I'm going to wait and see if he makes more posts.

And toilets you can flush toilet paper down in! Won't fund that in most homes south of our birder!

Public education is also pretty decent compared to some, and there is also the fact most can still afford a car...

> The United States has 845 motor vehicles for every 1,000 people. Japan only has 593 for every 1,000 people and Germany only has 540 for every 1,000 people.

Not sure what that is supposed to show. Perhaps Europe and Japan have the environment for better mass transportation, so fewer residents of those nations need cars?

Oh, and it is nice to find someone who agrees with me re the loopholes:

"Rather than seek a mandate to eliminate tax loopholes and discipline health spending, which are the two central components of any intelligent budget fix, candidates on both sides resort to sound bites."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/027aa74a-8ec0-11e1-ac13-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1tEDgAl9r

> V.Kemp wrote:

> "So, this thread is about introducing progressive corporate tax system to solve the economic crisis and government debt issues...."

Which you've been informed repeatedly it wouldn't do. You're denying reality, as undisputed by literally 100% of experts and knowledgeable amateurs.

"AND keep corporations from forming monopolies, oligopolies...."

Which what you propose would not even help accomplish, let alone accomplish. This has been explained as well. You haven't responded, but continue to make this baseless claim.

"you know, something called C-O-M-P-E-T-I-T-I-O-N: something the 'free market' was supposed to ensure and yet, for some reason, hasn't."

Competition is important. The fact that what you propose harms competition is evidence that it's undesirable and counterproductive. Thanks for arguing against your own proposal.

I love how you call harming competition with a measure which absolutely would not balance our budget "obvious."

Try harder. I'm getting pretty bored."

The foundational principals of economics that form the basis of economic theory, I am suggesting are wrong; simply do not work.  I am not surprised it goes against expert opinion, for theirs is based on what is ultimately faulty principals: for instance, that there is even an "invisible hand" at work, or that there ever was.

Consider my claim if you will, and analyze history from this perspective, and then everything begins to make sense: previously unexplained or seemingly anomalous events in history are easily explainable.  From this perspective, you can begin to see what you weren't able to see from your other perspective. 

Simply maintain a suspension of disbelief and indulge another perspective temporarily.  It is necessary for you to view something from another perspective which contradicts your own.  I hope you have the capacity to do so.  I have a feeling you do.

For an accurate representation of the truth, one needs the imagination and tenacity to be able to allow for shifts in their paradigm view, and repeated ones at that.   If you can do that, there is a chance you can come to a clearer understanding of the truth. 

So consider for a moment that there never has been a "free-market" or "invisible hand" that has determined the prices of goods and services, but, rather, tht naturally there have always been major global economic players who have sometimes intentionally or unintentionally affected changes to the normal functioning of the markets to suit their objectives and sometimes inadvertently destroy themselves; that there has always been jostling between such players; and that ultimately it is a political game; and that this political game has fettered the potential of human civilization.

I present bailouts, QE1, QE2, and perhaps the next QE measures; governmental debt swaps, etc., etc., yadda, yadda; I present the rise of unions; I present inter-government domestic lending; I present fiat currencies themselves; I present taxes; I present central influences like the EU, China, Washington, other influential governments; I present major corporations / monopolies and oligopolies; of price fixing regulators like wheat boards, farmer's conglomerates, professional associations; I present governmental subsidies, tariffs; I refer you to wars; cold, currency, trade, and otherwise etc., etc., all of which have degraded into obscurity any influence of there ever being any sort of "invisible hand" guiding the price of goods; that it very existence is as fantastic an idealistic theory as any other, a hypothetical theoretical nicety that belongs in a sci-fi novel more than it does an economics 101 textbook.

True intellectuals are capable of changing paradigms as easily as changing sunglasses.

Try my sunglasses.  Take a different look at history through them and see for yourself if the perspective is more accurate than your own.  Change them back to yours if not.  It's that simple.  If you don't try them on, though, there is no way for you see whether your own perspective is not as (or more) accurate.

> Simon wrote:

> > Xeno wrote:

> > V.Kemp wrote:

> > "So, this thread is about introducing progressive corporate tax system to solve the economic crisis and government debt issues...."

> Which you've been informed repeatedly it wouldn't do. You're denying reality, as undisputed by literally 100% of experts and knowledgeable amateurs.

100%? that's big claim. Got source?

You mean "sources."  Specifically, every article from every economic journal ever. 

All of that blazing your own trails, getting rich by working hard, doing what you ought and trusting that America is the kind of place where hard work is rewarded with riches, all of that might have been true 200 years ago when there were gold rushes and "free" - err - stolen land to be had just by getting yourself there. But, now, 200 years later, it is time to realize that all the land is bought up, divided up, marked, plotted, paved, cordoned-off, and basically turned into the sort of place from which the early Americans emigrated from.  It is now a place like anywhere else:  a place where people can't afford land or have it stolen from them from time to time every few generations. Now it is time to understand that the era of getting wealth by working hard has been replaced by indentured servitude to the top 1%.

Simon, xeno regularly claims taxing the rich would balance the USA's budget. Just above he posted a bunch of vague bullshit about our system being wrong, an undefined historical perspective, and how everything makes sense to him.

A 100% corporate tax rate might about handle our deficits, but to bother talking about something that stupid would be... moronic.

How's it a big claim? Familiarize yourself with the USA's annual deficits and annual corporate profits of late. They're both around 1.5 trillion. The deficit this year is slated to pass 1.5 trillion. Corporate profits are looking to end up around 1.6 trillion for the year.

If you don't look up this extremely basic stuff on your own and read the garbage xeno makes up, you could believe some really ridiculous stuff. I hope you don't vote.

Having just squashed that ridiculous claim beyond the shadow of a discussion, I'm not going to respond to the vague, inane nonsense he posts after: theorizing that a 99-100% corporate tax rate is a grand idea. If anyone reading this needs me to argue why decimating the economy and productivity and jobs and incomes (with a 99%+ corporate tax rate) is a bad thing, you probably can't understand most of the sentences I post anyway.

It's only logical.

> If you don't look up this extremely basic stuff on your own and read the garbage xeno makes up, you could believe some really ridiculous stuff. I hope you don't vote.

Xeno said progressive tax rate, that's different from a 100% corporate tax.

Also, I was asking for sources that claim 100% of whatever supports progressive tax rate. I don't have to be an economist to know 100% is a bit fishy.

And I will vote, no matter what you or your mother says!

xeno,
Multiple choice scenario? What you claimed was absolutely ridiculous, and you posted it anyway.

I'm all for closing loop-holes and a fair tax system, not the corrupt one we have now where many wealthy people and industries buy low to non-existent tax rates. But what you proposed was ridiculous. And nobody cares what scenarios you want to draw up.

Simon,
"Xeno said progressive tax rate, that's different from a 100% corporate tax."

He said balance the budget by taxing corporations more. Doing so would require a near 100% corporate tax. I have explained how what he proposed is necessarily near a 100% tax rate. This isn't complicated. I have already explained it. If it's different from a 100% corporate tax, it's still in the high 90s, and the difference is insignificant to how ridiculous what he said was.

I merely suggested that your cluenessness suggests that you are not an informed voter. While asking for a source doesn't mean you believed him, to have to ask for a source on something so fundamental as this confirms you vote like whack a mole. Whatever, whoever, wherever, it's just instinct! Vote Vote Vote!