I think I read last year that the Corporate tax breaks given, instead of creating jobs, has actually led to Corporations laying off people as well. I also just saw a blurb recently about 500k jobs disappearing somehow/someway, so I'll def need to track that down and read what was going on there. I'm not sure if there was a miscalculation or scumbag shit going on or what...
When the government does make sweeping changes it just seems like we're all just made to go along with it. If it's a bad idea that doesn't work people dig in their heels and double down on the change/law. Then much political BS ensues and both sides are unAmerican and hate babies, and sell crack to elementary school kids, you name it.
I just sit here and wonder why we're getting so far away from talking about the actual issues and trying to solve them...
I'll be interested to see how this situation for Activision pans out. I'm sure they can't get away with the high level of....the game, in Switzerland as they can here.
I find this discussion interesting......especially the part about the "mega corporations".
First off, some argue that the corporate executives/board are dutybound to generate the maximum profits for shareholders either through stock increases or dividend distributions. That means that environmental concerns, as cost centers, should be minimized, and rationalizes the discharge of hazardous chemicals, like PFAs, into our environment. It actually can be interpreted as arguing for government regulation, unless people desire to live in a hazardous waste environment.
It also supports the argument that corporations should not be providing defined benefit pension plans (most no longer do) or employee health insurance (which will become obsolete with the costs shifting back to individuals through their taxes under the universal Medicare proposals). Politicians do tend to bribe voters using taxpayer money.
Another point I find interesting is this concept that corporations should be reinvesting in productivity, which skirts the issue that corporations have been investing in production in lower wage countries (Asia), as opposed to US manufacturing, or using their tax benefits for stock buy backs and/or dividends to shareholders. This argument seems to understand the intent of tax cuts while ignoring the reality. Jobs/investment were created, just not in the United States.
Another interesting argument in this thread is that Federal corporate taxes are for national defense, and Federal personal taxes are for debt service. It seems to discount a whole litany of areas that the Federal government has become involved in, such as environmental protection, workers civil rights, law enforcement, immigration, commerce between nations, just to name a few. Should the Federal government withdraw from all those other areas?
For those of you who are really interested in this discussion, as to where your Federal tax dollars actually go, go to IRS.gov website and call up the latest 1040 instructions. On the back you will find a pie diagram of where your tax dollars are actually spent.
Yes, debt service is a significant area, as is defense, as are social programs. Keep in mind spending on social programs is heavily skewed not based on race, but based on age, with spending on young children (Medicaid, head start, and nutrition programs) and the aging baby boomers (Social Security, Medicare, nutrition programs, rent suppliments) being a substantial portion of those benefits. Arguing to cut corporate pension plans and health care plans only increases the burden on the taxpayers, unless, of course, your solution is to let people starve, or die from living in a hazardous waste environment of non-regulated corporate profiteering.
When you start discussing cutting "welfare",don't think of cuts in general, think of which distinct areas you feel are unnecessary.
Also, is it in the long term profitability interests of the corporation to provide an adequate wage to a healthy consumer group that will purchase their products, or is it acceptable to sell salmonella tainted food product, or exploding shrapnel airbags, as part of the corporate product mix?
Is it acceptable for a corporation to lie about the fuel efficiency of their cars (Volkswagen)?
I just wonder why anyone is surprised by any of this now. This has been typical of large corporations for 20? 30? years now. No politicians ever want to do anything about it, because companies donate a lot of money into politics.
The problem you have though is that corporations make the same argument: lower taxes create jobs. Dividends lead o greater investment etc. etc. Was the argument made in the US around the last round of "tax cuts". Just not much evidence of it coming to pass though just higher debt.
And whilst you say - and I understand - that corporation tax funds the military when you boil it down it doesn't. Its borrowing. And loans are "underwritten" on the strength of taxes. Any taxes. What you say would be strictly true if there was no debt. In the US - different countries have different approaches.
Nor is it as simple as lower taxes create more jobs. There is a balance to be struck between "government" and "freedom". And government can be very successful - Nazi Germany or the Apollo Program being example. (And no I am not advocating the policies of the 3rd Reich). As I said if it was true then zero taxes would be the answer.
At a time when the disparity of income is on a par with the time of the Great Depression then questions are beginning to be asked. Big organisations that don't want change can spend money to buy influence however.
So beware the soundbite! Question the motive. There is a balance to be struck but at the end of the day taxes in and of themselves are not evil. A view - I think - you share.
When I couldn't find a job, I didn't mope around in despair until some HR lady that doesn't have a clue, call me. I got off my ass and started a business. There's no excuse for this. I chose to not be a "victim".
Should the Federal government withdraw from all those other areas?
If it's not directed by the US Constitution, then yes.
For example, no where in the Constitution does it talk about the "police". The only constitutional law enforcement is the Sheriff, who are elected by the public. The "police" are funded by property taxes, not income taxes.
Should the Federal government withdraw from all those other areas?
If it's not directed by the US Constitution, then yes.
For example, no where in the Constitution does it talk about the "police". The only constitutional law enforcement is the Sheriff, who are elected by the public. The "police" are funded by property taxes, not income taxes.
Constitution Smonstitution, when your federal government needs money it’s going to get it. Only question is who are they going to get it from.
Constitution Smonstitution, when your federal government needs money it’s going to get it. Only question is who are they going to get it from.
This country was founded on a tax revolt. Everyone is well aware that the GoV is going to get their taxes. And we will continue to use the law to avoid those taxes and in some cases go elsewhere.
If this bothers people so much, then change the laws. Hell, don't wait on politicians. boycott corporations that you disagree with. It's a free market, vote with your wallet.
Constitution Smonstitution, when your federal government needs money it’s going to get it. Only question is who are they going to get it from.
This country was founded on a tax revolt. Everyone is well aware that the GoV is going to get their taxes. And we will continue to use the law to avoid those taxes and in some cases go elsewhere.
If this bothers people so much, then change the laws. Hell, don't wait on politicians. boycott corporations that you disagree with. It's a free market, vote with your wallet.
You guys are borrowing a trillion dollars a year when your economy is “the greatest it’s ever been in the history of the United States” according to your POTUS. There comes time when you got to pay the piper.
You guys are borrowing a trillion dollars a year when your economy is “the greatest it’s ever been in the history of the United States” according to your POTUS. There comes time when you got to pay the piper.
Yep. Good, then I'll have it my way in the end after all.
The problem you have though is that corporations make the same argument: lower taxes create jobs. Dividends lead o greater investment etc. etc. Was the argument made in the US around the last round of "tax cuts". Just not much evidence of it coming to pass though just higher debt.
And whilst you say - and I understand - that corporation tax funds the military when you boil it down it doesn't. Its borrowing. And loans are "underwritten" on the strength of taxes. Any taxes. What you say would be strictly true if there was no debt. In the US - different countries have different approaches.
Nor is it as simple as lower taxes create more jobs. There is a balance to be struck between "government" and "freedom". And government can be very successful - Nazi Germany or the Apollo Program being example. (And no I am not advocating the policies of the 3rd Reich). As I said if it was true then zero taxes would be the answer.
At a time when the disparity of income is on a par with the time of the Great Depression then questions are beginning to be asked. Big organisations that don't want change can spend money to buy influence however.
So beware the soundbite! Question the motive. There is a balance to be struck but at the end of the day taxes in and of themselves are not evil. A view - I think - you share.
When I couldn't find a job, I didn't mope around in despair until some HR lady that doesn't have a clue, call me. I got off my ass and started a business. There's no excuse for this. I chose to not be a "victim".
Do you own a business?
Not sure what your comment adds to the discussion.
If you don't want to accept that corporations use exactly the same argument that you used for paying less tax - much in evidence last year; that the logical conclusion of your view is zero taxes (I could expand on economic theory); and that it is borrowing that is paying for e.g. you mentioned the military then c'est la vie.
And yes in regards to your question about own business. Worked in multiple countries / continents - including the US - as well. So I have seen different systems. And as a result could highlight benefits and issues. No interest in whether you have btw. And as a result I have done what I want for several years now - and no I haven't reached retirement age!. Hope you manage to as well.
I am not sure what "nerve" I struck but my conclusion remains: beware the soundbite; question the motive. "Lower taxes = more jobs" is one such sound bite. All you have to do is consider what would happen if there were no taxes.
Remember taxes pay everything. Roads and bridges for example which I am sure your business needs - should all roads and bridges have tolls? Might work in busy cities but in the country - could get tricky.
Fun fact: the last national road building scheme in the US was after the Korean War to provide jobs for returning - no longer needed - troops. Probably not paid for with "corporation taxes" either. Would you have had them all start there own businesses? It was a form of welfare after all which your response suggests you seem to associate with taxes. (Didn't cross my mind but that comes from not living in America - although as I said I have.)
I just wonder why anyone is surprised by any of this now. This has been typical of large corporations for 20? 30? years now. No politicians ever want to do anything about it, because companies donate a lot of money into politics.
Probably because the disparity is now very, very large and still growing.
Constitution Smonstitution, when your federal government needs money it’s going to get it. Only question is who are they going to get it from.
This country was founded on a tax revolt. Everyone is well aware that the GoV is going to get their taxes. And we will continue to use the law to avoid those taxes and in some cases go elsewhere.
If this bothers people so much, then change the laws. Hell, don't wait on politicians. boycott corporations that you disagree with. It's a free market, vote with your wallet.
Sound bites and politicians.
A tax revolt by the rich, the very rich and some extremely rich who - arguably - sold the "common folk" a lemon. Some were self made but none were "ordinary".
Not sure what your comment adds to the discussion.
If you don't want to accept that corporations use exactly the same argument that you used for paying less tax - much in evidence last year; that the logical conclusion of your view is zero taxes (I could expand on economic theory); and that it is borrowing that is paying for e.g. you mentioned the military then c'est la vie.
And yes in regards to your question about own business. Worked in multiple countries / continents - including the US - as well. So I have seen different systems. And as a result could highlight benefits and issues. No interest in whether you have btw. And as a result I have done what I want for several years now - and no I haven't reached retirement age!. Hope you manage to as well.
I am not sure what "nerve" I struck but my conclusion remains: beware the soundbite; question the motive. "Lower taxes = more jobs" is one such sound bite. All you have to do is consider what would happen if there were no taxes.
Remember taxes pay everything. Roads and bridges for example which I am sure your business needs - should all roads and bridges have tolls? Might work in busy cities but in the country - could get tricky.
Fun fact: the last national road building scheme in the US was after the Korean War to provide jobs for returning - no longer needed - troops. Probably not paid for with "corporation taxes" either. Would you have had them all start there own businesses? It was a form of welfare after all which your response suggests you seem to associate with taxes. (Didn't cross my mind but that comes from not living in America - although as I said I have.)
Well, if you're not going to give a damn about my own experience, then there's nothing more to say. My business survives off other businesses' tax breaks/refunds. I can't break it down any more Big Bird style for you.
I'm set and what's mine is hidden and protected. I will continue to deny even a penny towards this mess. My retirement is self-funded.
Should the Federal government withdraw from all those other areas?
If it's not directed by the US Constitution, then yes.
For example, no where in the Constitution does it talk about the "police". The only constitutional law enforcement is the Sheriff, who are elected by the public. The "police" are funded by property taxes, not income taxes.
The breakdown in your argument occurred during the 1930s, in which criminal gangs committed crimes in one State, then crossed into another State, thus evading pursuit/capture/prosecution. During this time period there was a breakdown in law and order
Dillinger was a prime example, he committed bank robberies in Chicago and went into hiding in Wisconsin, hung out and spent his money in Florida, and the "sheriff" couldn't touch him because his crimes were in Illinois.
That's why Federal law enforcement, the FBI under J Edgar Hoover, was created, to cross State lines in pursuit of criminals. The Secret Service was created to protect the integrity of US currency by pursuing counterfeiters.
Your theory of abandoning Federal law enforcement and relying on local sheriffs would enable interstate crime once again. It would enable drug dealers to supply opioids across State lines without consequences. It would enable counterfeiting, identity theft, and a whole host of crime that was not envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
Times have changed since the American Revolution, civilization has advanced and there are developments that the framers of the Constitution could not even imagine. Space exploration is just one example, which has resulted in a lot of technological advances.
Under your argument it seems you are willing to forgo American leadership in technology?
You guys are borrowing a trillion dollars a year when your economy is “the greatest it’s ever been in the history of the United States” according to your POTUS. There comes time when you got to pay the piper.
It is projected that the United States will run an annual budget deficit of approximately $1.2 trillion per year for the next 10 years based on both spending and the latest round of tax cuts.
This will almost double the size of the Federal debt.
The current economic theory is that this is acceptable based on low interest rates, and the use of negative interest in Europe, as the US is still a "safe" economy paying positive interest.
In approximately 10 years the "repayments" on the US debt will be in excess of the US defense budget. Considering the US has the largest defense budget in the world, that will be quite an achievement.
The entire house of cards comes crashing down when foreign countries no longer "roll over" the US debt they hold, and instead ask repayment. In order to avoid repayment the US government will have to offer higher interest rates, driving up domestic interest rates, and stifling business investment and consumer purchasing.
The US government is banking (literally) on this not happening, as it would be detrimental to the entire world economy. So for now, the average American is living huge on the savings of the world.
Tik-Tok, Tik-Tok, and the beat goes on, the beat goes on.....on.....on.....and on.
(EDIT) Just to bring the topic back to MMOs, since this is "The Pub", it is a wonder that we are not seeing more studios utilizing the easy credit and low interest rates of the current world economy to finance some new AAA titles......
Only issue I have with mega corps avoiding tax is when they use loopholes to make sure they can claim tax back from government scheme's setup to help small Indie studio's so they are no longer avoiding tax but instead profiting from avoiding tax.
The breakdown in your argument occurred during the 1930s, in which criminal gangs committed crimes in one State, then crossed into another State, thus evading pursuit/capture/prosecution. During this time period there was a breakdown in law and order
Dillinger was a prime example, he committed bank robberies in Chicago and went into hiding in Wisconsin, hung out and spent his money in Florida, and the "sheriff" couldn't touch him because his crimes were in Illinois.
That's why Federal law enforcement, the FBI under J Edgar Hoover, was created, to cross State lines in pursuit of criminals. The Secret Service was created to protect the integrity of US currency by pursuing counterfeiters.
Your theory of abandoning Federal law enforcement and relying on local sheriffs would enable interstate crime once again. It would enable drug dealers to supply opioids across State lines without consequences. It would enable counterfeiting, identity theft, and a whole host of crime that was not envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
Times have changed since the American Revolution, civilization has advanced and there are developments that the framers of the Constitution could not even imagine. Space exploration is just one example, which has resulted in a lot of technological advances.
Under your argument it seems you are willing to forgo American leadership in technology?
Living in an Amish paradise with little taxes?
You're missing the point. First we "needed" US Marshals. But instead of expanding on that, we "needed" another agency, then another, so on and so forth. Now there are so many agencies, that we "needed" to create a new Department to oversee them all.
It's almost as if the Gov creates problems to stay relevant and "needed".
So according to you, if it wasn't for Federal Law Enforcement, we would see interstate crimes and drug crimes? Are we not?
How is NASA Elon doing these days?
Amish people are lucky in a lot of ways. They're alright by me. They choose that lifestyle. I have different goals though. None of which requires help from Gov.
Everything I have, I did it myself. That's why I do everything I can within the law to keep it. It's mine. Blizzard is doing the same thing.
If you think all these government programs are underfunded, there is an address to send a check to the US Treasury. You do have the option to do that if you feel so strongly about it.
Should the Federal government withdraw from all those other areas?
If it's not directed by the US Constitution, then yes.
For example, no where in the Constitution does it talk about the "police". The only constitutional law enforcement is the Sheriff, who are elected by the public. The "police" are funded by property taxes, not income taxes.
Constitution Smonstitution, when your federal government needs money it’s going to get it. Only question is who are they going to get it from.
and thus everyone is duty bound to try an avoid those taxes in anyway possible. Corporate entities and CEOs included. this is the crux of the issue
activision/blizzard hates capitalism and complains about it all the time
activision loves to make use of capitalism and makes ton of money from it
Hm....
ah no, that is common with socialists, they want to everyone to work together, but they are more equal then others so they deserve a bigger share, that is what goverments love to do, and they minions, less brights and miserables, they love to spill they want social jsutice and such, but most they just want the people they envy for they work to be in the same miserable lvl, so they work for that
Interesting. That must explain why there are no laws "forbidding" one person to provide housing for a lesser income person or family. No laws "forbidding" feeding the hungry.
There are some people who want everyone to lose their choice of doing so
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
One thing to keep in mind about American taxes. Tax exemptions are not giveaways. It is Congress influencing people and companies to behave in some way that Congress wants them to behave.
To illustrate, take honey bees. We don't have enough of them. That is a big problem because they are needed for pollination of crops.
Congress could spend a ton of taxpayer money making bee farms.
Or it could pass legislation making certain people and companies have to operate bee farms as a condition to something or other. Want to operate a wind turbine? First show you have a bee farm.
But more often - lots more often - Congress entices people to voluntarily do things at their own expense by offering a tax exemption, such as the exemption you get for bee farms!
For Activision to get that much tax exemption, it would have to dance like no one is watching, behaving in ways that Congress finds desirable (for whatever reasons).
That doesn't explain everything in the article, but it's part of it. You don't get tax exemptions by accident.
While much of this is true, the reverse is also true: It can be businesses influencing Congress by bribing them, though not called that
"You want your campaign contribution? How about a tax break?" "Want us to build a new facility in your area? How about a tax break? Better yet, pay for our facility with your own money, too."
The US Government has lost its checks and is waaaay out of balance.
Post edited by AlBQuirky on
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Take this from someone who pays more tax in one year than the everyday working man will pay in a lifetime.
The less that these companies pay in taxes using loopholes and offshore tax havens the more YOU will pay in taxes.
Then you would know that your personal income taxes are for servicing the interest of the money borrowed from the Federal Reserve, alone. I mean, I know my taxes last year are more than the average national household salary, not as much as your taxes, but even I knew that.
Your taxes will not go up because Blizzard was within the law.
You're basically arguing the equivalent of raising the price on goods to cover Shrink Loss. Taxes don't work that way. Gov budgets are based on projections. They are aware of loopholes, because they put them there.
I'm in Canada so I pay the Federal Reserve diddly squat.
Your government is currently running close to a Trillion Dollar deficit. The government needs revenue to operate. When they don't collect enough revenue they either have to:
A: borrow more money
B: raise taxes
If businesses and/or individuals are not paying their fair share than everyone else pays more.
Period
Don't forget the more unpopular "cut spending"
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Should the Federal government withdraw from all those other areas?
If it's not directed by the US Constitution, then yes.
For example, no where in the Constitution does it talk about the "police". The only constitutional law enforcement is the Sheriff, who are elected by the public. The "police" are funded by property taxes, not income taxes.
Constitution Smonstitution, when your federal government needs money it’s going to get it. Only question is who are they going to get it from.
Unfortunately, the US Government agrees with "Constitution Smonstitution..." The Supreme Court included, whose MAIN reason for existence is to ensure that the Constitution is not violated by Congress or The President.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Constitution Smonstitution, when your federal government needs money it’s going to get it. Only question is who are they going to get it from.
This country was founded on a tax revolt. Everyone is well aware that the GoV is going to get their taxes. And we will continue to use the law to avoid those taxes and in some cases go elsewhere.
If this bothers people so much, then change the laws. Hell, don't wait on politicians. boycott corporations that you disagree with. It's a free market, vote with your wallet.
You guys are borrowing a trillion dollars a year when your economy is “the greatest it’s ever been in the history of the United States” according to your POTUS. There comes time when you got to pay the piper.
China won't defeat us in war, they'll just call in all the loans they've made us and own us outright
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
The problem with large corporations avoiding taxes is that smaller businesses will end up paying for them and smaller businesses being run out of business due to unhealthy competitions. Short term that means you can get your cheap furniture from IKEA that hire for part time jobs and minimum wages while sending earnings to netherlands and lichtenstein.
Since people can't make a living you have the government stepping in with welfare which means more taxes and government spending more than they receive which means more debt.
It all works in a growing economy but when the economy shrinks financial institutions don't wish to risk more of their money because they want their money back with interest. The next recession will be brutal to all countries that have been running up their debt during the good times.
Even though I live in a country where debt has dropped from 70% down to 40% of GDP in the last 25 years we are also getting hit because you guys won't have the money to buy our stuff.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Constitution Smonstitution, when your federal government needs money it’s going to get it. Only question is who are they going to get it from.
This country was founded on a tax revolt. Everyone is well aware that the GoV is going to get their taxes. And we will continue to use the law to avoid those taxes and in some cases go elsewhere.
If this bothers people so much, then change the laws. Hell, don't wait on politicians. boycott corporations that you disagree with. It's a free market, vote with your wallet.
You guys are borrowing a trillion dollars a year when your economy is “the greatest it’s ever been in the history of the United States” according to your POTUS. There comes time when you got to pay the piper.
China won't defeat us in war, they'll just call in all the loans they've made us and own us outright
Chinese government only hold 5% of our debt. Most of they debt (like 70 some percent) is held by individuals and companies that buy bonds.
Comments
When the government does make sweeping changes it just seems like we're all just made to go along with it. If it's a bad idea that doesn't work people dig in their heels and double down on the change/law. Then much political BS ensues and both sides are unAmerican and hate babies, and sell crack to elementary school kids, you name it.
I just sit here and wonder why we're getting so far away from talking about the actual issues and trying to solve them...
I'll be interested to see how this situation for Activision pans out. I'm sure they can't get away with the high level of....the game, in Switzerland as they can here.
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
First off, some argue that the corporate executives/board are dutybound to generate the maximum profits for shareholders either through stock increases or dividend distributions. That means that environmental concerns, as cost centers, should be minimized, and rationalizes the discharge of hazardous chemicals, like PFAs, into our environment. It actually can be interpreted as arguing for government regulation, unless people desire to live in a hazardous waste environment.
It also supports the argument that corporations should not be providing defined benefit pension plans (most no longer do) or employee health insurance (which will become obsolete with the costs shifting back to individuals through their taxes under the universal Medicare proposals). Politicians do tend to bribe voters using taxpayer money.
Another point I find interesting is this concept that corporations should be reinvesting in productivity, which skirts the issue that corporations have been investing in production in lower wage countries (Asia), as opposed to US manufacturing, or using their tax benefits for stock buy backs and/or dividends to shareholders. This argument seems to understand the intent of tax cuts while ignoring the reality. Jobs/investment were created, just not in the United States.
Another interesting argument in this thread is that Federal corporate taxes are for national defense, and Federal personal taxes are for debt service. It seems to discount a whole litany of areas that the Federal government has become involved in, such as environmental protection, workers civil rights, law enforcement, immigration, commerce between nations, just to name a few. Should the Federal government withdraw from all those other areas?
For those of you who are really interested in this discussion, as to where your Federal tax dollars actually go, go to IRS.gov website and call up the latest 1040 instructions. On the back you will find a pie diagram of where your tax dollars are actually spent.
Yes, debt service is a significant area, as is defense, as are social programs. Keep in mind spending on social programs is heavily skewed not based on race, but based on age, with spending on young children (Medicaid, head start, and nutrition programs) and the aging baby boomers (Social Security, Medicare, nutrition programs, rent suppliments) being a substantial portion of those benefits. Arguing to cut corporate pension plans and health care plans only increases the burden on the taxpayers, unless, of course, your solution is to let people starve, or die from living in a hazardous waste environment of non-regulated corporate profiteering.
When you start discussing cutting "welfare",don't think of cuts in general, think of which distinct areas you feel are unnecessary.
Also, is it in the long term profitability interests of the corporation to provide an adequate wage to a healthy consumer group that will purchase their products, or is it acceptable to sell salmonella tainted food product, or exploding shrapnel airbags, as part of the corporate product mix?
Is it acceptable for a corporation to lie about the fuel efficiency of their cars (Volkswagen)?
Do you own a business?
If it's not directed by the US Constitution, then yes.
For example, no where in the Constitution does it talk about the "police". The only constitutional law enforcement is the Sheriff, who are elected by the public. The "police" are funded by property taxes, not income taxes.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
If this bothers people so much, then change the laws. Hell, don't wait on politicians. boycott corporations that you disagree with. It's a free market, vote with your wallet.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Good, then I'll have it my way in the end after all.
If you don't want to accept that corporations use exactly the same argument that you used for paying less tax - much in evidence last year; that the logical conclusion of your view is zero taxes (I could expand on economic theory); and that it is borrowing that is paying for e.g. you mentioned the military then c'est la vie.
And yes in regards to your question about own business. Worked in multiple countries / continents - including the US - as well. So I have seen different systems. And as a result could highlight benefits and issues. No interest in whether you have btw. And as a result I have done what I want for several years now - and no I haven't reached retirement age!. Hope you manage to as well.
I am not sure what "nerve" I struck but my conclusion remains: beware the soundbite; question the motive. "Lower taxes = more jobs" is one such sound bite. All you have to do is consider what would happen if there were no taxes.
Remember taxes pay everything. Roads and bridges for example which I am sure your business needs - should all roads and bridges have tolls? Might work in busy cities but in the country - could get tricky.
Fun fact: the last national road building scheme in the US was after the Korean War to provide jobs for returning - no longer needed - troops. Probably not paid for with "corporation taxes" either. Would you have had them all start there own businesses? It was a form of welfare after all which your response suggests you seem to associate with taxes. (Didn't cross my mind but that comes from not living in America - although as I said I have.)
A tax revolt by the rich, the very rich and some extremely rich who - arguably - sold the "common folk" a lemon. Some were self made but none were "ordinary".
I'm set and what's mine is hidden and protected. I will continue to deny even a penny towards this mess. My retirement is self-funded.
Blizzard broke no laws. Nor do I. Cope.
Good luck.
The breakdown in your argument occurred during the 1930s, in which criminal gangs committed crimes in one State, then crossed into another State, thus evading pursuit/capture/prosecution. During this time period there was a breakdown in law and order
Dillinger was a prime example, he committed bank robberies in Chicago and went into hiding in Wisconsin, hung out and spent his money in Florida, and the "sheriff" couldn't touch him because his crimes were in Illinois.
That's why Federal law enforcement, the FBI under J Edgar Hoover, was created, to cross State lines in pursuit of criminals. The Secret Service was created to protect the integrity of US currency by pursuing counterfeiters.
Your theory of abandoning Federal law enforcement and relying on local sheriffs would enable interstate crime once again. It would enable drug dealers to supply opioids across State lines without consequences. It would enable counterfeiting, identity theft, and a whole host of crime that was not envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
Times have changed since the American Revolution, civilization has advanced and there are developments that the framers of the Constitution could not even imagine. Space exploration is just one example, which has resulted in a lot of technological advances.
Under your argument it seems you are willing to forgo American leadership in technology?
Living in an Amish paradise with little taxes?
It is projected that the United States will run an annual budget deficit of approximately $1.2 trillion per year for the next 10 years based on both spending and the latest round of tax cuts.
This will almost double the size of the Federal debt.
The current economic theory is that this is acceptable based on low interest rates, and the use of negative interest in Europe, as the US is still a "safe" economy paying positive interest.
In approximately 10 years the "repayments" on the US debt will be in excess of the US defense budget. Considering the US has the largest defense budget in the world, that will be quite an achievement.
The entire house of cards comes crashing down when foreign countries no longer "roll over" the US debt they hold, and instead ask repayment. In order to avoid repayment the US government will have to offer higher interest rates, driving up domestic interest rates, and stifling business investment and consumer purchasing.
The US government is banking (literally) on this not happening, as it would be detrimental to the entire world economy. So for now, the average American is living huge on the savings of the world.
Tik-Tok, Tik-Tok, and the beat goes on, the beat goes on.....on.....on.....and on.
(EDIT) Just to bring the topic back to MMOs, since this is "The Pub", it is a wonder that we are not seeing more studios utilizing the easy credit and low interest rates of the current world economy to finance some new AAA titles......
It's almost as if the Gov creates problems to stay relevant and "needed".
So according to you, if it wasn't for Federal Law Enforcement, we would see interstate crimes and drug crimes? Are we not?
How is NASA Elon doing these days?
Amish people are lucky in a lot of ways. They're alright by me. They choose that lifestyle. I have different goals though. None of which requires help from Gov.
Everything I have, I did it myself. That's why I do everything I can within the law to keep it. It's mine. Blizzard is doing the same thing.
If you think all these government programs are underfunded, there is an address to send a check to the US Treasury. You do have the option to do that if you feel so strongly about it.
There are some people who want everyone to lose their choice of doing so
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
It can be businesses influencing Congress by bribing them, though not called that
"You want your campaign contribution? How about a tax break?"
"Want us to build a new facility in your area? How about a tax break? Better yet, pay for our facility with your own money, too."
The US Government has lost its checks and is waaaay out of balance.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Since people can't make a living you have the government stepping in with welfare which means more taxes and government spending more than they receive which means more debt.
It all works in a growing economy but when the economy shrinks financial institutions don't wish to risk more of their money because they want their money back with interest. The next recession will be brutal to all countries that have been running up their debt during the good times.
Even though I live in a country where debt has dropped from 70% down to 40% of GDP in the last 25 years we are also getting hit because you guys won't have the money to buy our stuff.