I doubt that....JohnG@lt wrote:
We already do have a great education system.
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/ … 011210.htm
Of the OECD countries, we look pretty mediocre.
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/ … 011210.htm
Of the OECD countries, we look pretty mediocre.
Again, throwing more money at the situation does nothing to improve it. What do you propose to fix it?Turquoise wrote:
I doubt that....JohnG@lt wrote:
We already do have a great education system.
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/ … 011210.htm
http://i47.tinypic.com/1z4a0ax.jpg
Of the OECD countries, we look pretty mediocre.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
What's with everyone going to extremes lately? Our personal taxes aren't that low. Most comparison aren't counting local state, county, and property taxes. What makes you think wealth isn't reinvested in America? Because (you think) it isn't taken from earners by force? It most certainly is. I smell some wealthy envy here.Turquoise wrote:
Actually, there are flaws in both of your perspectives.Kmarion wrote:
High corporate taxes encouraging business to stay.. I do believe I've heard it all now. Sudan is a ridiculous example. Of course there needs to be some sustainable infrastructure. That isn't to say that all countries that offer tax breaks for job creators are hell holes.PureFodder wrote:
Actually, taxes often encourage companies to stay. Spend it on infrastructure, security, R&D, education etc. and they end up better off than if they weren't taxed. If Sudan offer a 0% corporate tax rate big business isn't going to be flooding there any time soon.
To put it another way, really big businesses need a really big nanny state to suckle from and save their asses when they mess up.
Also, you can literally stop companies from leaving the country, you just have to bring back something like the Bretton-Woods capital controls that prevent people and companies from moving their capital out of the country.
Nanny state? More like communism.
On the one hand, you are correct that high corporate taxes encourage corporations to move elsewhere. This is why corporate taxes in the majority of the First World are low -- lower than ours in fact. We have lower personal income taxes, but they have lower corporate taxes. This means that wealth is easier to hoard among individuals in America, whereas wealth tends to get reinvested more in Europe.
The goal shouldn't be to tax companies more, but letting the market completely clear itself without restrictions isn't the answer either.
Protectionism in the form of stricter labor laws and stricter hiring requirements for businesses to sell their products in a domestic market without tariffs work quite well for most of Europe.
So protectionism can work quite well in some contexts, but it's not about taxation as much as it is about labor requirements.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Good question... it looks like we should consider using Finland as a role model.... They're pretty good with all 3 categories.JohnG@lt wrote:
Again, throwing more money at the situation does nothing to improve it. What do you propose to fix it?Turquoise wrote:
I doubt that....JohnG@lt wrote:
We already do have a great education system.
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/ … 011210.htm
http://i47.tinypic.com/1z4a0ax.jpg
Of the OECD countries, we look pretty mediocre.
Ok, let me get this straight. I explain to you how our system matches up to others in the form of taxation, and you accuse me of wealth envy.Kmarion wrote:
What's with everyone going to extremes lately? Our personal taxes aren't that low. Most comparison aren't counting local state, county, and property taxes. What makes you think wealth isn't reinvested in America? Because (you think) it isn't taken from earners by force? It most certainly is. I smell some wealthy envy here.
Who's going to extremes now?
"Hoarding Americans".. you're bitter. Just admit it and we can end this dance.Turquoise wrote:
Ok, let me get this straight. I explain to you how our system matches up to others in the form of taxation, and you accuse me of wealth envy.Kmarion wrote:
What's with everyone going to extremes lately? Our personal taxes aren't that low. Most comparison aren't counting local state, county, and property taxes. What makes you think wealth isn't reinvested in America? Because (you think) it isn't taken from earners by force? It most certainly is. I smell some wealthy envy here.
Who's going to extremes now?
lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You tried to pull this same bullshit a few months ago. I'm not sure what happened over the last year to you, but there was a time when you were a lot more levelheaded about things.Kmarion wrote:
"Hoarding Americans".. you're bitter. Just admit it and we can end this dance.Turquoise wrote:
Ok, let me get this straight. I explain to you how our system matches up to others in the form of taxation, and you accuse me of wealth envy.Kmarion wrote:
What's with everyone going to extremes lately? Our personal taxes aren't that low. Most comparison aren't counting local state, county, and property taxes. What makes you think wealth isn't reinvested in America? Because (you think) it isn't taken from earners by force? It most certainly is. I smell some wealthy envy here.
Who's going to extremes now?
lol
But I'll continue this "dance" just to finally get through to you. Maybe hoarding was too strong of a word, but the general idea is sound, unless of course, you don't believe that taxation has a bearing on investment, which of course, would invalidate your views that lower taxes are better.
So please, make up your mind. Which is it, pray tell?
O jeez .. what happened to me? You're too wound up man. Maybe you missed the lol. Relax and maybe I may reappear as level headed to you.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Btw, you do understand that whether it's corporate or individual, the money is still invested, right?Turquoise wrote:
You tried to pull this same bullshit a few months ago. I'm not sure what happened over the last year to you, but there was a time when you were a lot more levelheaded about things.Kmarion wrote:
"Hoarding Americans".. you're bitter. Just admit it and we can end this dance.Turquoise wrote:
Ok, let me get this straight. I explain to you how our system matches up to others in the form of taxation, and you accuse me of wealth envy.
Who's going to extremes now?
lol
But I'll continue this "dance" just to finally get through to you. Maybe hoarding was too strong of a word, but the general idea is sound, unless of course, you don't believe that taxation has a bearing on investment, which of course, would invalidate your views that lower taxes are better.
So please, make up your mind. Which is it, pray tell?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
He received a libertarian overloadKmarion wrote:
O jeez .. what happened to me? You're too wound up man. Maybe you missed the lol. Relax and maybe I may reappear as level headed to you.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
At least he didn't accuse you of penis envy.Turquoise wrote:
accuse me of wealth envy.
Mac, why are you so envious of my penis?Macbeth wrote:
At least he didn't accuse you of penis envy.Turquoise wrote:
accuse me of wealth envy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I've never seen it so I would not know how large it is or if I should be envious.JohnG@lt wrote:
Mac, why are you so envious of my penis?Macbeth wrote:
At least he didn't accuse you of penis envy.Turquoise wrote:
accuse me of wealth envy.
Nice try with the loaded question troll.
Reported.
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-02-05 15:37:11)
Macbeth wrote:
I've never seen it so I would not know how large it is or if I should be envious.JohnG@lt wrote:
Mac, why are you so envious of my penis?Macbeth wrote:
At least he didn't accuse you of penis envy.
Nice try with the loaded question troll.
Reported.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
There are plenty of stable countries with significantly lower corporate taxes than places like the US and UK, yet companies don't flock there. The reason is that they know what they're getting for their tax money, and what they'd miss out on if they moved.Kmarion wrote:
High corporate taxes encouraging business to stay.. I do believe I've heard it all now. Sudan is a ridiculous example. Of course there needs to be some sustainable infrastructure. That isn't to say that all countries that offer tax breaks for job creators are hell holes.PureFodder wrote:
Actually, taxes often encourage companies to stay. Spend it on infrastructure, security, R&D, education etc. and they end up better off than if they weren't taxed. If Sudan offer a 0% corporate tax rate big business isn't going to be flooding there any time soon.Kmarion wrote:
You can't MAKE a company operate in your borders. The only thing taxes do is ensure that they don't.
To put it another way, really big businesses need a really big nanny state to suckle from and save their asses when they mess up.
Also, you can literally stop companies from leaving the country, you just have to bring back something like the Bretton-Woods capital controls that prevent people and companies from moving their capital out of the country.
Nanny state? More like communism.
I'm not sure why you bring up comminism, I was describing the current nanny state system we have in most rich western countries. Unless you think the US and UK are communist?
Thats exactly what the US does, much more so than most other countries.Turquoise wrote:
The fact that America doesn't do this sort of thing very often may aid our economy in terms of attracting investment and attracting entrepreneurs, but it also makes us much more vulnerable to outsourcing than any other First World country.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Yes, but the difference is that lower corporate taxes encourage more reinvestment within your own company rather than as much emphasis on investments that are more personal in orientation.JohnG@lt wrote:
Btw, you do understand that whether it's corporate or individual, the money is still invested, right?Turquoise wrote:
You tried to pull this same bullshit a few months ago. I'm not sure what happened over the last year to you, but there was a time when you were a lot more levelheaded about things.Kmarion wrote:
"Hoarding Americans".. you're bitter. Just admit it and we can end this dance.
lol
But I'll continue this "dance" just to finally get through to you. Maybe hoarding was too strong of a word, but the general idea is sound, unless of course, you don't believe that taxation has a bearing on investment, which of course, would invalidate your views that lower taxes are better.
So please, make up your mind. Which is it, pray tell?
No, we're actually far less protectionist than Europe or Australia for that matter.Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats exactly what the US does, much more so than most other countries.Turquoise wrote:
The fact that America doesn't do this sort of thing very often may aid our economy in terms of attracting investment and attracting entrepreneurs, but it also makes us much more vulnerable to outsourcing than any other First World country.
Edit: for accuracy.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-07 11:32:52)
Investment is investment. Regardless of the taxes a company will reinvest in itself as long as it's profitable. In many markets, especially in mature industries, the market is saturated and the law of diminishing returns has long since arrived. In these mature industries the only real outlet for investment is via mergers and acquisitions and that's highly risky, especially when the company is in a completely different field. Much better off paying a higher dividend and investing on a personal level at that point.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but the difference is that lower corporate taxes encourage more reinvestment within your own company rather than as much emphasis on investments that are more personal in orientation.JohnG@lt wrote:
Btw, you do understand that whether it's corporate or individual, the money is still invested, right?Turquoise wrote:
You tried to pull this same bullshit a few months ago. I'm not sure what happened over the last year to you, but there was a time when you were a lot more levelheaded about things.
But I'll continue this "dance" just to finally get through to you. Maybe hoarding was too strong of a word, but the general idea is sound, unless of course, you don't believe that taxation has a bearing on investment, which of course, would invalidate your views that lower taxes are better.
So please, make up your mind. Which is it, pray tell?
Until the saturation point? Yeah, investment in the business is paramount and most companies do just this. All but the most poorly run companies try to maximize market share at all times.
Edit - Besides, investment by it's very nature has risk inherent in it. Would you prefer individuals soaking up most of the risk or the companies themselves?
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-06 21:20:03)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If that's the case, then all that matters is that your corporate taxes remain less than comparable countries in terms of standard of living and level of skilled labor.JohnG@lt wrote:
Investment is investment. Regardless of the taxes a company will reinvest in itself as long as it's profitable. In many markets, especially in mature industries, the market is saturated and the law of diminishing returns has long since arrived. In these mature industries the only real outlet for investment is via mergers and acquisitions and that's highly risky, especially when the company is in a completely different field. Much better off paying a higher dividend and investing on a personal level at that point.
Until the saturation point? Yeah, investment in the business is paramount and most companies do just this. All but the most poorly run companies try to maximize market share at all times.
I suppose the same could be said for personal taxes.
Correct me where I'm wrong but don't many International Corporations base their HQ in Ireland and Switzerland?PureFodder wrote:
There are plenty of stable countries with significantly lower corporate taxes than places like the US and UK, yet companies don't flock there. The reason is that they know what they're getting for their tax money, and what they'd miss out on if they moved.
Switzerland has an active campaign to woo corporations.
Yes.Turquoise wrote:
If that's the case, then all that matters is that your corporate taxes remain less than comparable countries in terms of standard of living and level of skilled labor.JohnG@lt wrote:
Investment is investment. Regardless of the taxes a company will reinvest in itself as long as it's profitable. In many markets, especially in mature industries, the market is saturated and the law of diminishing returns has long since arrived. In these mature industries the only real outlet for investment is via mergers and acquisitions and that's highly risky, especially when the company is in a completely different field. Much better off paying a higher dividend and investing on a personal level at that point.
Until the saturation point? Yeah, investment in the business is paramount and most companies do just this. All but the most poorly run companies try to maximize market share at all times.
I suppose the same could be said for personal taxes.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Granted, the data's from 2001...Turquoise wrote:
I doubt that....JohnG@lt wrote:
We already do have a great education system.
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/ … 011210.htm
http://i47.tinypic.com/1z4a0ax.jpg
Of the OECD countries, we look pretty mediocre.
But as of the 07-08 academic year, we had 623,805 international students enrolled in our colleges. That set a record, so I'm guessing we're still in the lead.
Seems weird that we've got so many international students if our educational system sucks so bad in comparison.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That made me laugh.Turquoise wrote:
No, we're actually far less protectionist than Australia.
Your 'protection free' in the areas it suits you, and just like Australia protects its auto industry through subsidies, the US protects it's agriculture.
I would point out that the US has about four times the population of the UK/Germany etc...FEOS wrote:
Granted, the data's from 2001...Turquoise wrote:
I doubt that....JohnG@lt wrote:
We already do have a great education system.
http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/ … 011210.htm
http://i47.tinypic.com/1z4a0ax.jpg
Of the OECD countries, we look pretty mediocre.
http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg698_850_450.jpg
But as of the 07-08 academic year, we had 623,805 international students enrolled in our colleges. That set a record, so I'm guessing we're still in the lead.
Seems weird that we've got so many international students if our educational system sucks so bad in comparison.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman