldn't have to rely up on these subsidies to make a buck. And if they do, there profits should be taxed appropriately. I thought there was no such thing as a free lunch?

With anti-tax attitudes such as these it's no wonder we're broke.

[native]

Agreed - Exxon pays plenty of taxes, just not here in the US. Of course, we seem to think somehow that Exxon, and other companies, are crazy by choosing to put their profits in countries with low corporate tax rates. What a shocker that they don't see the US, as now the country with the highest corporate tax rate, as a place that's best to park their profits. Stunning.

Let's see here.

U.S. military spending, Federal Highway System, pollution related health costs, environmental clean up - just a few of the expenses picked up on behalf of Exxon courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.

Good businesses shouldn't have to rely up on these subsidies to make a buck. And if they do, there profits should be taxed appropriately. I thought there was no such thing as a free lunch?

With anti-tax attitudes such as these it's no wonder we're broke.

Your "progressive" control fetish derives reults opposite from your stated intentions, leaving you hungry for ever more control.

[GannonFan]

Agreed - Exxon pays plenty of taxes, just not here in the US. Of course, we seem to think somehow that Exxon, and other companies, are crazy by choosing to put their profits in countries with low corporate tax rates. What a shocker that they don't see the US, as now the country with the highest corporate tax rate, as a place that's best to park their profits. Stunning.

Let's see here.

U.S. military spending, Federal Highway System, pollution related health costs, environmental clean up - just a few of the expenses picked up on behalf of Exxon courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.

Good businesses shouldn't have to rely up on these subsidies to make a buck. And if they do, there profits should be taxed appropriately. I thought there was no such thing as a free lunch?

With anti-tax attitudes such as these it's no wonder we're broke.

There are plenty of companies around the world that have no presence in America and would be at even more of a competitive advantage versus US companies is we decided to force most if not all the profits to be landed in the US and taxed at our rates. The rest of the world is rapidly reducing corporate tax rates while you seem to be of the opinion that we should go it alone and raise ours or make more money subject to ours. You claim to want to put more manufacturing in the US, but then you want to go and tax them at levels that are 3x to 10x what other countries tax their businesses at. How you don't see the disconnect between wanting to attract more business and jacking up tax rates is the real question here.

We're broke because we spend more than we take in, and we've been accelerating spending to unheard of levels for almost a decade now - at some point, the spending needs to be reined in.

[Ivytalk]

Tax cuts for corporations -- U.S. corporate rates are currently among the highest in the world -- are long overdue. Keep the Bush tax cuts and current cap gains/dividend rates in place. Slash earmarks and other discretionary spending to the bone. Continue focus on entitlements reform with focus on deferring eligibility. Simplify the tax code by reducing number of brackets and eliminating deductions and credits that create perverse market incentives (like the mortgage interest deduction, to name one).

Last but not least, invent a "smart bomb" that will fry every lobbyist on Gucci Gulch in Washington.

There's a huge difference between rates and effective rate. Exxon made more money than any corporation in the history of the world in 2008 and paid nothing in taxes. This while their product creates a number of expenses that are externalized onto the tax payers.

AlphaGriz busted you with the facts, Mr. Nobel Economics Laureate.

[kalm]

There's a huge difference between rates and effective rate. Exxon made more money than any corporation in the history of the world in 2008 and paid nothing in taxes. This while their product creates a number of expenses that are externalized onto the tax payers.

AlphaGriz busted you with the facts, Mr. Nobel Economics Laureate.

Yeah like this one you welfare queen:

Exxon Paid Zero U.S. Income Tax In 2009, While Big Oil Defends Billions In Senseless Tax Subsidies
Over at ThinkProgress, Ben Armbruster highlighted a Forbes report on the taxes paid by top corporations last year. According to Forbes, General Electric managed to make $10.3 billion in pretax income, but paid nothing into the U.S. Treasury, as it counted its losses in the U.S., while registering its profits overseas. As Forbes put it, “GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. (posting a $6.5 billion loss in 2009), and make lots of money overseas (a $4.3 billion gain).”

And then there’s Exxon-Mobil, which paid more in income taxes than any other U.S. company last year, just none of it to the U.S.:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Instead, the $15 billion was divided among the countries where Exxon has set up one of its hundreds of foreign subsidiaries. In total, Exxon 122 foreign subsidiaries, including 32 in countries that are officially labeled tax havens by the U.S. government. It has 18 subsidiaries in the Bahamas, and 3 each in the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

In each of the last two years, the Obama administration has proposed eliminating the loopholes and incentives in the tax code that allow companies to set up subsidiaries in these low- or no-tax countries, which help them lower their effective tax rate by 20 points or more. Both times, the administration saw its efforts rebuffed by Congress and the Big Business lobby, which means that a $100 billion annual tax burden will continue to be shifted onto U.S. taxpayers (including corporations) that don’t engage in this sort of tax evasion.

But Exxon is not only avoiding U.S. taxes. As Mother Jones’ Adam Weinstein pointed out, the company also has the chutzpah to complain about high taxation, as its website claims that “energy innovation is already on the ropes because of excessive taxes, and it will be forever consigned to the dustbin by any new taxes on windfall profits.” Plus, the Big Oil lobby is currently running ads against what it calls “new energy taxes,” which is actually an effort by the Obama administration to cut $36 billion in senseless tax loopholes and subsidies for the oil industry.

So, to sum up, oil companies complain about high taxation, while paying no taxes and receiving corporate welfare from the federal government. I understand why they’d want to go to great lengths to protect such a sweetheart deal, but there’s no reason for the rest of us to buy it.

[kalm]

Let's see here.

U.S. military spending, Federal Highway System, pollution related health costs, environmental clean up - just a few of the expenses picked up on behalf of Exxon courtesy of U.S. taxpayers.

Good businesses shouldn't have to rely up on these subsidies to make a buck. And if they do, there profits should be taxed appropriately. I thought there was no such thing as a free lunch?

With anti-tax attitudes such as these it's no wonder we're broke.

There are plenty of companies around the world that have no presence in America and would be at even more of a competitive advantage versus US companies is we decided to force most if not all the profits to be landed in the US and taxed at our rates. The rest of the world is rapidly reducing corporate tax rates while you seem to be of the opinion that we should go it alone and raise ours or make more money subject to ours. You claim to want to put more manufacturing in the US, but then you want to go and tax them at levels that are 3x to 10x what other countries tax their businesses at. How you don't see the disconnect between wanting to attract more business and jacking up tax rates is the real question here.

We're broke because we spend more than we take in, and we've been accelerating spending to unheard of levels for almost a decade now - at some point, the spending needs to be reined in.

I agree spending is part of the problem, and I also agree that we need to be strategic with our tax structure in order to not scare away manufacturing. But the "highest corporate tax rate" meme has been debunked numerous times. Our effective rate is below average compared with the top 30 OECD countries. Also, many of these countries have more aggressive protectionist trade policies. Not to mention we allow companies to shift manufacturing overseas, stimulating the Chinese economy while avoiding the costs of living wages or environmental protection, and allow them to sell those products once produced in the U.S. back to us while not paying any tariffs whatsoever. We don't have to let them do that. We still have a substantial market full of demand and if multinationals don't like paying high enough wages or minimizing pollution, they can try selling their high end consumer products to the third world and be replaced by companies that will. We have built in trade and market advantages and we need to start using them.

High Corporate Tax Rate Is Misleading
IF YOU SAY SOMETHING long enough and loud enough, there's every chance people will come to believe it's true, especially if your opponents tire of rebuttals.
This time-honored political strategy has been working overtime of late, as Republican presidential hopefuls romance the richer Florida retirees with appeals for cuts in corporate taxes.

You may have heard: U.S. corporations face one of the highest income tax rates in the world, though the mention of "rate" is often enough excised, so that what comes through is the assertion that corporations pay too much in taxes. This is simply untrue if your basis for comparison is the developed world. The truth is that while the 35% corporate income tax rate is high indeed, the creativity and global reach of U.S. corporations make them among the most lightly levied.

Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.

Why the disparity given the high federal rate, which rises to 39% counting state taxes? Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personal returns.

According to one analysis, if so much corporate income hadn't moved to the personal tax rolls over the last 20 years, U.S. corporate taxes would account for 3.2% of the GDP, still a bit below the OECD average. "Usage of pass-through forms of business organization can be viewed as a form of 'self-help' corporate tax integration," writes Peter R. Merrill, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The income not squired away overseas or channeled to the personal returns still enjoys protection in the form of various tax breaks that depress the effective rate to 27%, according to the Treasury Department. Such breaks are expected to cost the Treasury $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years, reducing the corporate tax revenue by 25%.

Meanwhile, there's growing evidence that, despite the occasional crackdowns on especially creative tax accounting, routine corporate tax dodges are way up by historical standards, as multinationals play an increasingly profitable shell game.



Read more: High Corporate Tax Rate Is Misleading - Investing - Economy - SmartMoney.com http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/eco ... z0wbSIMi35" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[native]

... many of these countries have more aggressive protectionist trade policies. Not to mention we allow companies to shift manufacturing overseas, stimulating the Chinese economy while avoiding the costs of living wages or environmental protection, and allow them to sell those products once produced in the U.S. back to us while not paying any tariffs whatsoever. We don't have to let them do that. We still have a substantial market full of demand and if multinationals don't like paying high enough wages or minimizing pollution, they can try selling their high end consumer products to the third world and be replaced by companies that will. We have built in trade and market advantages and we need to start using them. ...

Interesting theory, kalm, but our own sh!t stinks, too. Your control-freakoconomics will not derive the utopic results of your wet dreams. Instead 95% of your New Deal regulatory regime is a tar baby of failure. There is not a sufficient free flow of market-driven capital and labor necessary for the kind of productivity and competitiveness to sustain a successful fair trade foreign policy. Every piece of bullsh!t socialist legislation Obama has passed makes the American economy that much more more sluggish, unproductive and uncompetitive.

I would support your fair trade scenario, IF we got our own house in order first by eliminating (NOT increasing) barriers to the free flow of labor and capital, empowering individual workers and small businesses, eliminating costly social welfare programs that sidetrack capital, encourage waste and sloth, immobilize the workforce and stifle productivity and associating with like minded nations on a preferential basis. Instead of Obamania, the government should be all about empowering the individual worker with things like 401(k) plans, mobile and personal medical insurance plans, right to work, privatized self-sustaining "paygo" social security and medicare programs.

1. De-emphasize American participation in the United Nations and form a new free trade federation to take its place, in which the only members allowed to join must abide by commonly accepted environmental emissions, fair trade and personal liberty standards. Communist countries and countries under sharia law, for example, could not possibly qualify for membership. Reciprocal intellectual property rights, laws, clean air and water standards, etc., would be required to join. Establish free-trade-zone federation outposts in non-federation countries to provide for peaceful trade and exchange of ideas.
2. Reduce the American military footprint abroad, returning to a somewhat Jeffersonian maritime military strategy in which the military is used to protect American LIVES and COMMERCE, not state building. COMMERCE becomes the biggest stick, backed up by an absolutely ruthless military might which destroys anyone who dares tread on the U.S. citizens or businesses or its federation partners, who would also be required to contribute on a fair share basis to the maritime military forces and in most instances agree to be led by the U.S. military.
3. Encourage immigration ONLY for those who learn English, sincerely want to become Americans, and subscribe completely and without reservation to the U.S. Constitution and traditional American political values. Here's the bad part for all you haters: This would allow greater immigration of Christian and Buddhist populations and eliminate huge numbers of Muslims. Sure, let gays and opther suffering groups immmigrate but not just because they are gay.
4. Make right to work the law of the land. Union wages and work rules are discriminatory, and create a barrier to productivity, innovation and competition.
5. Eliminate minimum wages and "living wages." Artificially high wages encourage black market economic activity and illegal labor and discourage the creation of entry level jobs for youth who need the money and the work experience. Lower wages at least leave a place in the economy and society for the marginally employable and incentivize those capable of greater productivity to get off their arses. Sufficient protection will be provided against slave-labor societies and non-free countries because
6. Eliminate public sector emplyee unions. Local democratic elections provide protection enough. There should be no more tenure in public life than in private life - even less. Public sector employee unions are an inherent conflict of interest, have an unwarranted and undemocratic stranglehold on state and local governments, and create a drag on productivity, innovation and competition. In the case of education, empower all parents with vouchers to send their children to the schools of their choice. GUARANTEED better school board, teacher and student results with parents thusly empowered and the NEA out of business.
7. Eliminate all political payola programs like Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the Chrysler and GM bailouts, et al. Such programs contravene the Constitution, purposefully avoid economic responsibility and accountability, divert capital and labor to unproductive purposes, and have become a massive and corrupt political payoff assembly line in which politicians and academics with ZERO management or economic productivity credentials reap fortunes while violating the public trust.
8. Minimize and reform social welfare programs, for example those which reward profligate and irresponsible sexual behavior. Such programs create a permanent underclass while punishing innocent taxpayers without really protecting innocent children. In the current system, only the guilty and their co-dependent public sector enablers reap the benefits. The children, the taxpayers, and the greater society and economy suffer. After one "mistake," everything else is criminal negligence and abuse on the part of the "parents," and should be harshly punished as such.
9. Making all these changes would not only optimize utilization of labor and capital, creating the greatest possible OPPORTUNITY for all, it would also collapse the government to perhaps 20% to 30% of its current size, which in itself would eliminate public debt and stimulate the economy to once again lead the world in growth, productivity and OPPORTUNITY.

[kalm]

... many of these countries have more aggressive protectionist trade policies. Not to mention we allow companies to shift manufacturing overseas, stimulating the Chinese economy while avoiding the costs of living wages or environmental protection, and allow them to sell those products once produced in the U.S. back to us while not paying any tariffs whatsoever. We don't have to let them do that. We still have a substantial market full of demand and if multinationals don't like paying high enough wages or minimizing pollution, they can try selling their high end consumer products to the third world and be replaced by companies that will. We have built in trade and market advantages and we need to start using them. ...

Interesting theory, kalm, but our own sh!t stinks, too. Your control-freakoconomics will not derive the utopic results of your wet dreams. Instead 95% of your New Deal regulatory regime is a tar baby of failure. There is not a sufficient free flow of market-driven capital and labor necessary for the kind of productivity and competitiveness to sustain a successful fair trade foreign policy. Every piece of bullsh!t socialist legislation Obama has passed makes the American economy that much more more sluggish, unproductive and uncompetitive.

I would support your fair trade scenario, IF we got our own house in order first by eliminating (NOT increasing) barriers to the free flow of labor and capital, empowering individual workers and small businesses, eliminating costly social welfare programs that sidetrack capital, encourage waste and sloth, immobilize the workforce and stifle productivity and associating with like minded nations on a preferential basis. Instead of Obamania, the government should be all about empowering the individual worker with things like 401(k) plans, mobile and personal medical insurance plans, right to work, privatized self-sustaining "paygo" social security and medicare programs.

1. De-emphasize American participation in the United Nations and form a new free trade federation to take its place, in which the only members allowed to join must abide by commonly accepted environmental emissions, fair trade and personal liberty standards. Communist countries and countries under sharia law, for example, could not possibly qualify for membership. Reciprocal intellectual property rights, laws, clean air and water standards, etc., would be required to join. Establish free-trade-zone federation outposts in non-federation countries to provide for peaceful trade and exchange of ideas.
2. Reduce the American military footprint abroad, returning to a somewhat Jeffersonian maritime military strategy in which the military is used to protect American LIVES and COMMERCE, not state building. COMMERCE becomes the biggest stick, backed up by an absolutely ruthless military might which destroys anyone who dares tread on the U.S. citizens or businesses or its federation partners, who would also be required to contribute on a fair share basis to the maritime military forces and in most instances agree to be led by the U.S. military.
3. Encourage immigration ONLY for those who learn English, sincerely want to become Americans, and subscribe completely and without reservation to the U.S. Constitution and traditional American political values. Here's the bad part for all you haters: This would allow greater immigration of Christian and Buddhist populations and eliminate huge numbers of Muslims. Sure, let gays and opther suffering groups immmigrate but not just because they are gay.
4. Make right to work the law of the land. Union wages and work rules are discriminatory, and create a barrier to productivity, innovation and competition.
5. Eliminate minimum wages and "living wages." Artificially high wages encourage black market economic activity and illegal labor and discourage the creation of entry level jobs for youth who need the money and the work experience. Lower wages at least leave a place in the economy and society for the marginally employable and incentivize those capable of greater productivity to get off their arses. Sufficient protection will be provided against slave-labor societies and non-free countries because
6. Eliminate public sector emplyee unions. Local democratic elections provide protection enough. There should be no more tenure in public life than in private life - even less. Public sector employee unions are an inherent conflict of interest, have an unwarranted and undemocratic stranglehold on state and local governments, and create a drag on productivity, innovation and competition. In the case of education, empower all parents with vouchers to send their children to the schools of their choice. GUARANTEED better school board, teacher and student results with parents thusly empowered and the NEA out of business.
7. Eliminate all political payola programs like Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the Chrysler and GM bailouts, et al. Such programs contravene the Constitution, purposefully avoid economic responsibility and accountability, divert capital and labor to unproductive purposes, and have become a massive and corrupt political payoff assembly line in which politicians and academics with ZERO management or economic productivity credentials reap fortunes while violating the public trust.
8. Minimize and reform social welfare programs, for example those which reward profligate and irresponsible sexual behavior. Such programs create a permanent underclass while punishing innocent taxpayers without really protecting innocent children. In the current system, only the guilty and their co-dependent public sector enablers reap the benefits. The children, the taxpayers, and the greater society and economy suffer. After one "mistake," everything else is criminal negligence and abuse on the part of the "parents," and should be harshly punished as such.
9. Making all these changes would not only optimize utilization of labor and capital, creating the greatest possible OPPORTUNITY for all, it would also collapse the government to perhaps 20% to 30% of its current size, which in itself would eliminate public debt and stimulate the economy to once again lead the world in growth, productivity and OPPORTUNITY.

Jeez, and some accuse me of being wordy...

[kalm]

You know what Nate, I read your polemic in full and agree with quite a bit of it. Of course it's utopic and under the current political system of glorified bribary, 90% of it is totally unachievable.

But nice work none the less.

Now back to the topic of taxation, do you think that a corporation should be able to pass its expenses on to the tax payers?

[bobbythekidd]

Now back to the topic of taxation, do you think that a corporation should be able to pass its expenses on to the tax payers?

That's exactly what happens and it will always be that way. What else would you suggest happen?